[wfunction]

The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech.

That's the real balance that we need to reach for -- and unlike what many people seem to think, this ratio is not necessarily 50%.

[codemac]

Establishing what someone wants is based out of a massive social and cultural impression someone perceives their identity through.

Thus, advertising.

We're trying to fix the advertising.

[jackowayed]

Why do you think this ratio is currently around 25%? Do you think it's because women are inherently much less interested in tech? Or do you think it's because our society imposes stereotypes and values on women, and gives very "macho" impressions (often based in reality) about what work in tech is like, which leads women who would otherwise want to study and work in tech not want to?

Fixing the culture of tech and the role of gender in our society more broadly is a major part of what's needed to deal with these issues. And part of that is helping some women--and mean--realize that they want to be in tech despite false impressions they have about their abilities and what working in tech means.

[adventured]

It's like asking why do women dominate nursing and teaching jobs? Is it sexism? Is it because men are incapable of doing the jobs?

How come there's no big outcry to equalize nursing so that men are 50% of the field? How about teaching, women also dominate that field.

Women outnumber men 2 to 1 in high school teaching. They account for 85% of all primary school teachers.

No outcries to equalize those numbers?

Must be sexism in high school teacher hiring.

Must be sexism in nursing hiring.

Must be sexism in primary school hiring.

Oh wait, there could be other explanations.

[artsrc]

As an industry it is a really important issue that men are not going into teaching.

Disqualifying half the population will reduce the quality of the selection you can make.

The quality of teachers is of critical importance to the effectiveness of education. The effectiveness of education is critical to equality, social cohesion and economic growth.

Actual evidence of sexism in hiring is more persuasive of the presence of sexism, than the ratio of people employed. A standard way to study this is to send out a bunch or resumes in which only the gender changes.

I think there are sexist social pressures on men which reduce their desire to become nurses.

[vacri]

Teaching and nursing are both fields where you need a degree to start participating. And if you look at the discussions in those fields, there's certainly strong concern about lack of males in teaching and mild concern about lack of males in nursing.

Tech doesn't require a degree - it's a field anyone with a free evening can pick up. It also bears a significantly broader scope than nursing or teaching.

[wfunction]

> Tech doesn't require a degree - it's a field anyone with a free evening can pick up.

And yet here we are, wondering why so many programmers don't seem to have the skills they need in the profession.

[adamnemecek]

> Teaching and nursing are both fields where you need a degree to start participating.

How is that relevant?

[vacri]

The pool of participants is much narrower in scope - people that have specifically spent years training to be that profession. Not people who started out doing it as a hobby or a quiet thing on the side.

[toasterlovin]

I think the OP was asking how requiring a degree is relevant to the number of men in those professions. When compared to women, men generally have equal or better access to higher education, so it would seem that the dearth of men in nursing and teaching wouldn't be related to those professions requiring a degree.

[wfunction]

> Why do you think this ratio is currently around 25%?

I don't know, I can only guess. You can see my guess below.

> Do you think it's because women are inherently much less interested in tech? Or do you think it's because our society imposes stereotypes and values on women, and gives very "macho" impressions?

It's probably a combination of both, I'm not ruling out either case (or even getting close to ruling out either case).

I feel like too many people are ruling out the former entirely (or just not realizing it's a possibility altogether) which doesn't make sense. You have to keep both in mind, and realize that your goal isn't an absolute 50%, it's the natural ratio, which may of course change over time.

[jordo37]

That also suggests there is a natural ratio, something I for one don't believe. I do agree with part of what you are saying though - the work done in colleges and in the hiring space needs to reflect some sort of existing ratio of people who are qualified and interested at that point. However, I believe there is also significant work to be done to investigate any such natural ratio and fight against it if it comes from any sort of societal assumptions, as I believe it does.

[wfunction]

There's must be a natural ratio, the population size is finite!

Divide the number of women who want to be in tech by the number of people who want to be in tech and you have the ratio.

But yes, we obviously have to do some work to figure out the numbers.

[toasterlovin]

"That also suggests there is a natural ratio, something I for one don't believe."

Just curious, why not? There are many obvious physical differences between men and women, why not mental as well?

[jerrya]

It's quite likely and the conclusion of this Norwegian documentary (well worth watching if only to see Sacha Baron Cohen smarter brother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask)

You can think of it in terms of Maslow's Pyramid.

Societies at the top of the pyramid are filled with individuals that no longer need to take the highest paying jobs, but can now take jobs that uniquely fulfill their interests and desires. And it could very well be that taken as two bell curves, the interests of women are different from the interests of men, two overlapping bell curves, but with different means, and different variances. Concluding that try as hard as you might, it just may be that women do not want to work in tech and preferentially prefer different sorts of occupation.

There's a story about boxing in America, and that is as various poor immigrant groups came to America, they each in their time rose to the tops of boxing. The Irish, the Jews, the Italians, & the African Americans. These groups saw boxing as a way to rise above their income levels. And as the various groups either assimilated or as a group rose above their resources, their interest in boxing waned.

http://voices.yahoo.com/ethnic-boxers-america-part-i-105696....

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, boxing has been a sport dominated by men of meager means and questionable sanity. Who in their right mind would choose to pursue an occupation in which you expose yourself to habitual beatings? Such a calling speaks to men who possess an overabundance of rage, and a dearth of opportunities. Historically, ghettoes are the environment most likely to produce such men. These are neighborhoods where too many people compete for too few resources, and the inhabitants face daily frustrations more profound than those known by more prosperous men.

Something similar could be happening in tech as women in general might prefer occupations that are more female friendly, more family friendly, more human centric, more social, etc., like medicine, or law.

I am explaining this theory, I am not necessarily supporting it. I have no idea why their is a dearth of women in programming. I know in the places I have worked, as a whole there are many women who are often lead developers and managers.

[qohen]

Sacha Baron Cohen smarter brother

If you're referring to Simon, the psychological researcher, that would be his cousin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen#Personal_life...

[jerrya]

Well, I was actually referring to Sigurson Cohen, but I take your correction because I had thought that Simon was Sacha's brother.

[davorak]

50% is an easy first order approximation. Better approximations are great, but I see not obvious winner for a better approximation whose error bounds do not include 50% and has or is likely to gain significant mindshare.

[wfunction]

"Easy first order approximations" are good starting points, yes.

We've started at that point many years ago; we should be trying to refine our easy first-order approximations instead of living with them forever.

[lutusp]

> The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually _are_ in tech to that of the people who _want_ to be in tech.

That's a bad idea -- it would stigmatize those who entered the field by such a program that they were given their positions, rather then earning them. The same problem exists in race relations, where equality by law conceals equality by merit.

Women are fully qualified to take their place in science and tech -- that's well-understood -- but to force equal numbers would obscure the fact that women can easily earn their place in science and tech.

[toasterlovin]

I don't think the OP meant to achieve this goal with law.

[lutusp]

> I don't think the OP meant to achieve this goal with law.

Read the quote: "The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually _are_ in tech to that of the people who _want_ to be in tech."

How would that be achieved without a law? If a law weren't required, it would already have happened, since, logically and without obstacles, those who want to be in tech would be in tech.

The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.

[toasterlovin]

> How would that be achieved without a law?

By changing people's attitudes.

> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.

While legally provable gender discrimination is an issue, I think the bigger issue is changing people's attitudes. I agree that can't happen all by itself, but I do think it can happen without laws. Call me optimistic, but I think all these discussions on Hacker News (and other places) are part of what will change things - that is, people arguing with each other, hashing stuff out, and moving forward. It's a slow, painful process, but, in my opinion, it is the permanent solution.

[lutusp]

>> How would that be achieved without a law?

> By changing people's attitudes.

Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there.

Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech.

The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there.

Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.

[toasterlovin]

Pretty sure the OP was assuming qualified people only...

Also, you say:

> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field.

Which, to me, implies that you were also assuming qualified people only, since excluding people who aren't qualified is perfectly fair.

[wfunction]

Yes, I most certainly didn't.

[lutusp]

Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there.

Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech.

The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there.

Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.

[wfunction]

I thought being qualified was rather obvious, the fact that I didn't mention it doesn't mean I thought we should ignore whether or not people are qualified.

[lutusp]

> I thought being qualified was rather obvious ...

People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident. Here's what you said:

"The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech."

Seems pretty clear to me. The above would require a law, a compelling factor. Attitude adjustments wouldn't be enough.