<p>All I can add is that at one of my jobs, all of which are IT, the three managerial levels above me are held by women. I definitely agree that we need more women in tech. I'm just wondering why the women in our mailing list haven't chimed in with their point of view.</p>
<p>Sent from mobile.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 24, 2012 11:49 AM, "Christopher Smith" <<a href="mailto:cbsmith@gmail.com">cbsmith@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM, John Kreznar <<a href="mailto:jek@ininx.com">jek@ininx.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> In a message purporting to be from "juanslayton @<a href="http://dslextreme.com" target="_blank">dslextreme.com</a>"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:juanslayton@dslextreme.com">juanslayton@dslextreme.com</a>> but lacking a digital signature, it is<br>
> written:<br>
><br>
>> ... My daughter (Rebecca Marie Slayton) took her PhD at Harvard, but<br>
>> did most of her hands-on research at MIT. ... she has occasionally<br>
>> been the recipient of condescending treatment by male colleagues. And<br>
>> by the media, which is a source of particular irritation. Things are<br>
>> getting better, but it's still gonna take time.<br>
><br>
> Still, to deny the likelihood of a correlation between gender and<br>
> science aptitude, just as there is between most pairs of measurements of<br>
> human individuals, is, as Dustin says, to bend science. Politically<br>
> correct, yes; true, not necessarily.<br>
<br>
I dunnoh that this is going on. The politically correct attitude is<br>
that there could be *more* women in tech if some changes were made,<br>
not necessarily that there'd be as many or more (hard to prove either<br>
way, but seems likely). The larger PC problem is this: even within the<br>
industry we seem incredibly stupid about our interpretation of<br>
statistics, and equally stupid about how to react to the reality that<br>
the field is male dominated. I mean really, how stupid do you have to<br>
be to ignore the reality that the prevalence of bias against women in<br>
tech has a Darwinian effect, such that it is completely idiotic to<br>
assume a woman who *is* in the field lacks aptitude or interest or is<br>
likely to speak up without having something important to say.<br>
<br>
The disturbing thing is that this plays out only for certain industry<br>
minorities (women and to a lesser degree, seniors), but for the most<br>
part for others. For example, industry demographics definitely show<br>
under representation of those of African descent, but I have yet to<br>
see a young male African American programmer ignored, overlooked or<br>
have their talent disrespected like I see all too often with women,<br>
and the industry is not rife with unintended insults to Africans. I<br>
don't like the explanations I can come up with for this observation.<br>
<br>
>> I think the more serious question is, "Why aren't there more of<br>
>> _anybody_ going into tech?" Nobody is going to get brownie points for<br>
>> scientific ignorance.<br>
><br>
> Yep. Technical illiteracy has to go the way of illiteracy in natural<br>
> language. Illiterates simply cannot cope in the modern world.<br>
<br>
But the two aren't necessarily uncorrelated. Not only is there the<br>
issue of people not always being interested in careers with<br>
demographic skews, but when your industry appeals to a narrow type<br>
(and I'd argue the industry is narrow enough to focus beyond just<br>
"young male", but that's a big chunk), it tends to shape the job & the<br>
career in a way that the bulk of the population is less likely to<br>
qualify for and isn't interested in participating in.<br>
<br>
I'd also point out they aren't correlated in another way: you don't<br>
have to be in the tech industry to be technically literate. That's<br>
another lovely industry prejudice. :-(<br>
<br>
--<br>
Chris<br>
</blockquote></div>