[beat]

Measurement is easy. Just look around you. The majority of people working in tech are men. An even larger majority of its leadership is men.

Why is this?

There are only two possible causes that I can see - genetic, or cultural. The genetic argument is basically that men are, by nature, better at being programmers and leaders than women - that women are inferior. The cultural argument is that there is a social advantage to being male (and a social disadvantage to being female) - that, all else being equal, things tend to default in favor of men.

Personally, I reject the genetic explanation. Most people do. If you also reject it, then you're stuck with the cultural explanation, or finding something I haven't come up with.

[adventured]

So your argument is that men and women are exactly identical on all tasks for genetic purposes? Or are you arguing that such just happens to be the case as it pertains to programming?

From my observation, women are frequently proclaimed to be superior to men in numerous ways. My entire life I've heard that women mature faster than men. Women are proclaimed to be more nurturing. Women have higher 'emotional intelligence.' You'll see it almost universally proclaimed that if women ran the world, conflicts (eg war) would be far less common, this is a constant refrain in the US across all media.

There are very well understood differences between men and women when it comes to things like vision, physical strength, hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness, physical aggression, and so on. We also have many different health risks due to our genetic differences. All of these things add up to women universally living longer from one culture to the next, and women commiting drastically fewer acts of violence (and thus making up a far smaller percentage of the prison population).

If any of that is actually true, why can't men be superior at various tasks due to genetic differences? Why not programming? What I'm asking is: what's the scientific argument to say that men are not superior at programming, how can that be proven either direction? Just saying such is the case (either direction), is not enough.

[didgeoridoo]

Where women outperform men, that’s science.

Where men outperform women, that’s sexism.

[weberc2]

Genetics could explain the disparity without resorting to a "women are inferior" conclusion. For example, it's possible that the ability distribution is more varied for men than for women such that if you sample from either extreme, you'll find more men, and if you sample from the middle, you'll find more women. Employers obviously prefer to sample programmers and leaders from the high-ability extreme, and therefore end up with more males. However, the mean and median could be the same for men and women.

There are other hypotheses as well that have nothing to do with social advantages--maybe biology or culture has women preferring to elect into other career fields? We also know that (for whatever reason) women prefer flexible careers that let them spend time with kids, and that women are more likely than men to take time off to start a family and that they take more time off than men to start the family. Perhaps men and women are equal in their desire to spend time with family, but society expects men to sacrifice time with family to provide for the family? In this case, the disparity is the result of a social disadvantage to being male.

These are just a few hypotheses that I could come up with in a few moments. Some of these I think are probable and others improbable, but the point is that we have more hypotheses besides misogyny and patriarchy. We shouldn't feel the need to buy into the patriarchy explanation simply to avoid the misogyny explanation (especially because the people who favor the patriarchy explanation also tend to propose some scary reforms, like restricting due process rights for one gender).

[beat]

This isn't Lake Wobegon. Not all the children are above average.

You can cut this cake a different way, too... race. White people are overrepresented (or non-whites are underrepresented) in IT, and in high-status jobs. And the male/female representation ratios are different, as well.

Consider historic example, as well. Right now, women are significantly underrepresented as CEOs and senators. But a century ago, there were no women CEOs or senators. Are women less genetically inclined to their "proper" path as homemakers now than they were a century ago?

At a certain point, I start cutting the cake with Occam's Razor.

[weberc2]

> Not all the children are above average.

They don't have to be. Only the majority, and I have a hard time believing that the majority of software engineers and leaders are of average capability or worse. I'm open to data to the contrary, however.

> You can cut this cake a different way, too... race. White people are overrepresented (or non-whites are underrepresented) in IT, and in high-status jobs.

Not sure what your point is here. Are you implying that because there are racial disparities as well, then both gender and racial disparities must have a common cause? That's obviously fallacious, but I don't know what else to make of this.

> Right now, women are significantly underrepresented as CEOs and senators. But a century ago, there were no women CEOs or senators. Are women less genetically inclined to their "proper" path as homemakers now than they were a century ago?

No. I made no claims about the cause of disparities a century ago.

> At a certain point, I start cutting the cake with Occam's Razor.

Good. Then let's hold off on the elaborate conspiracy theories until we can invalidate the simpler explanations, eh?

[beat]

Pointing out the existence of sexism and racism does not require "elaborate conspiracy theories".

As for my point, it's that systematic bias against people by race looks remarkably similar to systematic bias against people by gender. That suggests a common cause, especially when one group (white men) is the beneficiary of both. Hence Occam's Razor. A single dominant group shutting out everyone who doesn't match the dominant traits is a simpler explanation than coming up with two entirely separate causes for the same observation.

As for historical disparaties... I know you didn't make claims about disparities a century ago. The historic example was an argument against the case you made that somehow, women are genetically predisposed to avoid certain career paths.

[weberc2]

> Pointing out the existence of sexism and racism does not require "elaborate conspiracy theories". As for my point, it's that systematic bias against people by race looks remarkably similar to systematic bias against people by gender. That suggests a common cause, especially when one group (white men) is the beneficiary of both. Hence Occam's Razor. A single dominant group shutting out everyone who doesn't match the dominant traits is a simpler explanation than coming up with two entirely separate causes for the same observation.

On its face, your explanation is simpler, but there is a whole bunch of evidence that forces the theory of sexism/racism to become more complex. Here are a few that pop into my head (in no particular order):

* Asians are kicking too much ass; a more complex theory is needed to explain why whites aren't holding Asians back when they're apparently happy to hold back blacks (and Hispanics, to a lesser degree).

* Women approached parity in medicine and law in the '80s and '90s when overt misogyny was the norm--long before million dollar diversity budgets; do we really believe that tech is more misogynistic than medicine and law in the '80s?

* Overt discrimination is on the decline, so we resort to increasingly improbable theories of microagressions and unconscious bias, however...

* Even progressive universities, industries, and companies aren't moving the needle on tech diversity despite million dollar diversity budgets and bias response teams

* Even the critical theorists can't pin it on sexism/patriarchy without calling into question math, reason, and objectivity

Also, what similarities are there between racial and gender disparities that constitute damning evidence in a common cause? What do these disparities have in common that (for example) the workplace fatality gap or the longevity gap lack? This seems much too loose to support your claim that sexism/racism is a simpler explanation than the dual explanations of "different gender preferences" and "artifacts of history including historical racism".

Again, my point isn't that the cause can't be a conspiracy theory; only that it has to be a very, very elaborate one. And it seems more probable to me that some combination of cultural and biological reasons drive women to make different career choices. I don't imagine you'll agree, but hopefully you can at least appreciate why I'm skeptical about the sexism/patriarchy explanation.

[thg]

"The real reason why there are so fewer women in tech isn’t because of discrimination, harassment or unequal pay (although like I said these factors do exist and need to be fixed). The real reason is that most women clearly aren’t as interested in technology-related work as men are. It’s a choice. And for whatever reasons, more women seem to choose other fields."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2015/03/16/th...

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I'm sorry but that is a very intellectually dishonest passage. There is real concern that women may be turned away fom technology careers because of cultural bias that says those jobs are not for women. And the answer to that is that "maybe they're just not interested"?

Well- how do you explain the fact that "they're just not interested"? Why is cultural bias not an explanation of this lack of interest? And if it isn't, then what is?

You can't just stop the ball rolling wherever you like. At some point we have to figure out why girls are not into technology as much as boys are and it's very lazy to just dismiss it as "not a girl thing".

[thg]

There are real genetic differences in how the brains of men and women work. Men and women do not have the same interests, the same goals, nor the same desires. To claim otherwise is ignoring established scientific facts. Studies on this subject always lead to the same conclusion: That women are just less interested in tech jobs, just as men are less interested in social jobs.[0]

I presented the OP with a objective, data-based argument and limited myself to quoting only the article (of which there are many, many, many more I could have chosen from) exactly to avoid a subjective response like yours. I am not interested in ideological discussions about purely subjective arguments (Read: flamewars). You can ignore the data all you like, but please don't try to drag me into an argument with that.

[0]: https://flowingdata.com/2017/09/11/most-female-and-male-occu...

[YeGoblynQueenne]

The data you present does not explain anything. It is just an observation. Yet you present it as an explanation to another observation.

By analogy, it's like answering the question "why do cows eat grass?" with "because cows are herbivores", which is really just restating the question. An actual explanation would require understanding how cows have evolved to become herbivores in the first place, and not meat-eaters, like, say, wolves. Without such an explanation, there is no way to understand why cows are herbivores and wolves are not.

By analogy, without any understanding of why women are not interested in technology jobs, there is no way to understand the gender disparity in technology.

>> You can ignore the data all you like, but please don't try to drag me into an argument with that.

This is very unpleasant. First you assume I'm "ignoring the data" when I actually discussed what the data means. Then you assign a motive to me, that I'm "trying to drag you into an argument". Please don't do that.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I notice there's a misunderstanding, so let me clarify this. I called the passage you quoted "intellectually dishonest", not you. And the "you" in the phrase "you can't just stop the ball rolling" did not mean you personally, but everyone in general.

The same goes for the sentence "how do you explain the fact". For example, if I asked the question "how do you invert a binary tree", I wouldn't be asking how a specific interlocutor would do it personally, rather, I'd want to know how it is generally done.

A more accurate way of stating the question would be "how does one invert..." etc. But that is a bit of an archaic turn of phrase that tends to make one look a bit of a twit, so one tends to avoid it. I do.

[thg]

> The data you present does not explain anything.

Not when you look at it subjectively and only focus on the specific subset that supports your argument. I believe that's called 'selection bias'.

> without any understanding of why women are not interested in technology jobs, there is no way to understand the gender disparity in technology.

The scientific understanding is there. It's just not the answer you want it to be and hence you ignore it.

> This is very unpleasant. First you assume I'm "ignoring the data" when I actually discussed what the data means. Then you assign a motive to me, that I'm "trying to drag you into an argument". Please don't do that.

>> that is a very intellectually dishonest passage.

>> You can't just stop the ball rolling wherever you like.

Of course it's okay if you do it. To a quoted article, no less, not even my own words. But when I point out what you did then I'm the bad person. This is why I had no desire to get dragged into this kind of discussion.

For the sake of the argument, I presume you are a woman (personally I don't care if you are male, female, a tree, or whatever else). You think that, just because you are interested in tech, every other woman must also be. That is false. The fact alone that you are a woman in tech means you are part of a minority. It doesn't matter how vocal that minority is, it still is just a minority that does not represent the interests of the majority. Just because you chose a career in tech, while most other females did not, does not inherently mean that there is a problem and that that problem needs fixing. Vegans aren't "sick" just because they chose to eat no meat. Salafists aren't bad people just because of their choice of religion. Cat owners don't hate birds just because they have cats. Most women just have no interest in a technical career. Be that (software) engineers, mechanics or truck drivers. It is a choice they made based on their interests (you can prove that yourself by just asking random women on the street) and it is on you to accept that you are part of a minority and that isn't going to change.

I myself am part of a minority too, being autistic. Unlike you, I have to deal with it no matter what I do and where I go. Would it be nice not to have to live in a world tailored to neuro-typicals and not having to face (extreme) prejudice everywhere I go? Hell yeah. But that is wishful thinking and not reality. Just like gender equality in tech is wishful thinking, but not more. The sooner you accept reality instead of chasing a dream based on wishful thinking, the sooner you can start making a difference for the women that made the same choice you did.

Now have a nice day. I have nothing further to add and won't answer you again.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> You think that, just because you are interested in tech, every other woman must also be.

You keep assigning motives and thoughts to me, even though I made it clear that I find it unpleasant and asked you to stop it. I clarified that my original comment was not addressing criticism to you personally and that the use of word "you" did not mean you personally, either. I don't see what I did to justify your confrontational tone, other than disagree with your interpretation of some data.

As to the rest of your comment:

>> Most women just have no interest in a technical career. Be that (software) engineers, mechanics or truck drivers. It is a choice they made based on their interests (you can prove that yourself by just asking random women on the street) and it is on you to accept that you are part of a minority and that isn't going to change.

I'm not as uncommon as you think. I'm originally from Greece, where it is quite common for women to follow careers in technology and the sciences. It is not common in the UK where I live, but that suggests some sort of cultural bias. Additionally, I've worked with several female developers from India over the years and they also don't think it's uncommon, or that it's a job that's not suited for women- quite the contrary; they see it as "office work" which is definitely better for women than manual work.

But let's stick to women in the US and the UK, which I'm guessing you're more familiar with. The point remains that observing that "women are not interested in technology" does not explain why they are not interested in technology. Which means it doesn't explain why women are not pursuing careers in technology, either.

This has nothing to do with subjective or objective analysis. Data alone does not explain anything. It does not have exegetic power, one would say. So the observation that "women are not interested in technology" does not explain anything not because I don't want it to, but because it can't.

Theories do have exegetic power. But observations alone do not constitute a theory.

[brucephillips]

The study you linked says nothing about genetics.

[brucephillips]

There's a third, which is that women are, on average, less interested in being programmers.

[fvdessen]

Could it be that the cultural problem is the low social status of IT Work ?

[etjossem]

Lawyers have about the same gender breakdown as computer systems analysts, so I don't think this is the case. CEOs are even more predominantly male, at a fairly shocking 73% by 2016 numbers (we'll have '17 soon).

The problem with tech in particular is that we're often viewed as an inclusive and progressive industry. But when you run the numbers, we're no better than the law firms.

[beat]

That seems unlikely, considering that you see similar issues in high-status work, such as business executives or politicians.

[brucephillips]

How does IT work have low social status?