U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-12-2012, 04:58 AM
 
5,666 posts, read 4,211,174 times
Reputation: 5608

Advertisements

A good article, I thought some of you might find it interesting.

BBC News - Viewpoint: More women needed in technology
Quote:
Walk into most tech companies and you'll be greeted by the same picture - a room made up entirely of men. You can practically smell the testosterone.
The technology industry is still struggling to shake off the image of the male, pizza-guzzling, antisocial nerd - a perception that initiatives like this month's Ada Lovelace day - which celebrates the role of women in technology - and Lady Geek's "Little Miss Geek" campaign, are striving to change.
There is no doubt that tech is overwhelmingly male.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2012, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Whereever we have our RV parked
8,033 posts, read 7,056,459 times
Reputation: 13453
Pure sillyness. What's wrong with all men working in technology? I don't think I've ever seen an article where they discussed a high paying occupation that is dominated by women and they complained there aren't enough men in it. Face it, women in general are not as interested or as good at math science and the other things that are associated with high technology fields. This article, like many others, is interested in forcing these employers to hire women who aren't as qualified as other men, just so that they can have more women in them. This is the same thing that's been done for years now. EG: They had to lower many standards of physical strength so that women could be eligilble to be policemen, firemen, serve in combat ships etc.

And its always the clean high paying jobs that these articles are about. I've never seen an article where they want to get more women into truck driving, or working on oil rigs. Its almost as though as women want to have all the jobs that are safe, clean, with regular hours and relegate men to the dangerous and dirty stuff, that has long hours and difficulte working conditions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 06:52 AM
 
Location: Oak Ridge, NC
5,531 posts, read 3,793,151 times
Reputation: 3541
Well, my former single self would say the more women the better, but the married man that I am now says working in an office with nothing but guys wouldn't be bad at all as long as those guys were cool and people you'd grab a beer with after work. Us techie guys tends be stereotyped as what the quote said in the OP - don't get me wrong, I LOVE pizza but I'm far from the Dungeon and Dragons player who lives in his parents' basement and treats all the non-tech people at work like idiots.

FYI, when I was going to the University to get my degree in Computer Science, there were just about as many women as were men in the curriculum. In fact, one who I graduated with wound up getting a management position straight out of college (yeah a bit jealous) but I'm sure this isn't a wide spread phenomenon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Las Flores, Orange County, CA
26,346 posts, read 80,751,010 times
Reputation: 17410
I wonder what would happen to labor rates if more supply (in the form of women) was added to the labor pool?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,547,847 times
Reputation: 24548
I am quite happy working in an office with plenty of women around. It makes the cube farm almost tolerable. Working in an environment with only testosterone driven games playing men would be completely intolerable. I already did that in the Navy.

Wages would drop if more women, or men, were available. Besides much of the tech workforce has been replaced with H1b imports or outsourcing. Both of these have to be stopped until science and technology workers are being paid as much as medical and managerial people. The entire fuss over too few scientists, engineers and technologists is just a creation of the corporate masters that are always trying to drive wages down to the minimum while increasing their executive pay and corporate profit.

In today’s reality I would never advise a student to study sciences or engineering as a career but only if they were really fascinated. I don’t actually know what to suggest because I would never want to see anyone sell their soul to be a corporate Master of the Universe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Woodinville
3,185 posts, read 3,869,085 times
Reputation: 6266
Colleges THROW MONEY at women to major in engineering and tech fields. Companies throw jobs at women in the tech industry because they want to meet their inconsequential "diversity" quota.

Imagine if schools started huge scholarship funds and societies/associations to get more men into the fashion industry. You know, they could hold men's hands through their education and make it easier for them to get into the field and get a great job! Imagine the screams of sexism that would happen . . .

Do I think there should be more women in the tech industry? Only if there are barriers against their entry preventing them from freely choosing to do so. I don't believe those barriers exist and that the "shortage" of women is simply by choice. I respect their choices as I hope they would respect mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 12:07 PM
 
Location: NW Penna.
1,756 posts, read 3,042,121 times
Reputation: 1845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairieparson View Post
... Face it, women in general are not as interested or as good at math science and the other things that are associated with high technology fields. This article, like many others, is interested in forcing these employers to hire women who aren't as qualified as other men, just so that they can have more women in them. This is the same thing that's been done for years now. EG: They had to lower many standards of physical strength so that women could be eligilble to be policemen, firemen, serve in combat ships etc.

And its always the clean high paying jobs that these articles are about. I've never seen an article where they want to get more women into truck driving, or working on oil rigs. Its almost as though as women want to have all the jobs that are safe, clean, with regular hours and relegate men to the dangerous and dirty stuff, that has long hours and difficulte working conditions.
Children and motherhood are what keep the women out.

I'll buy that part about (many) women are just not as interested. But I won't buy "not as good." Women are just as good when they put the effort into it. I went into engineering and science specifically to get away from money problems, motherhood, kids, small town homemaker lifestyles, women's work, and just about everything that I refer to "a crapazz baby and a squaw's life." Personally, I'd find working as a truck driver or on an oil rig to be right up my alley, so to speak. Motherhood has always bored me to death. I can hardly stand to be around mothers and babies anymore. (gag! grubby!)

I worked for a major corporation until a buyout killed it, and I can tell you that the female technologists and engineers there were every bit as good as the men. And every bit as serious-minded as the men. And not adverse to working in chemical plants and refineries. Or taking a biz trip to Saudi Arabia or Siberia or Korea or China.

But what they were not, was self-sacrificing or hands-on conventional mammas. Many of them, like me, didn't care about motherhood and never saw it as very interesting. There was a disproportionate number of dual-career techie couples who had no kids at all, or just had one. The tech-mamas were highly likely to have postponed childbearing until their mid-30s or even early 40s, and when they had that ONE baby at last, they promptly hired a nanny and went back to work. (And ya know what? Their kids turned out very well, too.)

But there's been a big push to put women back into the traditional broodmare and family servant roles for about the past 15 or 20 years, now. They keep trying to get Roe vs. Wade overturned, the churches are preaching all this motherhood and family and submissiveness again, the MTV culture is promoting sex and servitude. And then there's the homeschooling, and all of that Earthmother/homemaker stuff making a comeback. And also, most men have not stepped up to help one bit with the squaw work at home, either.

So, I think all of this is kind of converging to deter women from technology occupations, because long and irregular hours just are not do-able for any woman who has to or wants to do her own child-rearing and/or scutwork at home.

As for wanting regular hours and "safe" jobs: Yes, that is true. If you have to haul kids around and feed them and otherwise do your own childcare, regular hours are a must. You can't leave you kid standing on the streetcorner for 2 hours while you work extra. Safety: Women are physically weaker than men, and unless you are allowed to carry weapons to level the playing field, women do have a greater need to be concerned for their safety in unconventional occupations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 12:19 PM
 
Location: NW Penna.
1,756 posts, read 3,042,121 times
Reputation: 1845
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
...The entire fuss over too few scientists, engineers and technologists is just a creation of the corporate masters that are always trying to drive wages down to the minimum while increasing their executive pay and corporate profit...
Corporate masters don't want any scientists, engineers, or technologists over the age of 50, either. Age 22-40 is about prime, lol! Actually, I think that's just another way of saying we don't want people with a lot of family obligations that start making people not want to be at work all the time. And we don't even want to deal with you people and your bursitis or cataracts or back problems or blood pressure or whatevertheh_ll is wrong with you this week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,446 posts, read 4,350,324 times
Reputation: 4431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles View Post
I wonder what would happen to labor rates if more supply (in the form of women) was added to the labor pool?
It depends. If increased scientific and engineering prowess leads to increased demand, capacity, and efficiency in society there's no reason the standard of living has to go down. We're presumably a much more scientifically-capable society than in the 17th century, but the overall standard-of-living has increased drastically since then. Back then people like Newton and Leibniz could really only survive off the largess of the aristocracy and now they can create their own wealth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SorryIMovedBack View Post
Children and motherhood are what keep the women out.

I'll buy that part about (many) women are just not as interested. But I won't buy "not as good." Women are just as good when they put the effort into it. I went into engineering and science specifically to get away from money problems, motherhood, kids, small town homemaker lifestyles, women's work, and just about everything that I refer to "a crapazz baby and a squaw's life." Personally, I'd find working as a truck driver or on an oil rig to be right up my alley, so to speak. Motherhood has always bored me to death. I can hardly stand to be around mothers and babies anymore. (gag! grubby!)

I worked for a major corporation until a buyout killed it, and I can tell you that the female technologists and engineers there were every bit as good as the men. And every bit as serious-minded as the men. And not adverse to working in chemical plants and refineries. Or taking a biz trip to Saudi Arabia or Siberia or Korea or China.

But what they were not, was self-sacrificing or hands-on conventional mammas. Many of them, like me, didn't care about motherhood and never saw it as very interesting. There was a disproportionate number of dual-career techie couples who had no kids at all, or just had one. The tech-mamas were highly likely to have postponed childbearing until their mid-30s or even early 40s, and when they had that ONE baby at last, they promptly hired a nanny and went back to work. (And ya know what? Their kids turned out very well, too.)

But there's been a big push to put women back into the traditional broodmare and family servant roles for about the past 15 or 20 years, now. They keep trying to get Roe vs. Wade overturned, the churches are preaching all this motherhood and family and submissiveness again, the MTV culture is promoting sex and servitude. And then there's the homeschooling, and all of that Earthmother/homemaker stuff making a comeback. And also, most men have not stepped up to help one bit with the squaw work at home, either.

So, I think all of this is kind of converging to deter women from technology occupations, because long and irregular hours just are not do-able for any woman who has to or wants to do her own child-rearing and/or scutwork at home.

As for wanting regular hours and "safe" jobs: Yes, that is true. If you have to haul kids around and feed them and otherwise do your own childcare, regular hours are a must. You can't leave you kid standing on the streetcorner for 2 hours while you work extra. Safety: Women are physically weaker than men, and unless you are allowed to carry weapons to level the playing field, women do have a greater need to be concerned for their safety in unconventional occupations.
I suspect that there are a number of reasons why there aren't as many women in science as men. Children and families might explain why fewer women graduate students go on to become faculty, but does not explain why there are fewer women students in science and engineering then men. I'm sure some has to do with encouragement at lower levels and some may have to do with preference, although distinguishing the two absolutely is difficult. There may be some small difference in innate ability (if such a thing even exists), but I'm certain even if there is that the difference is much smaller between men and women (and may not be in the direction that most would assume) than the differences among men and women.

Kids and families certainly don't help the situation much. Many companies and almost all universities expect their technical staff to devote 60+ hours a week to their work (80+ for junior faculty members, I'd guess), which is not conducive to being a full time parent, as well. It's easier for men to deal with in large part because society expects women to be full-time parents but does not expect the same from men. For whatever reason a father that works all the time and is barely home is seen as a normal or acceptable but a mother who does the same is seen as neglectful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2012, 01:05 PM
 
26,886 posts, read 38,133,169 times
Reputation: 34827
The Good Old Boy network is alive and well in the U.S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top