I just read this article, written by a woman who hates articles about women in technology. Actually, it’s not the first time I come in contact with one of Amy Hoy’s articles, although I only read her posts on design.
It felt refreshing to see I’m not the only who hates articles about women in technology, but my problems with such articles come from another question. Trying not to be a pig (like all men are, as we know), my question is “who cares?”.
I don’t understand this tendency of rating a field’s tolerance based on the amount of women who work there. Why not write about why aren’t there more hispanic people in technology? Or black people, or more cats.
Before finding reasons like sexism and misconceptions, is it so hard to consider that there are so few women in technology simply because there are fewer women who care? Why doesn’t anyone wonder why aren’t there more men in cosmetics?
Stephen De Gabrielle a zis,
septembrie 16, 2007 la 6:35 pm
how about the small matter
that it is wrong to descriminate,
whatever the means by which
it happens.
It hurts the victims, and it
robs our lives, workplaces and
profession of good people.
It’s a shame the obvious has to be stated,
especially when we prize intelligence
so highly.
alexandrulz a zis,
septembrie 16, 2007 la 8:00 pm
That’s my point exactly.
Before jumping straight to discrimination, why aren’t people considering the other possibilities? IT is, almost by definition, one of the most tolerant environments.
To me, as a man, and to most of my friends, fields like cosmetics, modeling or hair styling are completely uninteresting (and frankly, I’m yet to see any “men rights activist” arguing there should be more men in these fields). Wouldn’t it be more correct, scientifically speaking, to consider the possibility that subjects like football and IT are not appealing to most women? Actually, has anyone who wrote those panicking articles on the lack of IT women ever bothered to look over a poll?
Besides, I’m yet to see anyone in IT refusing to hire someone because the candidate is a woman.
[Actually, I know people in IT who would KILL only to be asked something by a woman. They would kill twice to have a woman in their department. And yes, those people are married so don't start the "but they are treated like sex objects" bullshiFt]
It’s one thing to encourage women to work in an environment traditionally associated with discrimination (army, police, flight etc.) — it’s another thing to go like omg there are no women in IT the kittens will die halp!
Stephen a zis,
septembrie 17, 2007 la 12:17 am
I was using a broader definition of
descrimination via include workplace
culture and behaviours that in the short or
long term lead people to leave.
It’s my understanding that the alarm bells
are ringing because the numbers are
disproportionate.
I have to admit I am a little worried that
you know of workplaces like t
he ones you describe. It would
seem something is wrong when
female clients either don’t exist,
or are unwilling to communicate
with a workgroup.
not funny.
alexandrulz a zis,
septembrie 17, 2007 la 8:13 am
Well, the most complete definition of “discrimination” Google has managed to provide is this one: “Any act or failure to act, impermissible based in whole or in part on a person’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, physical or mental handicap, and/or reprisal, that adversely affects privileges, benefits, working conditions, and results in disparate treatment, or has a disparate impact on employees or applicants.”
Adversely affects privileges, benefits, working condition? Has a disparate impact on employees or applicants?
One valuable thing I learned from formal logic is that juxtaposition is not equivalent to consequence. The following judgment is wrong:
When X are discriminated, there are fewer X working in a domain Y (X can be, well, anything)+
There are few X in the field Y
————————————-
Thus, X are discriminated in Y
There are many other things that could impact the number of X. In our case, there are many other factors that have an impact over the number of women (and men) working in IT.
I simply think it’s unfair to jump straight at discrimination without considering all the other possibilities — and it’s exactly why I don’t like the kind of articles I was talking about. Almost nobody considered factors like lack of interest or lack of exposure, but instead immediately started bitching (yes, it’s intentional) about discrimination.
Amy a zis,
octombrie 16, 2007 la 12:36 pm
I agree with you. To fit the length of the piece into O’Reilly’s requirements, I had to cut a couple paragraphs where I questioned the reasoning behind the question itself, and said if anything, I don’t want to be recruited based on my gametes, but rather my brain. (Where are the designers? Where are the dancers, architects, students, grandparents, people from developing nations?)
I think that assuming people have “a special perspective” or “something unique to offer” based on their physical sex is just as demeaning as assuming they don’t.
Alas.