[daleharvey]

I dont think the gender split is the issue that needs to be fixed, if the ratio was uneven for some particularly boring reason then I dont think its an issue that people would care about as much.

The problem I care about is that this industry is hostile to a very large group of people, women arent around not only because they arent encouraged early on, but because they are being driven out when they do get here, ask any women in the industry what their experiences have been and it will likely be surprising and upsetting, it has been to me at least every time.

[belorn]

Its hand-waving comments like this that really annoys me when reading HN. As with anecdotal evidence, it tries to masquerade as scientific while being the exact opposite. My reply to such comment is like always: Bring in the real science (i.e. Sociology).

If women are being driven out as you describe, it should be possible to measure. For example, if they are being actively driven out, women in technology should then be naturally gravitating towards those companies, conferences and similar spaces which has an lower hostility than the average.

While some people do perform some studies like that, it still very much in a early stage.

From statistics and Wikipedia and HN have done, one shared answer that have provided is a cultural phenomenon, in which anonymous non-social interacting work is a male dominated area. I would very much like to see a study how true that is, if its located to the IT industry, and if it is true globally.

[daleharvey]

What is hand-wavey, that women are being driven out of stem or that any women I have talked about the subject has repeated how hostile it is?

The fact that women are leaving stem fields is very easy to measure and has lots of reports and studies, the fact that everyone I talk to about it has hostile experiences to describe is very much an anecdote, one that I think its easy for a lot of people to share.

The reference to sociology seems like some xkcd joke, are you annoyed that I commented on an issue without doing a pdh on the subject or that you dont think it is an issue?

[belorn]

You claim that women are getting into STEM, and then forced out through (the cause) a hostile environment.

But you have nothing to support your claim beyond "any women I have talked about the subject" says so. If you have "lots of reports and studies" to show that the cause is from a hostile environment, bring them on! Im calling on your bluff there.

There is "lots of" reports that show that the number of women in STEM subject are decreasing. However, they rarely if ever venture into the cause of the statistic decline. Since statistics are cold facts without much worthy of discussion, its the cause that people discuss.

And its such causes that study of human social behavior is useful to figure out. It using Science rather than grunting.

[daleharvey]

Most of the recent things I have read have been a summation of this study - http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/21/sf.sot... In particular I think I noticed http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-societ... Which mainly discusses how many women leave STEM compared to over fields and to do what.

However if I didnt find any emperical studies to backup my anecdote I wouldnt really care, unless I have some reason to believe everyone I talk to is a habitual liar I will carry on considering it a real and upsetting problem. Problems are still problems and can even be worked towards without having an scientifically rigorous process applied to their definition.

[belorn]

Neither of those studies shows that women leaves STEM because of an "hostile environment".

Study1:

  What does emerge is that investments and job rewards that generally stimulate field
  commitment, such as advanced training and high job satisfaction, fail to build
  commitment among women in STEM.

The second study is more interesting, but is only speculative (i.e. Not scientific).

  “We suspect that the retention deficit in STEM may be due to the team organization
  of scientific work combined with the attitudes and expectations of co-workers and
  supervisors who hold more traditional beliefs about the competencies of women in
  these rapidly changing fields,”

When a researcher says that they "suspect", it really does mean what the word says. Its a opinion without study. A study can produce findings, and findings are what the last linked research article (in the research) show.

  A related 2012 study published in Sociology, “The Dimensions of Occupational Gender
  Segregation in Industrial Countries,” examines why some jobs may be filled more by
  men or women, be it by choice, obligation or exclusion. Among the findings are that
  women tend to outperform men in the general desirability of occupations

So neither is a empirical studies to backup your anecdote. The findings however where an interesting read, and I hope similar studies are made on the "suspected" and "suggested" theories.

[obstacle1]

In what universe is Sociology a 'real science'?