>It just means, for example, that it probably would have been even harder if you were an Eastern European woman who grew up in a poor family.

Women here get hired easier (because US companies have the same policy for quotas, Intel is notorious for this), I know women who got an internship purely because they were women, there are free bootcamps and classes targeting women... not to mention all these special programs EU has for women who want to start their own company (and yes, these programs are for women exclusively). I have yet to see a program or class targeted specifically for men.

So exactly what disadvantages are you talking about?

Let's look at the stats.

Apple's diversity report [1] states their tech employees are composed of 79% male, 22% female.

Facebook's diversity report [2] shows 85% males in tech vs 15% female.

Google's is pretty much the same, and you can compare them all with interactive graphs [3].

Note the dominance of white and male in the graphs.

The programs you mention for women are great, I agree. These are the steps we need to take if we want women who are interested in technology to come forward join our field. But women are not more easily hired. If that were the case then it would be reflected in, you know, reality.

[1] http://www.apple.com/diversity/

[2] http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/25/facebook-diversity/

[3] http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/20/9179853/tech-diversity-sco...

LMAO....you literally just said prior to this comment:

"We are not trying to ensure there is an "arbitrary number" of certain types of people working in our field."

You are a walking Poster Child for hypocrisy.

How does sharing such stats imply achieving "arbitrary numbers" in any sense?

I am pointing at data showing a large disparity in tech employment relative to the population. Women are equally as capable as men when it comes to tech, so we should expect equal representation. We don't get equal representation because of existing cultural biases against women in this field.

It's the same reason we don't get equal representation of men in many "women's" fields where men are clearly as capable as women.

> How does sharing such stats imply achieving "arbitrary numbers" in any sense?

Are you really that ignorant?

> Women are equally as capable as men when it comes to tech, so we should expect equal representation.

And why are there not more women collecting trash or sweeping our streets (90% male)?

And why are there not more men teaching our children in K-12 (80% female)? Obviously men are just as capable and just as smart.

> so we should expect equal representation

This is conjecture.

> We don't get equal representation because of existing cultural biases against women in this field.

As is this.

You are pointing to data and making your own conclusions that the data simply isn't complete enough to show.

Those numbers can still mean it's easier for a women to get hired in the industry.

They can make the entry level for women lower and get those numbers simply due to the lack of women applying in the first place. That would mean it would be easier for a qualified women in the industry to get a job than a man of equal qualification. Which is ManlyBread was saying.

Reality tends to change when you, you know, actually understand logic and statistics.

True. It may mean that, but there is zero evidence to back up ManlyBread's claim aside from his anecdotal evidence.

And what. There is zero evidence to back up your interruption of the 'stats'. In fact your stats are completely useless in coming to any conclusion apart from purely saying there are less women in those jobs.

> Note the dominance of white and male in the graphs.

Not if you actually look at the graphs. Just taking the Apple data at random, the US numbers are

54% white, 18% asian, 11% hispanic, 8% black, etc.

The 2010 US census numbers are:

64% white, 5% asian, 16% hispanic, 12% black.

So whites are actually underrepresented, while there are 3.6x as many asians.

We are looking specifically at "tech." That's not "at random."

What I mean is I randomly looked at one of your three links.

It directly contradicts your claim about the data.

About 18% of computer science graduates are women [1], so Apple (22% female) discriminates against men and Facebook (15%) discriminates against women.

Yes, the above is partly tongue-in-cheek (I realize that not all employees are programmers). I am just trying to make a point that companies hire from a pool of qualified candidates (with college degree usually being the "qualified" selector). So if the pool consists of 18% women, companies will likely not have more than 18% women as programmers.

As to why 18% of computer science graduates are women is a completely separate discussion from the topic at hand.

[1] http://fortune.com/2015/04/20/the-pervasive-bias-against-fem...

Yeah I get that, that's all part of the issue — not enough women in tech education leads to less being employed.

From the cartoons I watched as a child, (far more male villains than female), to the narrowed defined male acceptable professions, to most of role models in other professions (all female), In addition to a million other invisible punishments for not following the cultural rules. I, like most of people with my gender went to a profession that was cultural accepted for that gender, and most people of the other gender went to cultural accepted professions for their gender.

How privileged they must be!

More male villains is on point. Heroes and villains are powerful. We typically see more female victims than male. Many of our tropes and stereotypes revolve around women as victims.

> to the narrowed defined male acceptable professions, to most of role models in other professions (all female)

Are you trying to start a competition of who can exclude each other the most?

> In addition to a million other invisible punishments for not following the cultural rules

Such rules are what hold us back. Encouraging diversity where you have the power to do so is a great way to break these rules and help people.

> I, like most of people with my gender went to a profession that was cultural accepted for that gender, and most people of the other gender went to cultural accepted professions for their gender.

It's a sad thing, isn't it? It would be great if we could change our industry for the better and perhaps become an example to others.

You are missing the point if you think it about competition. 80% of work professions are considered gendered, cultural exclusive to one gender. There is no privileged gender there, and you are only harming people by continuing that narrative.

> More male villains is on point. Heroes and villains are powerful. We typically see more female victims than male.

A study a few years ago looked at the probability that a character would get killed, and fathers in movies had a much higher chance to be killed that a mothers. It generally followed the lines of older male role model -> fathers -> daughters -> sons -> mothers as highest to lowest risk of being a victim of murder in movies. They did not look at henchmen, especially those located in movies for kids.

But what I really find is sad, is that certain type of villains are so exclusively male that they never gets casted as female. One of those is the character that the audience is supposed to get a visceral hatred for. The character that do evil for evil sake, that torture his victim for no reason, and the audience is made to hate so much that any violence is not enough to satisfy the justified cry for blood. I have never seen a feminist advocate to have a female Vaas Montenegro, nor do I think we will see one any time soon.

> I was able to go into technology with confidence and social support that many other groups will not have.

Where I grew up (in 1980s US), white males were almost universally derided for being into technology. It wasn't until the 2000s that it became "cool". There was no privilege associated with being a geek. It was something many of us did despite the social stigma. That's why it's humorous to see people claim there was some sort of privilege associated with those who where early in tech. Yes it turned out to be economically viable but there was huge social pressure against participating.

> There was no privilege associated with being a geek.

You still had some "privileges" by not being black, and not being a woman. "Privileges" in the sense that you weren't automatically assumed to be a thief, for example, when walking in to a store. Or the privilege of actually being granted an interview for a non-secretarial position when you applied for one.

The "white male privilege" people speak of is less to do with people handing you bags of money and opening doors for you, and more to do with those doors not actively being shut in your face simply by dint of gender or skin color.

I speak as a white male who grew up in the 80s and in to technology. I certainly remember it was not 'cool' to be in to computers/tech back then (not like now) but there should be little disagreement that being male was not a hindrance for most desired walks of life (whereas being female, moreso then, definitely was).

>I speak as a white male who grew up in the 80s and in to technology. I certainly remember it was not 'cool' to be in to computers/tech back then (not like now) but there should be little disagreement that being male was not a hindrance for most desired walks of life (whereas being female, moreso then, definitely was).

Really? I physically got my ass kicked every single day. At one point it was so bad i had to get shoulder surgery because i took a beating from black kids who thought i was a geek or whatever. I grew up in what is now considered a ghetto and i was fearful for my life for studying CS. If this white privilege bs existed i would be a millionaire by now and i would still be able to use my left arm to lift more than a liter of milk. People use it as an excuse for racism and their white guilt bullshit. We didn't grow up in the US, we didnt have black slaves and some of our family was slaves.

Just looking at the US and seeing this "white privilege" makes me angry. I doubt i as a white european could get a scholarship to a college even though i've been in software for 10+ years. But you see stories every single day that people find it unfair that there is only scholarships for african americans/asian americans and that they're cutting back on asian americans because apparently they're under "white privilege" as well. I'm sorry if i haven't gotten my point across or if i haven't typed things properly, but stuff like this infuriates me to no end when i literally had to fight my way to school everyday.

I never said I was never bullied or beat up. I was. I'm not sure where anyone is saying that white males never experience any hardship. I'm pretty sure no one is saying that, except people that want to argue with the term "white male privilege".

Everyday things like going to a store, going to a bank, taking out a car loan, going to a movie all, on the whole, in the united states in the last 50-100 years, tend to be less troublesome for "white" male folk than for non-white and non-male folks. My assertion here is based on decades of anecdotes and sharing experiences with friends/colleagues/families. Is my assertion scientific proof? Nope. I just don't understand why people can't grasp that being part of a majority in a society generally confers some benefits, even if those benefits are just measured in lack of hindrances/obstacles/barriers.

I would say that when people are talking about "white male privilege", it's generally understood to be US/Western Europe/'white' areas that are being talked about. Me being a 'white male' in Shanghai had 0 benefit to me, and was actually a hindrance (though having a poor grasp of the language contributed greatly).

What are you on about. You've just admitted that this privilege only applies to a subset of activities, in a specific country for a very brief period of time.

Yet you where the one slapping it on people telling them they've benefited from it. You don't know that. You can't know that. You're using a race and gender targeted generalization which is the problem in the first place. Stop.

I think the whole discussion heated up because it's not generally understood that US/Western Europe "white areas" are talked about.

I think you're right.

Same as where I grew up. Geeks were never cool. Being into computers attracted social stigma. You and I went through the same things.

It doesn't change what I've said above. I still walked into Computer Science feeling at ease with the course before I started, and feeling easily welcomed among my very nerdy peers. (Plus the one girl in the first class I had. Imagine how she felt. Social stigma of computers and being the only girl. Must've sucked.)

Actually we didn't go through the same things. I grew up in poor rural America. There were no computer science programs. I didn't go to university and most of my peers went to the army or jail.

Would you have felt "at ease" walking into a design course at the fashion institute? How about a freestyle rap battle or a pick-up basketball game? A rodeo?

Different cultures expose their members to different activities. Outsiders may have a tougher time breaking in but it can be done. Finding the strength to do it is admirable. Homogenizing everyone is not.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Are you saying that people should be uncomfortable pursuing their interests if those interests aren't culturally acceptable for their class/gender/race to pursue?

Because I disagree. People should feel comfortable pursuing such interests. We should work to remove the cultural stigma that stops people from participating in fields they would clearly enjoy. It doesn't homogenise anyone.

I'm saying different cultures are in general attracted to different activities. In the end it's up to the individual to decide what they want to do. They may choose to participate in an activity where they are a minority. There's nothing wrong with that at all but it won't always be easy. There's nothing to do beyond that. You keep saying "we" but your strictly talking about your own personal agenda.

How do you figure that getting a more diverse group of people interested in programming will make us more homogenous? Seems like it ought to do the opposite.

We shouldn't be "getting" anyone to do anything. People should be celebrated for making their own choices, even if that means not being an engineer. The push to make everyone a STEM professional us what's homogenizing.

But we are "getting" people to do things now by supporting a culture that stigmatises the choices that people make if they are not deemed appropriate for their class, gender or race.

> It just means, for example, that it probably would have been even harder if you were an Eastern European woman who grew up in a poor family.

Spot on. If the previous poster went to a technical institute in Eastern Europe, I am willing to bet that his classes were at least 90% male.

Well, actually Romania has a high number of women studying technical subjects, almost at the same level as males.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/in-romania-vestiges-of-comm...

Likewise for Computer Science classes in Western Europe (and I imagine North America). This is the issue with arbitrary quotas/targets for hiring female engineers - there is a lack of those qualified. I acknowledge that there is a huge disparity between male/female workers in the field, but the issue is far earlier in an aspiring engineer's life than getting a job. STEM subjects have far fewer female students than male - this is the core of the issue. The lack of women in STEM careers is a symptom of this core problem.

I don't understand this logic, from an age before i even could fathom what 'racism' or 'sexism' was i was fascinated by computers and technology

during early high school the dot com bubble happened and most of my teachers advised me against going into IT, they talked about low wages, unemployment, constantly re learning as tech progresses, outsourcing job et al

girls didn't much care for computer guys and they were near the bottom of the social pecking order. in my experience i was an outcast.

i was being highly discouraged everywhere i looked, but i didn't care one bit, i was doing it because i was interested in it. of course now all of those factors have reversed themselves not that i could have forseen that.

my point is that maybe today women and certain races face some of these issues, maybe you could make the argument that they're discouraged (seems to me that they're encouraged a lot more than i was) but even if we accept that as a truism, which i clearly don't, who cares, if these people are no less able let them prove it and this culture of barriers (which i don't believe in anyway) will subside.

Stop calling it a problem. Why is it a problem that preferences differ? Is it a problem that more women aren't miners or plumbers?

Because we don't completely know whether preferences differ, or whether cultural biases cause those preferences to differ.

I have a young boy and a girl. They are pushed into so many gendered roles from such a young age I have a really hard time trying to figure out what they actually like, versus what society tells them they should like.

My son recently picked up a pink toy in a store and said "I can't have this one because it's for girls, daddy." He used to love the colour pink. I wanted to scream in frustration because society has pushed him to rate a wavelength of light as "for girls" or "for boys." I told him that anyone can like whatever colour they want. But he now refuses to play with pink toys, because society has made it very clear that he's not supposed to touch them.

So yeah, maybe women would make fine plumbers and miners. We have typically pushed men into those roles. So we'll never know.

So don't call it a problem if you don't know it is a problem.

Worth looking at this before assuming that "society has pushed him".

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-pr...

To add to the amusement/despair value, pink used to be considered a boy's colour during Victorian times, because it was considered a stronger, bolder colour, whereas blue was more delicate and feminine and thus suitable for girls.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/10/pink-used-co...

It sounds like your son exercised his free will. Whether you influence him or society does, he ultimately has to be responsible for his choices. Some will be easy, some hard but it's a cliche to disagree with your child's choices.

Maybe he's comfortable with his gender and gender roles? Maybe that will help him get a wife someday and you grandchildren. It's not for everyone but maybe it will be for him.

I don’t “disagree with his choices.” I find it frustrating that our culture made him feel ashamed of liking his favourite colour. I find it frustrating that he is made to believe something as arbitrary as a wavelength of light is “for girls.”

A child should never feel ashamed of liking something as simple as a colour. That is ridiculous.

> Maybe he's comfortable with his gender and gender roles? Maybe that will help him get a wife someday and you grandchildren. It's not for everyone but maybe it will be for him.

Are you serious? He can get a wife or whatever he wants when he knows what that is. It is amusing to think that traditional "gender roles" would help in any way with that.

It isn't an arbitrary wavelength. It's an entire absorption spectrum.

If the wavelength were the determining factor, green would be gender-neutral, and purple would be androgynous.

Not that this particular societal prejudice could ever be explained rationally, of course.~

A lot of preferences don't differ; no one likes to be discriminated against, harassed, intimidated, made to feel stupid, etc.

Yet we know from data and endless personal stories that many women start out performing well and enjoying math and science in school, but then leave computing fields for cultural reasons--they feel uncomfortable or like there is a hard glass ceiling.

That is the problem--not the raw participation numbers, but the reasons behind the numbers.

If there was some natural preference of women away from computing, then the percentage of women in programming would be relatively fixed over time. What the data shows is that women have left computing fields in dramatic number over the last 30 years. Every study into why has shown that, to some extent, they have been driven out.

I agree that no one likes to be discriminated against which is why I take issue with the "too many white males in tech" narrative. The proposed solution is to discriminate against people like me.

I've never once worked somewhere where everybody didn't walk on eggshells to ensure not to offend anyone. Women who are being harassed and intimidated have legal recourse. It's practically career ending to end up on the wrong end of a sexual harassment complaint to HR.

>What the data shows is that women have left computing fields in dramatic number over the last 30 years. Every study into why has shown that, to some extent, they have been driven out.

Please cite your sources.

It feels awful to think that you might not get a job you wanted because of your gender or the color of your skin doesn't it? This can be a moment of introspection if you let it. Imagine feeling that way almost every day of your life.

There's a positive way and a negative to resolve the situation. The negative way is to impose hiring quotas, so that everyone--even white guys--feel the same fear of unfair denial. That's what you're talking about when you say:

> The proposed solution is to discriminate against people like me.

But there's another way. The positive way is for people to use their conscious intelligent mind to analyze and overrule the unconscious implicit biases that they grew up with, so everyone gets a fairer chance based on merit. For that to happen, a lot of people will need to a) believe it's a problem, and b) work out loud to fix it. Your comments are not moving the ball in that more positive direction, unfortunately.

> Please cite your sources.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+do+women+leave+tech

Thanks for the snarky link to your sources. That was uncalled for and entirely unhelpful. Most of the links I encountered cited that women left because it's a demanding work environment without a clear career path.

I have been in a position where I was overtly discriminated against because of my race and gender. It was in the early 90s and I was denied admission to a magnet elementary school that my older sister attended. The year I applied they took 50 out of 200. I scored 37th, but I wasn't chosen because diversity. There were lawsuits, and the practice was stopped. Now admissions are blind to race and gender. My younger brother also ended up attending that magnet program. It made a significant impact on the trajectory of my life, and it didn't feel any less terrible to be discriminated against because I am a white male.

A fairer chance based on merit isn't going to solve the gender / racial imbalance in tech. Tech is a meritocracy. Either your program works or it doesn't. The computer doesn't care at all whether or not you have "privilege."

I'm asking you to care. Part of caring is doing the least bit of homework on this stuff, on your own. Here are some excerpts from within the first 5 links in that SERP:

-------

> One-hundred-ninety-two women cited discomfort working in environments that felt overtly or implicitly discriminatory as a primary factor in their decision to leave tech. That’s just over a quarter of the women surveyed. Several of them mention discrimination related to their age, race, or sexuality in addition to gender and motherhood.

http://fortune.com/2014/10/02/women-leave-tech-culture/

--------

> A Harvard Business Review study from 2008 found that as many as 50% of women working in science, engineering and technology will, over time, leave because of hostile work environments.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-women-tech-20150222-st...

--------

> I first learned to code at age 16, and am now in my 30s. I have a math PhD from Duke. I still remember my pride in a “knight’s tour” algorithm that I wrote in C++ in high school; the awesome mind warp of an interpreter that can interpret itself (a Scheme course my first semester of college); my fascination with numerous types of matrix factorizations in C in grad school; and my excitement about relational databases and web scrapers in my first real job.

> Over a decade after I first learned to program, I still loved algorithms, but felt alienated and depressed by tech culture. While at a company that was a particularly poor culture fit, I was so unhappy that I hired a career counselor to discuss alternative career paths. Leaving tech would have been devastating, but staying was tough.

> ....

> Here is a sampling of just a few of the studies on unconscious gender bias:

> Investors preferred entrepreneurial ventures pitched by a man than an identical pitch from a woman by a rate of 68% to 32% in a study conducted jointly by HBS, Wharton, and MIT Sloan. “Male-narrated pitches were rated as more persuasive, logical and fact-based than were the same pitches narrated by a female voice.”

> In a randomized, double-blind study by Yale researchers, science faculty at 6 major institutions evaluated applications for a lab manager position. Applications randomly assigned a male name were rated as significantly more competent and hirable and offered a higher starting salary and more career mentoring, compared to identical applications assigned female names.

> When men and women negotiated a job offer by reading identical scripts for a Harvard and CMU study, women who asked for a higher salary were rated as being more difficult to work with and less nice, but men were not perceived negatively for negotiating.

> Psychology faculty were sent CVs for an applicant (randomly assigned male or female name), and both men and women were significantly more likely to hire a male applicant than a female applicant with an identical record.

> In 248 performance reviews of high-performers in tech, negative personality criticism (such as abrasive, strident, or irrational) showed up in 85% of reviews for women and just 2% of reviews for men. It is ridiculous to assume that 85% of women have personality problems and that only 2% of men do.

https://medium.com/tech-diversity-files/if-you-think-women-i...

------

> I have been in a position where I was overtly discriminated against because of my race and gender.

Then you should be more empathetic to what women experience in the tech industry, but apparently it has made you less empathetic. Which is a shame because success is not zero-sum. In fact, the easier it is for smart women and minorities to succeed, the more great companies and coworkers we will all have.

Correlation =/= Causation

> It just means, for example, that it probably would have been even harder if you were an Eastern European woman who grew up in a poor family.

That is an absurd, subjective, abstract theory with no research to back it. The same thing can be said of any sex, race or creed in virtually any instance of life. Get over yourself and quit acting like this is exclusive to white people.

White people did not invent sexism. Neither is it exclusive to them.

White people did not invent racism. Neither is it exclusive to them.

White people did not invent religion. Neither is it exclusive to them.

If we are talking about America, certain white people certainly profited from stirring up racism here for centuries.

We don't even have to look back to when slavery was legal, the blatant use of racism and dog-whistle politics to gain white racist's votes is well documented as being the core tenet to the Southern strategy.

> If we are talking about America, certain white people certainly profited from stirring up racism here for centuries.

Did you know that less than 1% of the population in America owned slaves in the 19th century? And some of those 1% where African? And that some of those slaves where European or Asian? And that all of those 1% are now dead and long gone?

> We don't even have to look back to when slavery was legal

I hope you realize, that you can turn back the clock and find fault with all races, sexes and creeds. You are being ignorant and singling out one race to fit your narrative of "White Privilege". This is the 21st century. Quit using 19th century white guilt to push an agenda.

Some white people a long time ago had slaves, therefore all white people including those that immigrated just recently are unfairly privileged. Yawn. It's such a nonsensical argument that I'm surprised anyone can even use it in a non sarcastic way.

Thank you for reading past the sentence you decided to respond to.

Gotta agree. You don't have to be a racist to benefit from racism; just look at the Federal Housing Administrations redlining policies and look at the great rates on home mortgages your grandparents got (if they're white Americans).

Why do people view this as an attack on their character? It's just a bunch of facts, spelled out in legislation.

> look at the great rates on home mortgages your grandparents got (if they're white Americans)

I am a "white American" and my grandfather grew up in a home with dirt floors then built his home with his own hands (twice, because his first home burned down). Quit making such pompous assumptions.

No one is attacking your grandfather. The previous poster is simply pointing out the better mortgage rates many white Americans of his generation would have received as a direct result of the racist culture.

From Wikipedia [1]

> For example, in Atlanta in the 1980s, a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles by investigative-reporter Bill Dedman showed that banks would often lend to lower-income whites but not to middle- or upper-income blacks.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

> No one is attacking your grandfather.

The previous poster said "your grandparents". A narrow minded assumption that every white person reading his comment would/should identify with.

> The previous poster is simply pointing out the better mortgage rates many white Americans of his generation would have received as a direct result of the racist culture.

Then quit complaining to the current generation(s). Grow up, start acting like an adult and move on with your life.

> in Atlanta in the 1980s

Yeah. One town. In the 1980s. So now what?

Did you know that in the 1920s, when Turkey over took the Ottoman empire, they slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians? A mass genocide that still has ripple effects until this very day.

Redlining is part of the immense capital transfer from blacks to hashtag-not-all-whites that America is famous for. Understanding this capital transfer is useful in considering why economic inequality persists today -- and you can certainly use it to figure out why parts of Appalachia and the South have such poor white populations as well.

It sounds like you're pretty emotional about your grandparents' life, and that's cool; it shouldn't preclude discussion of history that acknowledge the intentionally differential effects of Reconstruction, federal support for homeownership, federal sentencing laws for drug crimes, voting law, etc. These are all facts in history that have effects on what is possible now, because they have determined what we're starting from. Why say that the Armenians are still allowed to be traumatized about what happened in the 1920s while black Americans aren't allowed to talk about mortgages in the 1980s? It just isn't very logical. We should be able to talk about all of this.

> Why say that the Armenians are still allowed to be traumatized about what happened in the 1920s while black Americans aren't allowed to talk about mortgages in the 1980s? It just isn't very logical.

It wasn't logic...it was sarcasm. The Armenians have moved on with their lives and recognize that people are not guilty for the sins of our great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers.

You want to talk about mortgages in the 1980s? Great...and like I asked the last person..."So now what?" We tried sub-prime mortgages to combat that and look where that got us in 2008.

> Why say that the Armenians are still allowed to be traumatized about what happened in the 1920s while black Americans aren't allowed to talk about mortgages in the 1980s?

I think that was sarcasm, I think the point was why mortgages in 1980 and not genocide in 1920s - i.e. Where does it end?

Sounds like he didn't get a mortgage. Again, why are you taking this personally or as an attack on your character?

Sounds like he has bad credit and not enough for a down payment. Why are you shouting racism?