In Talibanism in Technology, Deepa Kandaswamy lists seven reasons why women in technology remain invisible. Unfortunately, Deepa leaves out two important factors: interest and ego.
Most women I have met, regardless of age and background, are simply not interested in technology. While they do get impressed with latest electronic gadgets, they don't seem to get the same kind of urge that drove my son to spend an entire day tearing apart my old Dell laptop when he was 7 years old. Without that seemingly innate interest in technology, one cannot excel in it.
Also, most women seem to have relatively smaller ego-sphere (aka personal space) than guys do. Ego-spheres are present not just in the physical realm but also in virtual realms like CVS, history, and mindspace. Since most women seem not as interested in asserting their ego as guys, their presence in those virtual realms will be smaller.
Come on ladies, give Don a sound beating. He asked for it. ;-p
Update:
Thinking more about my comment on ego-sphere, I think guys give other guys more space than they would girls, probably to avoid conflict. When people sit down in a long chair like the one see in subway trains, guys sitting next to girls will open their legs wide but guys sitting next to guys will be more moderate.
Of course, there are tiresome jerks who break this unspoken rule. Tiresome because giving in to them is not an option. Being male is not easy.
I don't think you need a beating. Don't get me wrong, I think you're comments are really weak (especially compared to most of your other comments). But if I'm right, and your comments are the result of having the wrong impression, it's probably agressive responses (beatings) from Political Correctness freaks that keep you from getting a better impression.
First of all, e564ea04-5ac2-4e17-ac0f-b18369b738dd is full of assumptions and it's patrionizing. Phrases like, "Unfortunately, Deepa leaves out two important factors..." are insulting and condescending. Even if what followed had more to it, the intro still wouldn't be helpful or respectful.
To get to the meat of it, the main comment I have is an objection to the line of reasoning that says women don't excel in technology because they aren't interested and don't assert themselves. My experence is different from yours:
* I've met proportionally few women over the years that were involved with technology, but they almost all excelled. I don't often get women interviewing for jobs at my company, but those that do are better candidates.
* Girls are different from boys, for sure, and stereotypes are far more helpful than people give them credit for. All the same, *everybody* gives my daughter dolls and kitchen toys and she plays with my nephew's trucks and soccer balls as often as not. This kind of thing happens way too much.
* My daughter plays with my computers as much or more than my buddies' sons with theirs. I have a feeling that if she stops doing so, it will be as much because of peoples assumptions as with her innate female differences.
* When I make judgements about women asserting their ego, I try to remember what they are like competing against each other in their own traditionally female worlds. They can be scary with each other. It is in them, it's just not showing up in certain arenas. Why? Who knows, but Kandaswamy's article sounds better conceived than certain others.
http://mamamusings.net/archives/2003/08/04/are_women_really_less_interested_in_computers.php
I also wrote about it last January:
http://mamamusings.net/archives/2003/01/14/girls_and_computers.php
If it was me, I'm no longer in the biz of fighting for women's voice and technology, Don. Did a lousy job of it, decided to move on. But thank you for thinking of me.
Shelley, sorry about dropping an 'e'. I missed your posts, that's all.
Steve, if my words seemed condescending to you, you misinterpreted them. Some women are talented, interested, and assertive. I am all for removing any discouraging factors against women in technology. What I tried to say in my post is that, in absence of those discouraging factors, will women choose to work with technology? If not, should we try to encourage them and why?
Heh.
Is there is any reason to believe girls and women *wouldn't* choose to work with technology w/out the discouraging factors? What is your guess? Mine (full of prejudices) is that they might still be slightly less interested than men, proportionally. Maybe it would be one techie girl for every five such boys. Maybe, also, the world's technological progress would triple due by adding all the new perspectives and skills of the quick chicks.
What should we do? We shouln't encourage them, we should just get out of the way of the women who want to play and the girls who don't know yet. Then, we should play rough -- they can dish it just fine.
PS - I don't want to blow smoke up your a**, but I figure if I'm going to post some comments I should give due props: I only read two blogs and yours is obviously one of them. I think some of your words (not you) are condescending, but most of them seem uniquely intelligent and interesting. Keep truckin.
As to whether we should encourage them toward technology, I think exposure is important so they can make a choice. What I don't want to see continue happening is 'good career' being the primary motive. Too many people, regardless of sex, get into CS thinking it will lead to a good career even though they have no interest and, often enough, no talent. Whatever one's job is, it should be fun and satisfying IMHO.
Maybe I am an exception but the projects I chose to work in my long career were chosen primarily because they were fun and exciting. This ended up meaning not repeating same kind of projects. Well, I did build IDEs one too many times but one was for Windows and the other one was for the Web. And I work on my own projects primarily because it's fun. If they weren't fun, I doubt I would have finished any of them.
Comment has been disabled for this post.
