[loumf]

It's fun to take apart the logic, rhetoric, and nitpick on every word of this post. We could argue the premise all day long -- and 5 years from now there will be fewer women, minorities, etc, than there are now.

Instead I prefer to take constructive action to change this, without worrying if (1) it is natural or unnatural or (2) it would be better. I accept that the current state is unnatural and a more balanced population would be better.

If you agree, please post replies here with what you think can/should be done (or what you are already doing). If you disagree, please reply to one of the other threads.

[mc32]

I agree with you. Not sure about the "unnatural" qualifier though. That presumes an active agent present.

What can be done. I think that's difficult. It has to be something pervasive, insidious in the culture. Via TV, internet, radio, entertainment, education, propagated by not only peers but all via all media. Everywhere. There needs to cease the archetyping of human roles. Something on that scale could happen, but it would take a generation or two. Kind of like the deprogramming of National socialism in Germany, or deprogramming of Religion in (soviet) Russia. 100% success isn't necessary, just enough to overcome the momentum or steady state.

Very vast, very pervasive with both incentives and punishment. Piecemeal I don't think would result in fast enough turn-around in attitude.

To me the problem is cultural. It's not men or women, it's the whole body of the culture which results in the skewed numbers.

[loumf]

What I am doing is trying to bring up the conversation with as many people as I can -- saying I think it's worth solving and asking for ideas. We need more software developers, and this is an untapped pool. If we increase it a little, we'll have a lot more programmers.

I have also noticed behaviors that work to systematically lower participation by women, and I have worked to reverse them. For example -- noting that invitations to speak at a tech conference included no women, even though there were many qualified choices (I gave the conference organizers a list). I think the issue was that we invite who we know -- we need to break out of that -- our networks are probably overwhelmingly male.

I suggest more discussion (not here -- everywhere) -- but focused on ideas to increase the number of women in programming -- not meta-discussions. Try to notice when the ratio is bad and comment on it -- insist on something being done. And --- if you notice behaviors that work against changing the ratio -- do something about it.

And, I don't think it's very constructive to keep meta-arguing about it. If you want to, go ahead, but it's starting to sound a little silly. Almost all of these arguments were used to stop women from becoming lawyers 100 years ago. When, instead, we started working to include women -- their numbers grew to half the profession. 100 years from now, many of these arguments will seem outdated, especially the ones arguing natural aptitude.

[Rahs]

While I disagree with your post, I think you make a peculiar error to which I am responding (and it is this error that is the source of my disagreement), and my post will only make sense in the context of this thread. Furthermore, I too am advocating for constructive change, just of a different sort. By adherence to what I see as the spirit of your request (discussing constructive action) I hope I may justify a lack of adherence to to the letter of your request.

What kind of constructive action am I advocating? Nothing less than to continue the argument, in the most charitable and reasonable spirit we can attain. We are arguing about the most important of things: our moral aim. That is, "what is it we ought to do?" Should we promote diversity in computing? Tied up with this question of aims is the question of facts, namely: "Does promoting the politically correct notion of diversity mean the same as promoting the kind of diversity which will make computing as a profession more capable at achieving its ends?" Certainly, if there is a kind of diversity that brings the profession of computing closer to its ends (whatever those may be, and that too is in question) then I imagine that promoting such diversity is considered wise by all here.

What is primarily in debate is whether or not politically correct diversity (diversity of gender and race, primarily) is the same as effective diversity. If, like you seem to think, both kinds of diversity are the same, then doing what you suggest is in fact constructive. However, if politically correct diversity is orthogonal or (Ada Lovelace forbid) contrary to effective diversity, then your actions will be at best ineffective and at worst destructive. The whole point of this argument is that we want our profession to do what is constructive, and recognize that we need to sort out as a profession what in fact is constructive.

Hacker News is a great place to have this kind of discussion since a) you have willing and able participants, and b) the clear tree structure of posts helps considerably since well-formed arguments all tend to take such a structure. There are other sites for discussing what "can/should be done (or what you are already doing)" for a particular agenda.

The attitude you give off in your post is one of "deeds, not words", which in my experience is equivalent to an attitude of "words, not thoughts". You are dealing with a crowd which is perhaps best known acting upon those beliefs of which they have been rationally convinced. Do you not agree that it is better for people to hold and act upon beliefs of which they have been convinced by means of reason? If so, why then do you speak so glibly of "tak[ing] apart the logic, rhetoric, and nitpick[ing] every word" which is nothing less then the process of analytic reasoning? If not, why are you here?

P.S. Note that I have not actually taken a stance on the issue in question in this post.