winscape 2190

I am not arguing for an exact 50-50 nose count. I am saying that a 90-10 nose count might be evidence that the winnowing-out process is skewed in way that favors the group with the 90. This skewing might be perfectly reasonable given the demands of the job -- I mean, if what you want is the physically strongest people, you probably are going to wind up with a group that's mostly if not all male, and there's not much you can do about that short of genetic engineering -- or it might not. Or the skewing might not be solely based on the demands of the job, and in that case perhaps you aren't actually getting the group of people best qualified to perform the job.

The skewing might not be a result of hard-and-fast policies, "no girls allowed" or "no boys allowed". It might be peer pressure, or it might be favoritism, maybe even unconscious, on the part of the people doing the winnowing out.

For example, I have heard that expecting grade-school children to sit down and be quiet favors girls, because for whatever reason boys are more likely to have trouble being still and quiet. I don't think anyone ever consciously said "let's insist on 'sit down and be quiet' so boys won't have as good a chance to succeed", but it might have that effect. If it's impossible to teach children who can't or won't be still and quiet, that would be one thing, but if it's possible to teach the not-still-and-quiet if the teaching methods are different, wouldn't that be the way to go?

No argument here. Some "cures" are worse than the disease.

But others aren't.

Which I am not disputing. I know there have been women in computing since the earliest days. I am fairly sure that, however confused I sometimes may be in these postings, I have not made a claim quite as ridiculous as "there aren't any women in this biz".

Let me repeat that: I am not saying there are no women in computing. What I am saying is that there are more men in computing than women. I would be surprised to hear anyone claim otherwise.

I'm not saying that it has to be exactly 50-50, but I'm saying that if it's 90-10, there might be something wrong. If you insist on my coming up with some proposed ratio that would make me say "okay, probably no problem here", maybe 60-40. I'm not sure.

Yes, it is. If getting a job as a monitor guru depended solely on ability and (well-informed) interest, would the monitor gurus be 50% male, 90% male, 100% male, 0% male, or what? I claim that we can't go by history, because it's not clear that getting such jobs depended solely on ability and interest. I think you are saying that that's hogwash, and yet some of your stories seem to indicate that men and women were treated differently in some place(s) you worked, based solely on gender.

I am told that in the not-so-distant past, the system of laws and customs in the US made it impossible for women to, for example, get a loan without a male co-signer. Fortunately it's not that way now. Would it have changed without a sometimes-silly NOW contingent making a lot of noise about discrimination? I think you are going to say it would have, because there were individual women pressuring men in decision-making positions. You may even have stories based on personal experience. I think you cited one in a previous discussion of this stuff. (I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, and I'm sure you'll correct me.)

My thinking is that the vocal, sometimes shrill, groups have a beneficial effect overall, if for no other reason than because what they advocate is so extreme that smaller changes start to seem reasonable by comparison. I might be wrong about this, though.

I don't want to force them to change. I want a serious discussion of whether the process that produces them really selects, for whatever job it is, the people best qualified to do the job, or whether it selects people who most closely resemble those who have done the job in the past, or some other criterion other than "best qualified to do the job".

Let me try again to explain about her. (I wonder if she will ever read this, and if so what she will make of what I've said.) As far as I can tell, she doesn't mind being in a field where most of the other students are male. She has never, ever, said to me that maybe most women just aren't very good at computing, and that's why there are so few of them in the field. What she has said, or at least implied (to the best of my understanding), is that efforts to get more women in computing will likely result in there being a lot of what I called "girly girls" -- women who fit the stereotype of being interested in shopping and clothes and like that -- and that she does not want that. I get the sense that this is not about who's best qualified to do the work, but about keeping computing as the preserve of the geeky, so she will continue to fit in and feel comfortable. She's not bothered by being the only girl. She might be bothered by being the only geek.

Maybe she'd appreciate being cast in the role of defender of sanity against "PC idiots". Maybe not.

There's also a certain satisfaction to be had in thinking "well, most girls can't do this, but *I* can!" I have no idea if she feels that way. But it would certainly be a reason (conscious or unconscious) to oppose efforts to include more women.

But back to why don't I try buttuming that having a lot more men than women in a field is perfectly natural and not something that needs changing.

Maybe it's just that I'm too biased toward a bunch of vaguely leftist ideas that I suspect you find wrong-headed, but here's my justification ("rationalization", if you prefer):

I hear a lot of stories from women who say that their opinions and work are valued less than those of their male counterparts. Sometimes it's really obvious, sometimes more subtle. I believe these stories, and I think they (particularly the less subtle ones) are evidence that the selection process is influenced by factors other than "who is best qualified for this work?"

By the way, I believe your stories too. I just don't like the conclusions you draw from them, and I don't think the conclusions follow.

Nah, she'd probably just decide that rather than double-majoring in physics and CS (the current plan), she'd just get a degree in physics. Then she could take the same CS clbuttes she's taking now, but skip the (hypothetical) ones that required NOW membership.

-- B. L. Mbuttingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.