| So I read the original post (well, I skimmed it) and then your response. My first impulse was to decide you're an asshole blah blah, and I start discussing the topic with my wife who is doing grant-funded research on this topic (she's a social psychologist). So the big obstacles to women in a lot of professions are social norms (like sexist behavior, people refusing to hire you because you're not the kind of person they expect, or career structures that force women to choose between work and having children) and stereotype threat (fear of one's conduct reflecting badly on the group to which one belongs). To take the real estate agent example: the business may have a lot of sexist jerks (I imagine they're better at pretending not to be though, since they are selling stuff) but there are plenty of good norms (e.g. real estate agents generally have very flexible schedules). And there's no problem with stereotype threat -- women aren't widely considered to be bad at talking to people and selling houses. TV shows have a huge impact on stereotype threat (and probably norms as well). E.g. there are plenty of shows on TV that show women being successful doctors and lawyers without failing socially. (These are also, to some extent, professions involving helping people and communicating -- which women are stereotypically good at.) The same cannot be said for software development (which isn't portrayed much on TV, and when it is stretches credulity). I think that there's one thing I can say for certain: the reason sexist jerks are prominent in the software business is that they're allowed to be. There's no question that if more women were in the industry there would be less tolerance of sexist jerks, but getting women into the industry is probably as much a problem of addressing stereotype threat, tokenism, etc. as it is combating norms. Meanwhile, sexist jerks aren't helping. So call them on it. |