girl programmers
I don't know if I would call it a horrible time, I for one strongly dislike androgyny. I would agree that a person's gender should have no impact on their career field but the idea of a dystopian state of forced equality makes me cringe. It's why I disagree with Pravesh Koirala about "doing something about it", if women want to work in the field they are welcome as long as they bring the required skill set. But to launch some campaign to encourage or glorify the female programmers just so that we have more female programmers is the wrong idea.
Then what's the problem?
@Computergeek01,
It seems like you and I have the same outlook.
@Computergeek01,
It seems like you and I have the same outlook.
| So, you're saying he's sexist? That still doesn't explain what gender has to do with it. |
Well if he was sexist then gender has everything to do with it. Can't be sexist without mentioning it.
| There are not many yellow-eyed programmers that I know of either. |
I've never seen a yellow-eyed person in the world, just cartoons and comic books.
Well I've never met an programmer of any sexist remarks or racists remarks. I did my degree online and never met any of the instructors or fellow students in person. I have never met any of you in person, so for all I know you could be the Hunchback, Mr. Rogers, or Rumpelstiltskin. I don't work as a programmer either so I have never met another programmer. The programmers I consort with are all online in text form.
Some people just want to know because of the fact that they never have seen them. Same question can be said about pilots. In the trips I've taken, I have never heard a female voice come over the PA before the plane takes off. It's not a matter of sexist, it is a matter of curiosity.
| It's mostly trolling, but some people take race seriously (no idea why) which only makes the trolls stronger. |
Your remarks seem more trolling than his question about good female programmers. Seems like you have a set mindset and anything that doesn't match what you think makes no sense to you. Like with the pseudocode thread a while back and now this.
Last edited on by closed account z6A9GNh0
OFF-TOPIC: In case you're wondering BHXSpecter I'm Mr Rogers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDLkRPuNi5U
| Sometimes people with jaundice have yellow eyes. |
Yes, that is due to medical condition of the blood. Being a woman, African American, blue-eyed, etc isn't due to a medical condition. Jaundice can affect more than one race and either sex so it would be reaching as at that point you would be trying to find out what programmers have jaundice.
| OFF-TOPIC: In case you're wondering BHXSpecter I'm Mr Rogers |
Nice.
Last edited on by closed account z6A9GNh0
Saying the issue is the same as worrying about whether programmers are blue-eyed, or black, is a logical error.
The reality is that the IT industry is hostile to women. That does not mean that it is not possible for a woman to get a good job in the industry. It does not mean that there are not places within the industry that are friendly toward women. But the vast majority of it is antagonistic to women, for one simple reason: it is dominated by males with a higher incidence of specific characteristics than is found in the general population.
Whether we like it or not, sexism is very much alive and well in today's world, particularly in higher-end IT jobs, like programming.
Believe it or not, women get tired of hearing the "programmer with boobs" type of commentary, because they hear it a whole lot.
There is nothing sexist about recognizing that a woman is a woman. But it is sexist to categorize her in unflattering ways because of it.
These problems do not exist in microcosm, they are societal. Little girls are not raised to become computer programmers. They are not taught the same way.
My wife is calling me -- I need to go help her out with dinner. :O)
[edit]Fixed typo above.
The reality is that the IT industry is hostile to women. That does not mean that it is not possible for a woman to get a good job in the industry. It does not mean that there are not places within the industry that are friendly toward women. But the vast majority of it is antagonistic to women, for one simple reason: it is dominated by males with a higher incidence of specific characteristics than is found in the general population.
Whether we like it or not, sexism is very much alive and well in today's world, particularly in higher-end IT jobs, like programming.
Believe it or not, women get tired of hearing the "programmer with boobs" type of commentary, because they hear it a whole lot.
There is nothing sexist about recognizing that a woman is a woman. But it is sexist to categorize her in unflattering ways because of it.
These problems do not exist in microcosm, they are societal. Little girls are not raised to become computer programmers. They are not taught the same way.
My wife is calling me -- I need to go help her out with dinner. :O)
[edit]Fixed typo above.
Last edited on
@Duoas
You mean nerds? [/stereotype]
I think this topic is a perfect example of what the problem is in the real world: we're overthinking/analyzing it. If, instead of saying "Oh Em Gee, a girl programmer?!" while pointing and staring, people would say "Hey look a girl programmer." and go on with their day, then things wouldn't be so awkward and it would be easier for women to integrate. Of course, as long as women are a rare sight in these environments, chances are you'll get more reactions of the first type.
| But the vast majority of it is antagonistic to women, for one simple reason: it is dominated by males with a higher incidence of specific characteristics than is found in the general population. |
You mean nerds? [/stereotype]
I think this topic is a perfect example of what the problem is in the real world: we're overthinking/analyzing it. If, instead of saying "Oh Em Gee, a girl programmer?!" while pointing and staring, people would say "Hey look a girl programmer." and go on with their day, then things wouldn't be so awkward and it would be easier for women to integrate. Of course, as long as women are a rare sight in these environments, chances are you'll get more reactions of the first type.
Surely it's just a question of probability.
Men seem to like to tinker with tech more, ergo more male programmers.
Same reasons there's more male Sunday league football teams than there are female. That isn't to say females don't play, just that numbers suggest that males have a tendency to be more interested in that sort of thing.
You can pick it apart at any level you want but at the end of the day it's a generalisation either way.
Men seem to like to tinker with tech more, ergo more male programmers.
Same reasons there's more male Sunday league football teams than there are female. That isn't to say females don't play, just that numbers suggest that males have a tendency to be more interested in that sort of thing.
You can pick it apart at any level you want but at the end of the day it's a generalisation either way.
Are men naturally attracted to football, or is that simply something that has grown on us? Personally, I'm not a fan of watching sports, but many of my friends are. The only link I can find is they have family who watched sports frequently, while I didn't.
Playing sports is a different thing, but I could ask the same question: are girls by nature less interested in playing some sports, or are they just judged "not ladylike"? On several occassions, I've seen a girl being disallowed to play football (and once: buy a football) by her parents (usually mom). And I'm in quite a "progressive" country.
Playing sports is a different thing, but I could ask the same question: are girls by nature less interested in playing some sports, or are they just judged "not ladylike"? On several occassions, I've seen a girl being disallowed to play football (and once: buy a football) by her parents (usually mom). And I'm in quite a "progressive" country.
Couldn't possibly say whether the attraction is natural or otherwise.
Just talking statistics more than anything else. Could be that it's a base alpha instinct in which men feel they need to compete. Mostly I think that's bollocks. I have no logical reasoning for it, nor do I care to accept one. I simply look around, see that there's more men interested in football and take the world as it is, continuing on my merry way. :-)
It's pretty poor parenting to disallow a child to do something creative and stimulating based on their gender or anything else (within acceptable reason). I'm sure it's not a fair reflection of your country and would hope it's the minority of parents (worldwide) that think like that.
Where are you from, by the way?
Just talking statistics more than anything else. Could be that it's a base alpha instinct in which men feel they need to compete. Mostly I think that's bollocks. I have no logical reasoning for it, nor do I care to accept one. I simply look around, see that there's more men interested in football and take the world as it is, continuing on my merry way. :-)
It's pretty poor parenting to disallow a child to do something creative and stimulating based on their gender or anything else (within acceptable reason). I'm sure it's not a fair reflection of your country and would hope it's the minority of parents (worldwide) that think like that.
Where are you from, by the way?
Last edited on
Belgium.
I don't fully share your view to "take the world as it is". If inequalities exist because men and women are different by "design", then that's okay. If inequalities exist because our society forces every girl to dream of being a princess and teaches them that there is no greater goal than to be a good wife, then I would have a problem with that.
Statistics and "it's always been that way" isn't enough to justify inequality.
I don't fully share your view to "take the world as it is". If inequalities exist because men and women are different by "design", then that's okay. If inequalities exist because our society forces every girl to dream of being a princess and teaches them that there is no greater goal than to be a good wife, then I would have a problem with that.
Statistics and "it's always been that way" isn't enough to justify inequality.
| If inequalities exist because men and women are different by "design", then that's okay. |
Screw design. It's a crappy design filled with errors.
You've misinterpreted what I meant.
I don't believe society or anyone should ever dictate what an individual can do, regardless of sex, race, religion or creed.
The point I was making is that there could be some reason certain types of people are attracted to certain things. I just don't have the desire to look into such things. I just observe that certain people tend to like or excel at certain things. I'm not calculating any social, economic of geographical factors into that equation because it's simply an observation.
I can generally say that the NBA is made mostly of black men. There's probably a ton of reasons or theories about this but I have no desire to know why. I merely know that, statistically, it is.
I don't believe society or anyone should ever dictate what an individual can do, regardless of sex, race, religion or creed.
The point I was making is that there could be some reason certain types of people are attracted to certain things. I just don't have the desire to look into such things. I just observe that certain people tend to like or excel at certain things. I'm not calculating any social, economic of geographical factors into that equation because it's simply an observation.
I can generally say that the NBA is made mostly of black men. There's probably a ton of reasons or theories about this but I have no desire to know why. I merely know that, statistically, it is.
Last edited on
@iHutch:
I know you didn't mean that; I just take it one step further: it's not only about not dictating, but also a more passive way of funneling one type of person into a certain interest. Do girls play with dolls because they like it, or because their parents buy it for them? Even if most parents don't mean to dictate/force them in any direction, it could still be a matter of biased exposure.
Just like when there's a baby on the way, and people ask "Should I buy pink or blue pyjamas?". Are girls actually more inclined to like pink, or is it a self-fulfilling prophecy?
(P.S.: That's the excuse I'll be using to have my babies run around naked until they can dress themselves. "I don't want to make the choice for them!", I'll say, carelessly playing a few more turns of Civilization 27.)
| I don't believe society or anyone should ever dictate what an individual can do, regardless of sex, race, religion or creed. |
I know you didn't mean that; I just take it one step further: it's not only about not dictating, but also a more passive way of funneling one type of person into a certain interest. Do girls play with dolls because they like it, or because their parents buy it for them? Even if most parents don't mean to dictate/force them in any direction, it could still be a matter of biased exposure.
Just like when there's a baby on the way, and people ask "Should I buy pink or blue pyjamas?". Are girls actually more inclined to like pink, or is it a self-fulfilling prophecy?
(P.S.: That's the excuse I'll be using to have my babies run around naked until they can dress themselves. "I don't want to make the choice for them!", I'll say, carelessly playing a few more turns of Civilization 27.)
Last edited on
| A hundred or so years ago, pink was a boys colour and blue was for girls. |
really?
In some places. The current broad consensus dates from the middle of the twentieth century. It's no more than a social consensus.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2831/was-pink-originally-the-color-for-boys-and-blue-for-girls
Last edited on
The "men's nature" and probability stuff is missing the point. It is not men's nature to be more interested in science gadgets.
Little boys are taught to be interested in science stuff.
Girls can grasp this concept easier than boys simply because society puts such an onus on girls to be a certain way, whereas society's pressure on men is more agreeable to the vast majority of men -- because they get more privileges.
It is natural to ostracize those who don't fit your idea of "normal".
(Probability only documents what is likely to happen based on observation -- it is not a causal factor in what will or does happen.)
I really am not making this up. This is actual sociology, and it has been studied and documented to death and beyond spinning in the grave. (Whereas the armchair psychologists you find on message boards can claim whatever they think is right about human nature.)
+1
Little boys are taught to be interested in science stuff.
Girls can grasp this concept easier than boys simply because society puts such an onus on girls to be a certain way, whereas society's pressure on men is more agreeable to the vast majority of men -- because they get more privileges.
It is natural to ostracize those who don't fit your idea of "normal".
(Probability only documents what is likely to happen based on observation -- it is not a causal factor in what will or does happen.)
I really am not making this up. This is actual sociology, and it has been studied and documented to death and beyond spinning in the grave. (Whereas the armchair psychologists you find on message boards can claim whatever they think is right about human nature.)
| Gaminic wrote: |
|---|
| I think this topic is a perfect example of what the problem is in the real world: we're overthinking/analyzing it. If, instead of saying "Oh Em Gee, a girl programmer?!" while pointing and staring, people would say "Hey look a girl programmer." and go on with their day, then things wouldn't be so awkward and it would be easier for women to integrate. Of course, as long as women are a rare sight in these environments, chances are you'll get more reactions of the first type. |
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.