And I doubt its a strict sexism problem, either. My engineer friends are the most negative group of friends I have. By miles.
Criticism is great, but the negative attitudes I see among them (and here, and Reddit) upset the hell out of me, and I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't as-big of a problem.
Idealists (as many in STEM are) who are smart is a deadly combination. You know just how terrible the world you live in is, and no matter how hard you work you keep hearing more bad news.
Sometimes I wish my brain had an off button so I can stop reading about North Korea (or remembering how "behind" I am from my peers) and instead go watch Celebrity Big Brother or whatever is showing today.
North Korea isn't itself very scary. What is scary is the fact that over decades they have threatened to attack everyone around them, and the surrounding powers have responded by extending food and economic aid, in a repeating pattern. The North Koreans know this -- they know it works -- so they do it again and again, and their citizens remain captives of a throwback regime. That's what's scary.
I find international politics interesting. Fear isn't really a motivation.
* Yes, I am going to hell. I am also working on a comic to bleed off my socially unacceptable jokes. Sorry. I could have resisted temptation. I just chose not to. Mmkay?
Edit: Or perhaps the disclaimer is the real joke, since I mostly meant the first part.
Irrelevant segueway: I also like the comic "Darwin Carmichael is going to hell."
If you said that, if you took that position, I would strongly recommend that you do what you can to ignore those kinds of feelings.
It's my belief that women have a natural place in science and technology, but caring too much about social trivia and language (as with the recent PyCon episode) represents a pointless diversion that can only hold women back.
Would you want to be treated by a doctor who fainted at the sight of blood? I think you would prefer one who didn't care about that, who looked beyond it to something more important like a diagnosis and a cure. By the same token, people in science and technology need to be able to look beyond the petty annoyances and focus their attention on more important things.
Wouldn't it be ironic and deplorable if history recorded that an entire generation of highly skilled women didn't enter the ranks of modern science and technology because they sometimes overheard ambiguous remarks about "dongles", "forking" and "sausages"?
To say this in the most concise way, what price sanctimony?
If you are both a woman and crass, and the person persists in annoying you, maybe try telling menstruation-themed jokes or anecdotes. But, if you are both a woman and crass, chances are you don't need me to tell you how to rid yourself of unwanted company.
The type of bigotry you just exhibited is way, way down the list of priorities. But most of the higher priorities are complicated and nuanced[0][1], but the thing you said is just straight-up wrong.
[0] E.g. affirmative action is complicated and nuanced.
[1] E.g. assuming a randomly-selected conventional-looking women at a tech convention is not a developer is... totally horrible, but also rational, given the distribution.
But don't let me deny you your savory helping of sanctimony there.
And actually, if counter-trolling is how you frame your comment, then I have to say, you're doing it wrong. The correct response to trolls is to silently downvote. This is called "don't feed the trolls", and it's the right strategy because genuine trolls are encouraged by counter-trolling, and this would result in more noise and less signal. Alternately you can try to say something that will be useful to other people, while still downvoting and ignoring the troll.
Then what is it you've been up to here while responding to me?
Your troll strategy is tiring lectures, while I opt for a slightly more economical approach. Potato, potato.
I don't think "scares away" is accurate. There are reasons women don't get into tech, but I don't think being scared is high on the list. I also think this will change over time -- I think social perceptions are changing and technical and scientific occupations are gradually being seen less as a male approach to processing reality and more gender-neutral.
For all our sakes, I hope this is true.
That's circular. It tries to say that women are a minority in tech because they drop out in larger numbers than men, because ... they're a minority. I don't this logic stands up under scrutiny.
The remedy is not to care about that. If I had to choose between being scared and having a boring life in which my gifts weren't fully exercised -- well, that would be much more scary. So even if we compare scary things, as I see it, being a member of a minority is rather low on the scary list.
What was interesting, is that there's 20% non-straight guys, which is 4-5 times higher than the general population. This is really interesting to me.
I think it got flagged to death because it came across as backlash, which it wasn't.
I'm not disagreeing that some women are scared away, but I can't fully expect that its the only reason for this gender imbalance.
As a guy, I can't really answer that. It'd take asking women outside of tech as to why they never considered it... Not just asking women in tech what they dislike about the gender imbalance in tech.
There is a lot of talk about what’s innate and what’s acquired. Characteristics we considered male or female for centuries are constantly being proven a result of nurture, either completely or by a large part, as tiny innate differences that grow intro troublesome gaps with social conditioning. Modern neuroscience keeps demonstrating how adaptable our brains are, and how society takes on the role of conditioning them on fixed gender roles from an incredibly young age. Have you ever noticed how gendered toys or child TV programmes are? How many people keep telling little girls they’re pretty and little boys that they’re smart or brave? That’s only the start of a rabbit hole that goes quite deep…
The same can be said about how stereotypes, personality types and culture scares away certain races, certain subcultures, certain age groups etc.
It's not as simple as "scares away half the population"; it might be so much as "scares away 95% of the population", of which there is an unknown percentage that would not be scared if some small part of any part of how tech looks to the outside changed.
And then there's a question of how many of those are really scared off.
I'd actually be curious to see what kind of sexual orientation distribution there is also. I wonder if it'd fall in line with the general population.
Created: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5520651
(Edit: Not sure why this poll has been killed. It was created as a serious poll to satisfy my curiosity, not as backlash! It was actually yielding some really interesting information, in particular the higher proportion of non-straight people than is normal in the general population.)
(Edit again: now been unbanned!)