| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Women in IT don't need special treatment |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-05-28 19:25:22 |
| This topic comes up quite a lot on technology websites, but I generally try to steer clear from it as much as possible, since I'm not the one to talk about it (you know, with me being a man and all that), however, I feel it might be a good idea to just get my opinion out there and be done with it. The topic of women in IT is a hot-button issue, so let me just go out guns blazing: assuming women need special treatment, help, protection, and affirmative action is just as insulting and degrading as outright claiming women have no place in IT - maybe even more so. |
|
| It will never be fair. |
| By jefro on 2012-05-28 19:39:57 |
|
Part of the issue is how we teach children. Young boys are put in games that require them to excel. It may be part of their dna even. We expect boys to be tougher than the other kid. Young girls are not under the same treatment. In fact they are either or both by dna and training in a different subset of rules. One thing that did bother me about women in politics is that a lady running for VP tended to have comments about her dress more than her point of views on topics. Who ever said anything like that about a male politician? |
 - Score: 11 |
| Indeed |
| By tylerdurden on 2012-05-28 19:52:34 |
|
as a male non-IT worker you're clearly qualified to voice your opinion, purely based on your perception as a 3rd party, on what female IT workers need, feel, and how they should be treated like. I mean, sure journalistic integrity would dictate that you should have taken at least 5 minutes to talk to women who work on IT and gather their opinion on the matter, since they are the ones affected. But who wants to do that when there is a false equivalence handy, right? Edited 2012-05-28 19:53 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| already past fair and missed the mark |
| By TechGeek on 2012-05-28 19:58:45 |
|
We have already compensated for the differences in gender so much that the average woman now has a better chance in getting into a STEM career than a white male. Yet I can't help but think about some of the statistics that a female graduate student in our IT program found during her thesis project. The number one reason why women don't want to be in IT: "I don't want to spend all day working with computers, I want to work with people." The number one reason why women chose IT as a career: money. Now here is the real kicker. 25+% of women will leave the IT field within 5-10 years and never go back. They either change careers or quit working to have a family. What that tells me is that we are pushing women into a field they won't be happy in just because we think the field should be 50-50%. Instead of focusing on a certain field, we need to develop a system of promoting career exploration so that everyone finds their niche, whatever it may be, without worrying about the statistics. |
| - Score: 14 |
| Your premise is completely wrong |
| By lindkvis on 2012-05-28 20:01:36 |
|
... and your whole argument is built upon this fallacy: that affirmative action or female quotas are about giving women special treatment because they aren't as capable. This is not the case. It is about combating the current outright bias and bigotry among the men that decide upon promotions and employment in the IT industry. Only when women are well represented in tech industries will they get a properly fair chance. Now, even if you disagree, your argument is still flawed, because you completely fail to discuss the reasons for quotas and affirmative action, but just take it as fact that it is about capability. Shame on you. Edit: You really need to read this: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/... Edited 2012-05-28 20:03 UTC |
| - Score: 4 |
| From the other side of the fence ... |
| By MacTO on 2012-05-28 20:04:00 |
|
I feel qualified to comment on this because I am a male working in a female dominated industry. Even though there is an desire to recruit more men, men still actively suffer from discrimination. The problem is that prejudice enters the hiring process in insidious ways. Employers actively pursue skill sets or attitudes that are dominant in one gender rather than the other. This has nothing to do with being able to do the job effectively, it simply reflects what the employer thinks that the employee needs in order to fit into the workplace. Let's assume that you've acquired the skill set and attitudes that are desirable in that industry. You walk into that boardroom to negotiate a contract (may it be as a contractor or an employee), and you have to face the stereotypes again. It doesn't matter if those stereotypes are demonstrably untrue, people will still assume that you fit into that culturally dictated role to a lesser or greater degree. Stuff like that is why incentives are required to hire women for IT jobs or (in my case) men for teaching jobs. Yet that still doesn't negate some of the challenges that the contractor or employee may face when they have secured that contract. Swaths of IT seem to be like the police force: dominated by men who cannot keep their hormones under control. I'm not comfortable around men who behave in such a disgusting manner. I can hardly imagine what it would be like to be a woman who has to actively deal with it. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE: Indeed |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-05-28 20:28:00 |
|
> as a male non-IT worker you're clearly qualified to voice your opinion, purely based on your perception as a 3rd party, on what female IT workers need, feel, and how they should be treated like. I mean, sure journalistic integrity would dictate that you should have taken at least 5 minutes to talk to women who work on IT and gather their opinion on the matter, since they are the ones affected. But who wants to do that when there is a false equivalence handy, right? Such anecdotal stories will only serve to detract from the point being made. I'm not saying that it's easy for women in a men-dominated field (or vice versa, for that matter) - I'm arguing that the proposed solutions are not grounded in reality. The fact that I'm a man has no bearing on whether or not my points are valid. If you think it does, then I think you just unknowingly illustrated my point better than I did. |
| - Score: 7 |
| RE[2]: Indeed |
| By Moredhas on 2012-05-28 20:37:04 |
| To reinforce Thom's point, what if this were about race or religion? "I got this contract because I'm black", or "I got this contract because I'm Christian". Discrimination, no matter how well intentioned, is still discrimination. |
| - Score: 11 |
| You misunderstand Affirmative Action |
| By Drumhellar on 2012-05-28 20:38:52 |
|
Thom, these types of Affirmative Action rules aren't based on the premise that women need help, either due to lesser ability, or a perceived lesser ability. Nor are they born out of an attempt to change public perceptions of women. The purpose of WOSB is to improve the visibility of women in business and technology as a means to combat the subtle, but pervasive influences and social pressures that affect women their entire life, steering them away from business or technology oriented careers. Some of these influences are more obvious, like buying Legos and Erector Sets for boys, but dolls and easy-bake-ovens for girls, but some effects are more subtle. One such influence is teacher insecurities for grade-school subjects. Statistically, women teachers are more likely to report feeling insecure bout math and science subjects as compared to their male counterparts. Girls will learn these insecurities from female teachers (but not from male teachers), and over time they accumulate. Note that girls will also learn confidence in the same subjects when they have female teachers that display confidence. These programs are to show women that women can be successful. Edited 2012-05-28 20:53 UTC |
| - Score: 6 |
| Comment by mtzmtulivu |
| By mtzmtulivu on 2012-05-28 20:43:33 |
|
lets say there are 100 equally qualified applicants and only 3 are women. What are the chances that a woman will get selected if gender does not play a part? Can you suggest how to increase te number of these highly qualified women without paying attention to gender? At some level or another, you have to. Statistically speaking,under the above scenario, men will always get selected more simply because far too many of them apply and special attention need to be made to get more women. Under such disproportionate level, even some higher qualified women may get passed simply because those who select applicants are simply overwhelmed with male applications. Getting more women even those who are less qualified to meet the quota will do more harm than good. Ignoring statistical inequality and assume this will even out eventually will most likely do more harm than good. Taking active steps to get more qualified women who would otherwise be missed due to a much larger number of male applicants will do society well. More women present will encourage more qualified women to apply and things might even out eventually. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: already past fair and missed the mark |
| By Drumhellar on 2012-05-28 20:44:18 |
|
I'm curious: Where do you get that 25% figure, and can you separate out career changes vs. no longer working (for family or whatever)? How do these numbers compare to other industries? Also, do you have equivalent numbers for men? |
| - Score: 4 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |