I'm not sure this argument stands up to the facts. Women have been pouring into every discipline over the past twenty+ years. That's a significant number because we're now talking people born in the 1990s, which can not be said to be a decade untouched by feminism. Women are graduating with more degrees then men now, women are the majority on campus, and the proportions are rising. Every discipline, engineering and computer science no exception, has been soliciting for women and minorities for decades now.
And yet, as pointed out in the article, the percentage of computer science degrees awarded to women is going down, which I think is an acceptable proxy for the presence of women in tech. Yet numerous other "male" fields have been entered and in some cases dominated by women. The very same women who were raised on Barbies and ponies.
Is the only theory that fits the facts that somehow, virtually uniquely across all the fields into which the women have come streaming in, despite equal if not at times greater solicitation for women to come in to the discipline, computer science has somehow escaped the incredible dominance of political correctness on campuses and managed to create this fantastically and uniquely hostile environment for women, and therefore has some sort of major responsibility for changing itself? The only hypothesis?
What about this one: In an environment where a thousand voices are shouting for the women to come study $X, it doesn't take very much of a natural disinclination towards a certain discipline for it to very, very rarely be the top choice for a woman. It's not as if there aren't disciplines unbalanced every bit as much in favor of women, and for the same reason; it doesn't take much natural disinclination, for whatever the reason, for a field to very, very rarely be the top choice for the man.
Every year that goes by like this, every year that the STEM initiatives get even more strident and better funded, every year that women continue streaming from our very-politically-correct lower schooling systems into our very-politically-correct higher schooling systems and choose not to study computer science, I find the hypothesis that computer science is somehow deficient that much less compelling. If computer science were any more solicitous of women we'd have to draft them.
(Note: For once I do not necessarily mean "politically correct" as a slur. For the purposes of this message, I merely mean that the idea that primary or higher education has been systematically structured against woman for the past twenty years is absurd. The suspicion of sexism in this environment, in this timeframe, is enough to end your career advancement, if not your career itself. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to consider a hypothesis other than the "deck is stacked" hypothesis that we've been using for something like fifty years now and consider just for a moment some other hypotheses, in the interests of science.
I am also confining myself to the question of the education time; even if the workplace is somehow hostile to women today, the ultimate solution to that problem is graduating more women into it; between that and the copious and rather strong laws on this front it'll work itself out after that.)
Well, it's hard to argue with her basic claim, which is that it's not at the college or at the job-recruiting level that we need to focus our attention if we want to be more gender-balanced; it's on the little kids. Speaking as a college educator, I can confirm that the social biases are already set, if perhaps not in stone.
I guess you could claim that gender-balancing the field is undesirable, which is strange, or that it is impossible, which is an interesting claim but I'd need more evidence. But otherwise you'll need to look at the little girls and work from there.
But that's exactly my point; we've already done a lot of work on that front. You can see the results everywhere else. Are we really sure that after decades of work on this matter, work that has obviously come to fruition in field after field after field, that there isn't something other than "social bias" at play? At what point does the field get to stop self-flagellating?
I guess part of what I'm saying is that at this point I reject the idea that the burden of proof is somehow on the field to prove that it is open to women or that girls are somehow being excluded in a special way, after these decades of work. I'd say the burden of proof at this point is on those to demonstrate that somehow computer science has specially somehow failed to solicit woman in a way that the other fields didn't, in an environment in which this stuff was becoming cliche even by the time the women entering college today were being born.
Twenty years from now, are we still going to be having this exact same conversation and making the exact same accusations of entire fields, if it does indeed turn out that women of their own free will don't want to go into computers on average as a career?
What "natural disinclination" do you think women have, exactly? They don't like math? Women received 47% of math undergrad degrees in 2002 and that number has been stable for 20 years. They don't like computers? The physical sciences use computers pretty heavily, and women received 42% of undergraduates degrees in those fields in 2002, compared to 28% in 1983. They don't like the geeky sci-fi image? 42% of astronomy degrees went to women in 2002, compared to 25% in 1983.
Engineering degrees are still male dominated, women only got 20% of those, but that's still 7 points higher than the 1983 number. The percentage of computer science degrees that went to women decreased from 36% in 1983 to 27% in 2002, to 18% in 2008.
At least we can agree that there's something unique about computer science that it goes against the trend.
I think you think you are disproving my point with those numbers, but I think it reinforces it. In what exact manner has the computer field failed to be accepting of women in the way that somehow math and the other physical sciences haven't? In the strongly-politically-correct environment that all women entering college have grown up in (and I reiterate my parenthetical in my first posting for those who may have forgotten), can someone show me exactly what it is that computer science and engineering have somehow failed when the evidence clearly shows that efforts to reach out to women have been very successful on the whole?
Is tarring thousands of people with the charge of rampant sexism really the only hypothesis we can discuss every time this issue comes up?
You ask me what "natural disinclination" I think women have, but you're getting the logic backwards. I'm suggesting that if you look at the data that it may suggest the idea that maybe there is a natural disinclination, not that I axiomatically assert that there is one and therefore it is the explanation. Can we at least consider that hypothesis, rather than implicitly and rather frequently accusing engineering of being somehow the sole holdout of troglodytes and evilly conspiring to hold down the little girls, who have somehow managed to transcend all the other evil conspiracies in all the other fields but just can't seem to shake this one?
I think you misunderstand. Your point is that computer science, as a field, has done many things to attract women and that it has still been unsuccessful. Furthermore, since so much effort has been put forth in this pursuit, the computer science community cannot be held responsible for the gender inequality.
I'm not sure that that is what you are trying to convey, but that is about the clearest argument I can read from what you wrote. If this is indeed your argument, then it sounds like you are in violent agreement with the author of the article. The major difference appears to be that you argue the gender discrepancy is just women's preference whereas the article posits it to be a consequence of gender mores (an admittedly subtle distinction).
If I have misunderstood, I'd be interested in clarification.
Um, I think that jerf is trying to say that your figures can be interpreted another way. For example, maybe back in '83, computer science was comparatively friendlier towards women than other maths-oriented degrees, such as engineering, medecine, and astronomy. But as these other degrees have become less mysogynistic, they have successfully taken women away from maths disciplines that had previously been comparatively friendlier to women. It would be interesting to know how the percentage of women choosing maths-heavy degrees has evolved over the same period.
According to the link above, there were approximately equal amounts of 24-year-old men and women getting bachelor's degrees in 1980, but undergraduating men proportionally outnumbered women in natural sciences and engineering 2.66:1. By 1998, bachelor's degrees had increased by 34% for men and 85% for women, but in NS&E the increases had been 23% and 110%, leaving the proportional gender ratio of NS&E undergraduates at 2.14:1. Notably, engineering degrees for men fell by 21%, which had a larger impact than women entering.
You don't have a hypothesis, you have an unfalsifiable conjecture that maybe women have some mysterious natural disinclination that you leave undefined and then conclude there's no problem.
I only have anecdotal data, but in my experience most women getting a math degree are doing so with the goal of being a math teacher. Also, if you break physical sciences down by field, just under half of women in physical science are in biology (vs one quarter of men).
Here is a possibility: women got into CS in the 80's and 90's for the money. Now that CS is not a path to quick dotcom riches, the women (and men) who were chasing the money have gone back to business.
As for astronomy, there were 276 astronomy majors nationwide. I think if you pick one of the smallest fields and draw conclusions from it, you should at least admit you are cherrypicking.
Comments
I'm not sure this argument stands up to the facts. Women have been pouring into every discipline over the past twenty+ years. That's a significant number because we're now talking people born in the 1990s, which can not be said to be a decade untouched by feminism. Women are graduating with more degrees then men now, women are the majority on campus, and the proportions are rising. Every discipline, engineering and computer science no exception, has been soliciting for women and minorities for decades now.
And yet, as pointed out in the article, the percentage of computer science degrees awarded to women is going down, which I think is an acceptable proxy for the presence of women in tech. Yet numerous other "male" fields have been entered and in some cases dominated by women. The very same women who were raised on Barbies and ponies.
Is the only theory that fits the facts that somehow, virtually uniquely across all the fields into which the women have come streaming in, despite equal if not at times greater solicitation for women to come in to the discipline, computer science has somehow escaped the incredible dominance of political correctness on campuses and managed to create this fantastically and uniquely hostile environment for women, and therefore has some sort of major responsibility for changing itself? The only hypothesis?
What about this one: In an environment where a thousand voices are shouting for the women to come study $X, it doesn't take very much of a natural disinclination towards a certain discipline for it to very, very rarely be the top choice for a woman. It's not as if there aren't disciplines unbalanced every bit as much in favor of women, and for the same reason; it doesn't take much natural disinclination, for whatever the reason, for a field to very, very rarely be the top choice for the man.
Every year that goes by like this, every year that the STEM initiatives get even more strident and better funded, every year that women continue streaming from our very-politically-correct lower schooling systems into our very-politically-correct higher schooling systems and choose not to study computer science, I find the hypothesis that computer science is somehow deficient that much less compelling. If computer science were any more solicitous of women we'd have to draft them.
(Note: For once I do not necessarily mean "politically correct" as a slur. For the purposes of this message, I merely mean that the idea that primary or higher education has been systematically structured against woman for the past twenty years is absurd. The suspicion of sexism in this environment, in this timeframe, is enough to end your career advancement, if not your career itself. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to consider a hypothesis other than the "deck is stacked" hypothesis that we've been using for something like fifty years now and consider just for a moment some other hypotheses, in the interests of science.
I am also confining myself to the question of the education time; even if the workplace is somehow hostile to women today, the ultimate solution to that problem is graduating more women into it; between that and the copious and rather strong laws on this front it'll work itself out after that.)
Well, it's hard to argue with her basic claim, which is that it's not at the college or at the job-recruiting level that we need to focus our attention if we want to be more gender-balanced; it's on the little kids. Speaking as a college educator, I can confirm that the social biases are already set, if perhaps not in stone.
I guess you could claim that gender-balancing the field is undesirable, which is strange, or that it is impossible, which is an interesting claim but I'd need more evidence. But otherwise you'll need to look at the little girls and work from there.
But that's exactly my point; we've already done a lot of work on that front. You can see the results everywhere else. Are we really sure that after decades of work on this matter, work that has obviously come to fruition in field after field after field, that there isn't something other than "social bias" at play? At what point does the field get to stop self-flagellating?
I guess part of what I'm saying is that at this point I reject the idea that the burden of proof is somehow on the field to prove that it is open to women or that girls are somehow being excluded in a special way, after these decades of work. I'd say the burden of proof at this point is on those to demonstrate that somehow computer science has specially somehow failed to solicit woman in a way that the other fields didn't, in an environment in which this stuff was becoming cliche even by the time the women entering college today were being born.
Twenty years from now, are we still going to be having this exact same conversation and making the exact same accusations of entire fields, if it does indeed turn out that women of their own free will don't want to go into computers on average as a career?
The problem with arguments like this is it makes me feel like a freak for being a woman in computer science. Thanks.
The problem with arguments like this is that I have an irrational negative emotional reaction when I read them. Thanks.
Fixed that for you.
perhaps it's because of this?
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1989
Here's actual data: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/cwsem/PGA_049131
What "natural disinclination" do you think women have, exactly? They don't like math? Women received 47% of math undergrad degrees in 2002 and that number has been stable for 20 years. They don't like computers? The physical sciences use computers pretty heavily, and women received 42% of undergraduates degrees in those fields in 2002, compared to 28% in 1983. They don't like the geeky sci-fi image? 42% of astronomy degrees went to women in 2002, compared to 25% in 1983.
Engineering degrees are still male dominated, women only got 20% of those, but that's still 7 points higher than the 1983 number. The percentage of computer science degrees that went to women decreased from 36% in 1983 to 27% in 2002, to 18% in 2008.
At least we can agree that there's something unique about computer science that it goes against the trend.
I think you think you are disproving my point with those numbers, but I think it reinforces it. In what exact manner has the computer field failed to be accepting of women in the way that somehow math and the other physical sciences haven't? In the strongly-politically-correct environment that all women entering college have grown up in (and I reiterate my parenthetical in my first posting for those who may have forgotten), can someone show me exactly what it is that computer science and engineering have somehow failed when the evidence clearly shows that efforts to reach out to women have been very successful on the whole?
Is tarring thousands of people with the charge of rampant sexism really the only hypothesis we can discuss every time this issue comes up?
You ask me what "natural disinclination" I think women have, but you're getting the logic backwards. I'm suggesting that if you look at the data that it may suggest the idea that maybe there is a natural disinclination, not that I axiomatically assert that there is one and therefore it is the explanation. Can we at least consider that hypothesis, rather than implicitly and rather frequently accusing engineering of being somehow the sole holdout of troglodytes and evilly conspiring to hold down the little girls, who have somehow managed to transcend all the other evil conspiracies in all the other fields but just can't seem to shake this one?
I think you misunderstand. Your point is that computer science, as a field, has done many things to attract women and that it has still been unsuccessful. Furthermore, since so much effort has been put forth in this pursuit, the computer science community cannot be held responsible for the gender inequality.
I'm not sure that that is what you are trying to convey, but that is about the clearest argument I can read from what you wrote. If this is indeed your argument, then it sounds like you are in violent agreement with the author of the article. The major difference appears to be that you argue the gender discrepancy is just women's preference whereas the article posits it to be a consequence of gender mores (an admittedly subtle distinction).
If I have misunderstood, I'd be interested in clarification.
Um, I think that jerf is trying to say that your figures can be interpreted another way. For example, maybe back in '83, computer science was comparatively friendlier towards women than other maths-oriented degrees, such as engineering, medecine, and astronomy. But as these other degrees have become less mysogynistic, they have successfully taken women away from maths disciplines that had previously been comparatively friendlier to women. It would be interesting to know how the percentage of women choosing maths-heavy degrees has evolved over the same period.
According to the link above, there were approximately equal amounts of 24-year-old men and women getting bachelor's degrees in 1980, but undergraduating men proportionally outnumbered women in natural sciences and engineering 2.66:1. By 1998, bachelor's degrees had increased by 34% for men and 85% for women, but in NS&E the increases had been 23% and 110%, leaving the proportional gender ratio of NS&E undergraduates at 2.14:1. Notably, engineering degrees for men fell by 21%, which had a larger impact than women entering.
I didn't hunt for post-bubble figures.
You don't have a hypothesis, you have an unfalsifiable conjecture that maybe women have some mysterious natural disinclination that you leave undefined and then conclude there's no problem.
I only have anecdotal data, but in my experience most women getting a math degree are doing so with the goal of being a math teacher. Also, if you break physical sciences down by field, just under half of women in physical science are in biology (vs one quarter of men).
Here is a possibility: women got into CS in the 80's and 90's for the money. Now that CS is not a path to quick dotcom riches, the women (and men) who were chasing the money have gone back to business.
As for astronomy, there were 276 astronomy majors nationwide. I think if you pick one of the smallest fields and draw conclusions from it, you should at least admit you are cherrypicking.
Perhaps those numbers mean that programming has finally become a true engineering discipline :).