How did this happen? Even-handed, optimistic reporting on women in tech from a woman in tech? Not a dramatic lamentation that there aren't more women in tech, nor a dismissal of women as not skilled/geeky enough, nor a conspiracy theory about the boys' club? It's encouraging to say the least. I could wish all discourse on the topic was of this quality.
> A good idea is a good idea and at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter a damn where it came from.
A nice, concise expression of the hacker principal of abandoning ego and identity when considering merits. I'm all filled with hope and what-have-you; I've got to go find something depressing to read to push my expectations back down. Apparently, Unix wasn't the only good thing her parents taught her.
I didn't read that at all. It sounded to me like someone who loves what she's doing, is pretty grateful for her good fortune, and doesn't have much of the persistent malaise about women in technology. It read more like "I'm so glad I got into this stuff, and there are some benefits to being a woman."
A "puppy on crack"? Pretty harsh and cynical. It was harldly unbridled enthusiasm, but she's got an optimistic outlook, which is refreshing on this topic. If she's not bemoaning the issue, not generally dissatisfied with life, is that too much?
young girls aren’t as encouraged to get advanced math/sciences/programming education
I hear this a lot, but isn't it possible that the payoff is simply just not as worthwhile for a woman? It seems to me that at least part of the problem is that there are skilled employment options for women that they find more rewarding or inspiring than programming.
I'm reminded of Philip Greenspun's _Women in Science_, in which he says that smart women don't go into science because "Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States." I think his analysis of problems in the structure of science as a profession is accurate but that his sex-based commentary is wrong: for one thing, women now outnumber men in liberal arts PhDs, where the job market isn't just worse for most science PhDs -- it's _way_ worse.
The next best alternative to a PhD in english lit is proofreader, copy editor or barista.
Although this is a popular idea on Hacker News, it isn't really true: there are loads of people with English degrees in law, consulting, teaching, and business.
Still, even the third choice -- teaching -- will probably pay more over a lifetime than someone who takes eight or more years to get through grad school but fails to find a tenure track job.
Yes, I notice those people. I believe you can sometimes tell by the quality of a programmer's code that they have a background in dealing with text on a theoretical level.
Disclosure: I work in tech now but have an English Lit. education.
You're arguing the exact opposite of everyone else. According to your argument all the money is in science and yet women still prefer the liberal arts.
No, I'm arguing that a "Womens Herstory" [1] prof most likely could not get a job making $500k/year as an investment banker or even a family friendly job as an actuary earning $100k. Thus, such jobs must be excluded from consideration.
Similarly, my ranking of jobs is Rock Star > Trader > Professor. ("Rock star" = http://www.nin.com/ , not http://imarockstarninja.com/ .) My preference for a job as a rock star is irrelevant due to my lack of skills, so I'm forced to choose between trader and professor.
I'm not actually taking a position, I'm just pointing out that you're undermining someone else's argument. A rough paraphrase
A: women are excluded from science.
B: no, women choose not to enter science because they are smart enough to realise there are better paid jobs in law and medicine
C: but women enter fields (like your example of "Womens Herstory") which clearly aren't moneyspinners, so you could ask why do they enter those unprofitable fields rather than unprofitable science?
You: Because women make stupid educational and career choices that limits their money making potential.
Me: The original argument advanced by B, is that the lack of women in science is explained by their smart educational and career choices. If you posit that many of them make stupid educational and career choices, you still haven't explained why they don't end up in underpaid science/technology roles.
No one is paying attention anymore, but I'll try to state my reasoning one more time as clearly as possible.
Divide people into two groups, X and Y.
Group X: people with no quantitative skills. Career choices are [herstory prof, barista, teacher, HR drone].
Group Y: people with quantitative skills. Career choices are [math prof, hedge fund quant, big bank analyst, actuary, RoR Ninja].
People in category X don't make a choice between herstory prof and math prof. Math prof and quant are already excluded since person X failed Calc 2. Women in category X may choose herstory prof relatively frequently since it's not much worse than HR drone.
People in category Y do make a choice between math prof and quant. Women in category Y choose actuary relatively often, since actuary is actually a plausible career choice.
To evaluate Greenspun's argument (the argument you think I am undermining), you need to restrict consideration to category Y.
I hate to say it but that bit of Greenspun's argument alone is a horrible argument. Then why are smart men chosing science? It seems you would have to add that women tend to choose higher paying jobs when given a choice more often than men or something to that effect. It seems to be more like naysaying against science professions anyway. :) It's not very politically correct but it seems plausible that, on the whole, women are just less likely to find a deeply technical field more appealing than something less technical. Or there really are social norms driving women away from technical professions. Or something like that. I think those less popular arguments are more of an honest assesment devoid of ulterior motives. To me that makes more sense than trying to argue that women don't go into technical fields because adjusting for IQ and working hours, it doesn't pay very much. I mean, the more I think about that, that sounds totally ridiculous. How many women are really actively caclulating their IQ and quantitative skills into some vague formula when making job decisions, particularly very early in their academic careers? It sounds nice but as a serious explanation of real phenomena, it seems to fall down.
Not the main focus of the article but, I wonder how many people in tech had their parents as their first tech teachers. My mother was the one who first introduced me to computers and the internet. She taught me how to make a webpage when I was 10 using notepad :) (1995). I always thought she would have done great as a programer or web designer but she preferred to work do arts, mainly sculpting. A somewhat related field ;p
My parents introduced me to computers when they bought me my first micro back in about 1983. Around the same time they took an evening course about computers themselves (including some amount of programming). I clearly remember my mum typing out the BASIC source code to a text adventure game from a book I bought some time in the late '80s (in the UK at least, it wasn't entirely uncommon for cheap games to be "distributed" in source code form in magazines and sometimes books).
Years later my mum financed my first 16- and 32-bit computers, which I paid her back from a part-time job at a local bicycle shop. I've had a career as a programmer for around a decade now...
Despite all this, I still resented the fact that I wasn't allowed to spend more time on the computer! I had two sisters who were also given time on the computer (they played a Frogger clone and taught themselves to type, mostly). The newspapers were (and to some extent still are) full of bullshit articles about the evils of "computer addiction" which my parents took seriously enough to limit the time I spent with them to only an hour or two a day.
Now in retrospect, I realise that - compared to some others at least - I'm incredibly lucky. It doesn't stop my burning hatred for newspapers like the Daily Mail though...
Isn't the irony here that the author is not exactly a technical person? I don't think she made a great counter-argument about women and science/technology education. Even if she was, that doesn't mean the side she is rallying against isn't right. Women do succeed in spite of the "social norms," or whatever it is, but not proportionally for whatever reason and that's clear. It's kind of like an autodidact that wants to revolutionize education because of his or her personal experience, which do not necessarily apply to others en massee.
She's a social media person and a reporter, not a hacker. I think GP feels that this would have carried more weight if she was a kernel developer or open source guru, instead of someone who paid attention to the social aspects of computing more than anything else (she talks about BBSes, chat rooms, etc.)
As in, it appears her job history doesn't involve technical roles. She self-describes it as "writing, old/new media, entertainment, social media strategy, ideation, online communications and community management". Source: http://www.wulfeck.com/
This is a good statement from an accomplished, successful and apparently happy person who gives some credit to her parents for exposing her to computer programming and computer systems starting at the age of seven. What's not to like about this message?
> A good idea is a good idea and at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter a damn where it came from.
A nice, concise expression of the hacker principal of abandoning ego and identity when considering merits. I'm all filled with hope and what-have-you; I've got to go find something depressing to read to push my expectations back down. Apparently, Unix wasn't the only good thing her parents taught her.