> and it isn't just a big calculator
I'm not sure you've thought this argument through.
Are you suggesting that women are naturally better-suited to mathematics and theoretical engineering then men are? You think that the male shift in CS was because the field became less theoretical, and men realized that the field wasn't only offering analytic/abstract challenges?
I'd love if in these types of debates we could all standardize on what the inherent biological differences are that we're talking about, but it always seems to me like proponents have a hard time doing that. The theories fluidly evolve, flip around, and transform to meet every example and statistic, their only constant being the belief that cultural solutions to how fields are presented, taught, and managed should be off the table. Hence the pseudoscience concerns I have above.
----
The point I brought up in my original comment was that all of these arguments:
- that women don't like analytic/abstract thinking
- that women don't like practical/applied thinking jobs
- that women prefer fuzzy-creative tasks instead of hard-creative tasks
- that women care about people more than concepts
- that women prefer social jobs and men prefer isolated work
- that women naturally avoid careers with high amounts of conflict like upper management positions
they're all brought up by their proponents as if they're obvious conclusions, despite the fact that they're often mutually exclusive claims, and despite the fact that even when they do contradict each other they still all use the exact same evidence and justifications as "proof" for their obvious-ness. Most of these theories aren't the result of real scientific research, they're rationalizations for current outcomes that start from a position that the outcomes necessarily must have a biological explanation.
It's hard for me to have a lot of respect for that. And these people want to claim that the people who are actually testing social theories about gender gaps are the unscientific ones. Their definition of the "scientific" way to approach gender is to just assume everything is biological and to never question the status quo.
> Are you suggesting that women are naturally better-suited to mathematics and theoretical engineering then men are?
I have thought it through, but thanks for your concern. Mathematics is close to gender parity, engineering is not. When computer science shifted from being closer to math to being closer to engineering you saw the population attending shift to match engineering rather than math ratios. It is that simple, and it matches observed data perfectly with how CS curve went upwards matching the curve for math but in the late 80's it took a quick nose dive and followed the curve for engineering ever since.
I am not sure why you bring up suitability to study a field though, nowhere did I say that men are better at anything than women and vice versa. People study what they find interesting, not necessarily what they are good at.
But you are right, we know that women are more willing to study the purer more theoretical classes over the engineering versions. I don't see how that would contradict anything.
Where are you getting this data from? Mathematics has a pretty noticeable gender gap, it's not at all close to parity.
Besides, if your theory is correct, we shouldn't see parity. We should see women dominate the field, the same way that they dominated early computing. Even in a world with an actual 50/50 split in mathematics (which again, is not the current world), your theory still doesn't explain why women were over-represented in early computing, even after WW2 when men had returned home.
----
Let's make some other predictions based on your theory while we're at it.
If what you're saying is correct and women are primed to find theoretical fields more interesting than men do, we might expect to see a higher proportion of women in research positions for hospitals than in practical positions like nursing, and similarly we might expect to see a higher proportion of men in practical medical fields like nursing and direct care.
Do we see that? No.
If your theory is correct and women are inherently more interested in theoretical fields, we should expect to see a gender inbalance in teaching fields based on education levels and practicality of subject. So for example, we should expect to see more men teaching lower-level mathematics and intro programming where their work has a direct impact on people's day-to-day life, and more women teaching higher-level mathematics and abstract programming courses in higher education settings.
Do we see that? No.
You've globbed onto an explanation based on one statistic because it might explain that statistic. You haven't formed a widely applicable explanation that can be used across the board to explain the different statistics that we see throughout multiple fields, or that can be used to predict what statistics we will see in the future.
That is a lie, they were never over-represented in computer science. It is based on a small uptick in the 80's, math made an uptick at the same time and is now close to parity while computer science didn't follow the math curve.
There where a lot of women working on the first computers since at the time most computers were women and they had to hand off their work, but the field computer science was always male.
> Where are you getting this data from? Mathematics has a pretty noticeable gender gap, it's not at all close to parity.
Are you arguing without even knowing about the data?
You can see curves here, math is 40%, computer science made an uptick in the 80's for women at the same time women started to go into physical sciences and maths and engineering. Then Computer science made the anomalous dive down to engineering levels. When people say that women disappeared from computer science they are talking about that short uptick in the 80's, that is all it is based on:
> You can see curves here, math is 40%
A 40/60 split in mathematics does not support your claim that women prefer abstract thinking more than men do, and also incidentally is a pretty noticeable gender gap to most people, hence the large amount of discussion you can find online about gender gaps in mathematics fields and mathematics testing.
I never claimed that women prefer abstract thinking more than men do. I claimed that women prefer abstract thinking more than they prefer working with machines relative men. It would be massive if women in engineering or computer science were anything close to 40/60.
> Come on. Your graph starts in 1971 and you're using that to argue about differences in the 1960s.
You have provided no data supporting your claim. I wont dig up more data just because you can't look for it yourself. You are obviously ignorant about this topic and don't want to educate yourself.