Totally agree. I remember talking to a girl in math class, who, while she liked the idea of using Python to solve problems, when I tried to extoll the virtues of CS to her so that maybe she'd take more courses, she regaled to me how her dad is a programmer and how miserable his job appeared to her.
Some people get titles like "code ninja", although I suppose "fancy" isn't really the right word for that.
The entrepreneurial disruption mentality historically has been a "we are sick of your bullcrap and trappings, you idiots haven't been listening so we'll start our own".
That it has worked repeatedly and utterly devestated many titans corporations run by "professional" men in suits effectively validated their iconoclasm and rejection of the standards of old. It may be arrogance but there were enough validating moments to understand why.
Suits have taken on a negative connotation. It is implicitly seen as hidebound dinosaurdom and an admission of form over function. Sort of an assumption that if they are wearing a fancy suit then they are an empty suit.
Like, that just doesn't look cool. I've been saying this for years. It's no wonder it doesn't look sexy nor command much respect. Especially not compared to a guy wearing a well tailored suit.
Sure, it feels good, but that's the same rationale for wearing crocs. You feel great until you look down and realize you're wearing crocs.
I think you got it wrong. That suit guy has to wear it, because his trade demands it, most likely for that image which has to be conveyed. That programmer can afford to wear that hoodie and still to demand his salary, yet nothing limits him to the hoodie outfit, you see?
And my contention was that programmers choosing to dress in hoodies and casual pants doesn't seem to help, whether they have a choice to wear it or not nor whether it has any bearing on their salary.
To put it in other words, person might see a programmer guy in a hoodie on his way to the office, and that guy might very well command a six figure salary, but that's not the observer's perception or first thought.
I'm not arguing about which is right or just, I'm just arguing about the reasons of why things are the way they are.
And maybe, you might think: who cares? Let them think that. Which, again, fair enough. But in the overall grand picture, if a lot of people have similar perceptions, it might not bode well for our profession overall. I mean, it's not just about attracting the opposite sex, it's also, as some already stated, inspiring more people to do take up computer science.
The testing or whatever tips on the toilets also felt a little invasive.
Not that it disproves your statement that the titles are uncommon, but hey, I just want to stand up and say "Hey, us professional hackers and ninjas and cowboys are REAL!"
If you want there to be a 'we', that would be called a workers' union.
'Professional' is when you have a strong union that forces companies to treat you as a human being, something they'd much rather not bother with.
Sorry for the confusion. We as in "We men" not as in "We HN readers". I was just speaking as a man.
Is there any evidence that women are more likely to choose careers with high social prestige?
I find this doubtful, since in North America at least the traditionally female-dominated job sectors seem to be the ones with lower social prestige. Compare the prestige of a nurse with a cardiac surgeon: which is more stereotypically male?
India also has problems it seems, eg http://bwsmartcities.businessworld.in/article/Is-India-Inc-C.... I wouldn’t say any country has really solved this problem.
People in Canada at least don't do more than pay lip service to those professions. They're remunerated poorly and yes, they have low social prestige.
If you wanna pick up a girl at a bar, do you lie and tell her you're a nurse? No, you tell her you're a cardiologist.
Nobody really respects nurses and teachers. Not saying I like it, but that's how it is.
That's assuming women are after social status, which is a strong claim.
Primary school teaching and nursing are low status professions, and they're both dominated by women. If you're going to try and explain gender imbalances exclusively via reference to status you need to explain why it's not universally predictive.
Lots of people have spent lots of time looking at this. What's predictive is working with systems vs people. Jobs that involve tinkering with machines all day = men. Jobs that involve people and especially with a caring aspect to it = women. Finance is largely about abstract "machines" like markets, where you never see the faces of the people you're trading with = men.
Not many jobs are totally balanced 50/50 men/women, but those that are tend to be perceived as having a blend of systems/people work e.g. sales (where sales includes jobs like tele-sales or travelling sales).
I totally agree with you. I believe this is one of the factors why women hesitate to enter the field. They are more socially aware than we are.
Also, even in IT areas, technical capable people are relegated. We get good salaries but we don't get fancy titles. We are the only profession that allows to be managed by outsiders. Financial firms(and finance departments) are always headed by a experts in the field, same with lawyers, architects and finance. But we are managed by people that are not experts.