Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 08, 2018

Emily Chang: I've spent the last eight years covering Silicon Valley, most recently as the anchor of Bloomberg Technology. During that time, gender disparities have always hung in the background. The exclusion of women from technology wasn't inevitable. The industry, it turns out, sabotaged itself and its own pipeline of female talent. In tech's earliest days, the programmers were women. One pioneer was Grace Hopper, a mathematics Ph.D. and rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, who was one of the first people to program the Mark I, a giant Harvard University computer used by scientists to model the effects of atomic bombs. After the war, Hopper invented a now-ubiquitous programmer's tool known as a compiler, which creates a process for translating source code into a language machines can understand. Hopper was hardly an anomaly.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

In 1946, six women were selected to become the first programmers of the U.S. military's first computer. In 1962, as depicted in the 2016 film Hidden Figures, three black women working as NASA mathematicians helped calculate the flight paths that put John Glenn into orbit. A few years later, a woman, Margaret Hamilton, headed the team that wrote the code that plotted Apollo 11's path to the moon.

During all of this, the term "programmer" had a negative connotation, at least among men, as women's work -- similar to operating a telephone switchboard or being in a typing pool. A 1967 Cosmopolitan article, "The Computer Girls," let it be known that "a girl 'senior systems analyst' gets $20,000 -- and up!" -- equivalent to making roughly $150,000 a year today. The photo of a real-life female IBM engineer, who wore a dress, pearl earrings, and a short bouffant, appeared alongside the piece. "Women are 'naturals' at computer programming," Hopper told the magazine.

In 1984, Apple released its iconic Super Bowl commercial showing a heroic young woman taking a sledgehammer to a depressing and dystopian world. It was a grand statement of resistance and freedom. Her image is accompanied by a voice-over intoning, "And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984." The creation of this mythical female heroine also coincided with an exodus of women from technology. In a sense, Apple's vision was right: The technology industry would never be like 1984 again. That year was the high point for women earning degrees in computer science, which peaked at 37 percent. As the number of overall computer science degrees picked back up during the dot-com boom, far more men than women filled those coveted seats. The percentage of women in the field would dramatically decline for the next two and a half decades.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Grace Hopper

#1 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-02-07 09:34 PM | Reply

Programmed and managed programmers for 34 years before I retired last year.

Always worked with women. The group I managed had 5 men and 4 women.

Small sample set, but I never saw any exclusion. If you could do the work you got the job.

#2 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-07 09:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The movie Hidden Figures suggests that women dominated computer work until the job started to become prestigious and men swooped in to push them aside.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 07:54 AM | Reply

Pushed them aside? How exactly would one go about doing that?

By being more qualified?

#4 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-08 08:56 AM | Reply

What happened?

BOAZ became a System Admin. That's what happened.

#5 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-02-08 09:23 AM | Reply

The movie Hidden Figures suggests that women dominated computer work until the job started to become prestigious and men swooped in to push them aside.

And then you created this website to pick up women but it was too little too late. By then KUDZU was riding the bandwidths.

#6 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-02-08 09:27 AM | Reply

Pushed them aside? How exactly would one go about doing that?
By being more qualified?

#4 | POSTED BY SAWDUST AT 2018-02-08 08:56 AM | FLAG:

By being pushy and aggressive and overconfident and combative and arrogant and setting up a work environment that is not friendly to families.

Just like we do everywhere else.

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-02-08 10:49 AM | Reply

Pushed them aside? How exactly would one go about doing that?

It's easy. When the job had low prestige, women were hired to do it and hired as managers.

When that changed, men hired men and stopped hiring women.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 12:52 PM | Reply

#8

That may have been true in the past, but now the Tech companies are desperate to hire women, in fact the % of women who have been granted H1B visas in computer related fields has doubled in the past 4 years, in large part because Universities in the US aren't graduating enough women with CSEEs.

According to people who track women in coding, the biggest issue is not hiring but graduation rates: In 1995 37% of programmers were women, in 2017, that number has dropped to 24%. In direct correlation, only 19.2% of CS graduates in the US in 2017 were women as opposed to 36% in 1990. Numerous studies are being held to understand why women fall out of STEM programs by High School and schools like UCLA and Harvey Mudd are analyzing what factors lead to this drop off.

Cracking the code: Why aren't more women majoring in computer science?

Girls Who Code

If you have a daughter in High School and want to get her into a Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC etc., have her apply to the CSEE programs.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-08 01:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Tired of this gender war bullcrap.

Women aren't in tech because they're not interested in sitting at computers and coding their whole lives.

Many males start doing it as teenagers.

There are differences between the genders. Pretending any difference in the working world between the genders is unfair is simplistic and stupid.

There aren't many women rock bands either. Is this because rock bands are unfair, or because males start learning music in order to impress women and--------?

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-08 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

Women aren't in tech because they're not interested in sitting at computers and coding their whole lives.

Hogwash. I know plenty of women in tech, including young ones. A member of my extended family is around 25 and making serious money at Snapchat. She studied comp sci at FSU. Wishing I had a job like hers in my 20s makes me verklempt.

The perception that women don't like tech is one of the reason women are discouraged from tech and less present in tech. Teachers, mentors and bosses give preference to males. Parents don't encourage daughters to pursue an interest in tech or reward them with as much praise.

You're treating a symptom like a cause. If boys and girls had been treated equally when they showed any interest in tech, there'd be far more women in these fields.

As for the idea it's a "gender war" to talk about these things, that's as ridiculous as calling it a "health war" when somebody tells you that junk food makes people fat.

#11 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 01:33 PM | Reply

You're treating a symptom like a cause. If boys and girls had been treated equally when they showed any interest in tech, there'd be far more women in these fields.

As for the idea it's a "gender war" to talk about these things, that's as ridiculous as calling it a "health war" when they tell you that junk food makes people fat.

#11 | Posted by rcade

There are genetic differences between what the different genders tend to be interested in. Ignoring gender differences in the name of faux equality is silly.

Boy toddlers have different interests than girl toddlers before they've had any chance to be socialized.

This doesn't mean girls cant code, it just means fewer of them are predisposed to WANT to code.

A lonely male teenager is a lot more likely to spend his time with computers developing skills that will later lead to a tech job than a lonely female teenager is.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-08 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Having JUST completed a round of hiring trying to find a web applications developer. We interviewed a few women - 2/3rds of the people that applied were women. We made an offer to a candidate today. What is actually interesting is that NONE of the candidates picked up programming until AFTER they graduated college. They all received their programming education at crash course coding schools. The woman we selected is also an engineer by degree but she was the exception in that regard. Most were liberal arts students. It used to not require a higher math degree or CS degree to be a programmer and that changed. That is why I think you see more men in the field. I also think it has come full circle in that regard. Don't get me wrong a degree opens doors.

What I have found of fresh Computer Science grads is they generally don't know anything and went into it hoping for $$$. The education isn't worth what they pay for it and they don't have the mentality to succeed. These accelerated programs give a person real world skills they can apply the first day on the job and you have to want to do them to make it through. Five days a week 9-5 coursework with studying and labs for home. 3 months you have the basics. And they do cover a LOT.

I personally find it refreshing working with women who are intellectuals. And there are a lot of them out there but they don't pursue STEM for whatever reason. My much younger cousin is one that is flourishing as a young professional. There is also a coworker's daughter who has a masters in Math. They are both highly sought after because of the shortage of women. They often simply have a different approach from their male counterparts.

As for coding, today it is so vastly different 10 years ago not to mention from the 90s it isn't even funny. In many ways it is easier (solid frameworks galore) but in some ways it is significantly more difficult (concepts and structure).

I have personally been struggling with going back for a masters degree. I'm not sure it would pay for itself at my age but so many of the positions I am looking at want one.

#13 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-02-08 03:27 PM | Reply

There are genetic differences between what the different genders tend to be interested in.

I see absolutely no reason to believe this. I certainly know from 30 years in the workforce that women are just as capable in technical fields as men.

The reason women don't pursue STEM is because for decades society at multiple levels has discouraged them. How can you not see this?

Here's a related example:

When my wife went to a public high school in Pekin, Illinois a teacher said she had no business thinking of going to college.

When I went to mine in Richardson, Texas, college was treated like a birthright. Everyone who showed any interest was encouraged and supported.

Do you think that would have an impact on children? My wife overcame that idiotic teacher's narrow-minded stupidity. A lot of women don't.

#14 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 03:43 PM | Reply

You're treating a symptom like a cause. If boys and girls had been treated equally when they showed any interest in tech, there'd be far more women in these fields.

#11 | Posted by rcade

Why were there far more women programmers percentage wise in the past? That is something to look at. There were far greater challenges to women period in the past.

There ARE gender differences. I don't think it can all be chalked up to treating boys and girls differently. In many ways they are treated more equal than ever - even in red states.

#15 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-02-08 04:05 PM | Reply

I see absolutely no reason to believe this. I certainly know from 30 years in the workforce that women are just as capable in technical fields as men.

The reason women don't pursue STEM is because for decades society at multiple levels has discouraged them. How can you not see this?

#14 | Posted by rcade

I didn't say they weren't as capable, I said they weren't as INTERESTED.

And if you're going to say that's because they weren't encouraged to do it by their parents, that likely has a large effect, but how can that be blamed on tech companies? They hire from the talent pool available. If that talent pool is mostly male because females haven't pursued tech as much, should those capable males not be hired while the tech company searches for females?

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-08 04:07 PM | Reply

There ARE gender differences.

I see people keep asserting this and nobody makes any attempt at proving it. Almost all of what we call gender differences are not caused by gender. They are caused by how parents, educators and society treat genders differently.

If a boy and a girl of equal intellect and close personality were treated exactly the same their entire childhood, I do not believe one would be more likely to go into a technical profession than the other.

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 05:38 PM | Reply

They hire from the talent pool available.

Hiring isn't a neutral activity. Who you consider to hire is determined by how you look for them. A tech company is responsible for how it looks for women, minorities and other groups underrepresented in its workforce. It doesn't get to blame external forces if it ends up with a completely male-dominated workforce.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 05:41 PM | Reply

Rcade,

You should check out this book:

www.amazon.com

Men dominate certain fields and women dominate certain fields. This is because men and women are inherently different. That isn't sexist, it's biology.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-08 05:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There ARE gender differences.

I see people keep asserting this and nobody makes any attempt at proving it. Almost all of what we call gender differences are not caused by gender. They are caused by how parents, educators and society treat genders differently.

If a boy and a girl of equal intellect and close personality were treated exactly the same their entire childhood, I do not believe one would be more likely to go into a technical profession than the other.

#17 | Posted by rcade

Then you've never hung around many toddlers. There are clear differences from infancy between interests and activity levels of males vs females.

This new age nonsense where we have to pretend men and woman are the exact same and any difference is the result of an evil oppressive society is horsecrap.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-08 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Hiring isn't a neutral activity. Who you consider to hire is determined by how you look for them. A tech company is responsible for how it looks for women, minorities and other groups underrepresented in its workforce. It doesn't get to blame external forces if it ends up with a completely male-dominated workforce.

#18 | Posted by rcade

If you're hiring from a pool that is 70% male, 30% female, and you blindly hire without knowing their gender, you're going to wind up with a company that is 70% male, 30% female. If you say we have to make our company 50/50, then you're punishing those male candidates for their genitalia.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-08 05:59 PM | Reply

If you say we have to make our company 50/50, then you're punishing those male candidates for their genitalia.

Get used to it... it's starting to happen.

#22 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-08 06:01 PM | Reply

Get used to it... it's starting to happen.

#22 | Posted by REDIAL

It is. And this type of acceptable sexist discrimination is the type of thing that drives formerly rational voters into the arms of anti PC warriors like trump.

The more liberals try to be "woke" about everything and make everything equal for everyone based on identity rather than merit, the more swing voters are going to vote for candidates who are terrible for the country.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-08 06:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Is it wrong if I point out computers started to get much better around 1984?

#24 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-08 06:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In my world it's more of a corporate image thing. "We" want to be more diverse since traditionally our industry is vastly while male dominated.

Inevitably, all else being equal, the white males will lose out while that image gets corrected.

#25 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-08 06:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That isn't sexist, it's biology."

So sexists always say, and before it was "biology" it was "God's plan."

#26 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 06:33 PM | Reply

"Then you've never hung around many toddlers. There are clear differences from infancy between interests and activity levels of males vs females."

Which is cultural.

#27 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 06:35 PM | Reply

You'd be wrong.

#29 | Posted by DirkStruan

And you've clearly never hung around a bunch of toddlers.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-08 06:43 PM | Reply

And you've clearly never hung around a bunch of toddlers.

#30 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-02-08 06:43 PM | FLAG:

Sure I have. I've also worked in education and studied learning and cognitive development in children. And you are wrong. Laughably so, even.

#31 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Men dominate certain fields and women dominate certain fields. This is because men and women are inherently different. That isn't sexist, it's biology."

Why did women once dominate computing, but now men do?

Explain the biology.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 06:47 PM | Reply

You'd be wrong.

#29 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2018-02-08 06:39 PM

Says the expert at being provably wrong:

Many studies have found that a majority of boys and girls prefer to play with toys that are typed to their own gender but there is still uncertainty about the age at which such sex differences first appear, and under what conditions. Applying a standardized research protocol and using a selection of gender-typed toys, we observed the toy preferences of boys and girls engaged in independent play in UK nurseries, without the presence of a parent. The 101 boys and girls fell into three age groups: 9 to 17 months, when infants can first demonstrate toy preferences in independent play (N = 40); 18 to 23 months, when critical advances in gender knowledge occur (N = 29); and 24 to 32 months, when knowledge becomes further established (N = 32). Stereotypical toy preferences were found for boys and girls in each of the age groups, demonstrating that sex differences in toy preference appear early in development.
City University, London: Preferences for ‘Gender-typed' Toys in Boys and Girls Aged 9 to 32 Months

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-08 06:48 PM | Reply

Here's a hint: "showing interest" in something is itself a social behavior. By the time a child of either sex shows an interest in something, they've been steeped in a socialization process that is inescapably cultural through and through and are now taking the first faltering steps in the process of self expression within the culture in which they find themselves. But, of course, people like you (sexists) would rather pretend none of this is true and these behaviors are somehow acultural, inborn (the same line, not by accident, used by "scientific racists" for centuries).

#34 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 06:49 PM | Reply

#33

Which proves my point: socialization happens very early in development and so behaviors people like Speak call ingrained are, in fact, cultural through and through.

#35 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 06:51 PM | Reply

From Science Daily:

Speaking about the study, Dr Brenda Todd, a senior lecturer in psychology at City University said, "Sex differences in play and toy choice are of interest in relation to child care, educational practice and developmental theory. Historically there has been uncertainty about the origins of boys' and girls' preferences for play with toys typed to their own sex and the developmental processes that underlie this behaviour. As a result we set out to find out whether a preference occurs and at what age it develops.

"Biological differences give boys an aptitude for mental rotation and more interest and ability in spatial processing, while girls are more interested in looking at faces and better at fine motor skills and manipulating objects. When we studied toy preference in a familiar nursery setting with parents absent, the differences we saw were consistent with these aptitudes. Although there was variability between individual children, we found that, in general, boys played with male-typed toys more than female-typed toys and girls played with female-typed toys more than male-typed toys.

"Our results show that there are significant sex differences across all three age groups, with the finding that children in the youngest group, who were aged between 9-17 months when infants are able to crawl or walk and therefore make independent selections, being particularly interesting; the ball was a favourite choice for the youngest boys and the youngest girls favoured the cooking pot."

Children as young as 9 months-old prefer to play with toys specific to their own gender, according to a new study from academics at City University London and UCL.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-08 06:52 PM | Reply

You're not going to convince me that computers are gendered to men.

Because the typing pool waa heavily female, and a computer is just a typewriter with a screen.

And no high ranking man from the Mad Men era would ever have a typewriter on his desk. That is beneath them. It's woman's work.

But... "biology."

I know, typing evolved to be man's work, in just 30 years!

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 06:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#35

It actually refutes your point, by studying infants who are just starting to make independent selections, your pop psychology "gender roles are learned via socialization" has been repeatedly shown, over the past two decades, to be utter BS:

Infants' Preferences for Toys, Colors, and Shapes: Sex Differences and Similarities
Sex differences in infants' visual interest in toys.
Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children
Sex differences in response to children's toys in nonhuman primates

There are dozens of studies that have shown, in both human and primate infants, a biological link to toy preferences by gender, completely separate from social inputs.

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-08 07:04 PM | Reply

"Biological differences give boys an aptitude for mental rotation and more interest and ability in spatial processing, while girls are more interested in looking at faces and better at fine motor skills and manipulating objects. When we studied toy preference in a familiar nursery setting with parents absent, the differences we saw were consistent with these aptitudes. Although there was variability between individual children, we found that, in general, boys played with male-typed toys more than female-typed toys and girls played with female-typed toys more than male-typed toys."

This quote shows what happens when a study jumps beyond its intended scope. First of all, I would love to see the sourcing on whether such aptitude differences are real or perceived and whether there is proof of their being biological rather than social. Likewise, one notes they do not think of considering differing individual aptitudes but rather that behavior should be governed by the aptitude's of one's sex. I would love to hear a proposed biological explanation for that...

Again, playing with toys is a social behavior and implies prior socialization, which can never be innocent of gendering cultural artifacts. The effort to find some precultural set of behaviors of this kind to observe is doomed to fail.

#39 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 07:07 PM | Reply

"This new age nonsense where we have to pretend men and woman are the exact same"

Nobody is pretending that.

Grace Hopper got where she was mostly thanks to goverment backing.

Bill Gates et.al. were businessmen.

That's a big reason. The military and government in general is more egalitarian than the private sector.

You don't get a top job through the Good Old Boys network in the military. You get it by being very good at what you do, or, while it wasn't the case in Hopper's day, by being black.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 07:08 PM | Reply

"There are dozens of studies that have shown, in both human and primate infants, a biological link to toy preferences by gender, completely separate from social inputs."

Show me one where a computer is a toy preferred by boys, and a typewriter is a toy preferred by girls, if you want that argument to be relevant here.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 07:10 PM | Reply

First of all, I would love to see the sourcing on whether such aptitude differences are real or perceived and whether there is proof of their being biological rather than social. Likewise, one notes they do not think of considering differing individual aptitudes but rather that behavior should be governed by the aptitude's of one's sex. I would love to hear a proposed biological explanation for that...

You will find the sourcing in the full report in the first link.

Again, playing with toys is a social behavior and implies prior socialization, which can never be innocent of gendering cultural artifacts. The effort to find some precultural set of behaviors of this kind to observe is doomed to fail.

Read the Primate studies in the last two links, they found identical behavior in monkeys playing with human toys...where they some how victims of prior socialization and gendering cultural artifacts? Watching too much Keeping up with the Kardashians?

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-08 07:11 PM | Reply

"You will find the sourcing in the full report in the first link."

It is behind a paywall.

#44 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 07:14 PM | Reply

I will be back later after Dirk frantically searches for something to support his point that isn't from the 1970s.

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-08 07:15 PM | Reply

"where they some how victims of prior socialization and gendering cultural artifacts?"

Were they separated from all the other monkeys at birth?

If not, they were socialized by monkeys.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 07:15 PM | Reply

"Read the Primate studies in the last two links, they found identical behavior in monkeys playing with human toys...where they some how victims of prior socialization and gendering cultural artifacts?"

Sure, by the humans studying them. Monkeys do not play with such toys in the wild, after all (unless they have invented the wheel since last I checked). For that matter, why rule out the possibility that monkeys have a culture of their own, complete with gender roles? The suggestion that culture is uniquely humans smacks of an increasingly untenable chauvenism.

#47 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 07:17 PM | Reply

Why did women once dominate computing, but now men do?
Explain the biology.

#32 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-02-08 06:47 PM | FLAG:

Isn't it obvious? Biology changed! Evolving rapidly is just one of the many things at which men are better than women. /snark

#48 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 07:39 PM | Reply

From my personal experience with the microcomputer world, I saw vastly more males than females.

I worked with pc's since the early 80's and saw few girls in the field.

I attended seminars and classes and it was very few females.

Don't know about other areas of technology but microcomputers has been a male dominated world.

Personally I have to suspect it has something to do with the fact the porn industry has been so heavily involved in financing technology advances.

I mean...they had the most to gain.

#49 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-08 08:20 PM | Reply

"Personally I have to suspect it has something to do with the fact the porn industry has been so heavily involved in financing technology advances."

You are one Strange critter.

#50 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-08 08:29 PM | Reply

I'm trying to think of these technological advances...
The Betamax is the only thing that comes to mind.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 08:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Then you've never hung around many toddlers.

And now you're wrong about another thing in this discussion.

I raised three kids and have over 20 other nieces and nephews. I've been a parent for 23 years.

People who think there are innate gender differences in career interest and aptitude are out of their freaking minds. Wake up. It's the 21st century. Shed the male chauvinist nonsense you were raised to believe about females.

#52 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 09:45 PM | Reply

You should check out this book ...

John Gray is not a scientist nor is he someone with a background that would enable him to speak credibly on scientific subjects. He's a Transcendental Meditation aficionado who got his college education from Maharishi University and a PhD from an unaccredited correspondence school that has since gone out of business.

I see no reason to take him seriously about gender.

#53 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 09:51 PM | Reply

#53 holy ----

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 09:56 PM | Reply

I don't believe think recognizing differences between genders is male chauvinistic.

You can disagree

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-08 10:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I can agree, and I can disagree.
Both at the same time.

Because chauvinism isn't really about recognizing differences, but amplifying them to support a (usually prejudiced) cause.
Your statement can be either true or false depending on what exactly "recognizing differences" entails.
www.google.com

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 10:14 PM | Reply

I don't believe think recognizing differences between genders is male chauvinistic.

It is when the point of asserting the alleged difference is to claim that women are somehow innately lacking in technical aptitude or affinity.

#57 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 10:15 PM | Reply

But hey, dudes, if you can articulate a credible scientifically based reason why your ---- makes you better at computer programming by all means lay it on the table.

#58 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 10:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But hey, dudes, if you can articulate a credible scientifically based reason why your ---- makes you better at computer programming by all means lay it on the table.

Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 10:17 PM | Reply

Most of them are too short to reach the keyboard.

#59 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-08 10:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

57

I agree. I just didn't think that was the case being made.

I'm not sure how to explain why females aren't pursuing STEM.

Not that I'm trying. But girls learn to talk and communicate verbally much better at younger ages than boys.

Is that fair to say? Or am I picking on boys with that comment?

I see it as recognizing a difference.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-08 10:25 PM | Reply

"I'm not sure how to explain why females aren't pursuing STEM."

Rampant sexual harassment doesn't come to mind?
Weird.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 10:26 PM | Reply

61

Make the case, not just the assertion.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-08 10:30 PM | Reply

My daughter has never gotten a B in Math in her life. She could pursue engineering but wants to get a law degree. She is a state champion debater.

And she wouldn't know much about sexual harassment.

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-08 10:35 PM | Reply

"Make the case, not just the assertion."

How about I google sexual harassment in STEM and cut and paste the first hit?
www.scientificamerican.com

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 10:51 PM | Reply

My daughter has never gotten a B in Math in her life. She could pursue engineering but wants to get a law degree. She is a state champion debater.

Good for her, but one person's example doesn't tell us much.

Also, today's young women may have it better than their mothers and grandmothers where educational and career attainment are concerned. They might not have been told as much (or at all) that females are less capable of STEM careers.

In the 25-34 age group as of 2015 in the U.S., 37.5% of women have a bachelor's degree or higher, while only 29.5% of men do. That's a pretty big indicator something is changing.

#65 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 10:59 PM | Reply

I don't expect anybody to accept my anecdotal evidence to be anything other than that.....anecdotal.

"37.5% of women have a bachelor's degree or higher, while only 29.5% of men do. That's a pretty big indicator something is changing."

I think one can recognize differences in genders and acknowledge that fact at the same time. That disparity in degrees indicates perhaps females posses more intellect, work ethic, and focus than men.

Would you agree to that?

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-08 11:13 PM | Reply

-In the 25-34 age group

My daughter is in that group; she got her PhD in the sciences two years ago and is now werking as a Sr. Scientist in an environmental lab.

When I werked in the Silicon Valley in the early '80's running a software R&D recruiting firm for major corps and VC start-ups, however, there were not a heck of a lot women in design positions though some were programmers, but even that declined.

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-08 11:23 PM | Reply

"A member of my extended family is around 25 and making serious money at Snapchat."

Good for her, but one person's example doesn't tell us much.

#68 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-08 11:24 PM | Reply

"That disparity in degrees indicates perhaps females posses more intellect, work ethic, and focus than men.
Would you agree to that?"

Even you said "perhaps" so I don't think it's quite that simple.
Perhaps, though, women get these skills sooner than men.
They do enter puberty about two years earlier on average.
This gets to "maturity."

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 11:26 PM | Reply

Since it's anecdote time, I guess I should mention a guy I worked with in the lab sexually harassed more than one female colleague. He still graduated and works in science. He was a nice enough guy but did things like mention rape a lot when women were present. I don't know if that was what the complains were about, all I know is there were multiple complaints.

This type of thing doesn't end your career, unless it goes way beyond comments, or the freak occasion that your comments get recorded and go viral.

There are guys who really don't think it's inappropriate to make repeated unwanted sexual advances on their co-workers.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 11:32 PM | Reply

"I see it as recognizing a difference."

What difference?

Saying that women and men occupy different fields because men and women are different is not really saying anything.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 11:38 PM | Reply

71

Apparently it says "chauvinistic" to rcade

#72 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-08 11:42 PM | Reply

In the 25-34 age group as of 2015 in the U.S., 37.5% of women have a bachelor's degree or higher, while only 29.5% of men do. That's a pretty big indicator something is changing.
#65 | POSTED BY RCADE

But not in STEM ....
www.washingtonpost.com

Perhaps, just perhaps its a multi-variable problem .....

That disparity in degrees indicates perhaps females posses more intellect, work ethic, and focus than men. ~ Eberly

Not exactly ...

RCade is correct about something is changing, but he doesn't believe the answer.

Or even earlier than that. The "anti-school, anti-education sentiment" in boys has roots in kindergarten, when they're slower to learn to read than girls, said Jim Shelley, the manager of the Men's Resource Center at Lakeland Community College in Ohio. Girls at the primary and secondary level worldwide far outperform boys in reading, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
www.theatlantic.com

Because
Men are trained at a young age to behave more like women, if they don't they are diagnosed with ADHD and fed drugs.
www.psychologytoday.com
theconversation.com

My daughter is in that group; she got her PhD in the sciences two years ago and is now werking as a Sr. Scientist in an environmental lab.

? good for her but anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.

When I werked in the Silicon Valley in the early '80's running a software R&D recruiting firm for major corps and VC start-ups, however, there were not a heck of a lot women in design positions though some were programmers, but even that declined.
#67 | POSTED BY CORKY

There are and have always been larger number of women at major corporations, google women are represented higher than STEM graduates.

There are and have always been larger number of men at start ups ..... women avoid startups.

Why?

Men on average, want to take more risks to rise to the dominance hierarchy to have access to a mate, start ups are good for that.
Women on average want stability and social careers, something a large corp offers.

Both can have high intelligence (different) and be conscientious, but women are more agreeable on average.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

As well as I am coming from almost 35years of being at large and small startups as a software engineer, manager, CEO and researcher. Working for, with and managing up to 100, women and men.

Engineering has both an introverted and extroverted aspects, large corps its good to be more extroverted, and small startup introverted. (as an engineer)

All this talk about women being the same as men in every regard on average is silly talk. The evolution favors Normal distributions, in a particular domain or axis, men and women have two separate but overlapping distributions.
cdn.static-economist.com

#73 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-08 11:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.

- I am coming from almost

Try not to contradict yourself in the same post, if that's even possible for you.

"The technology industry would never be like 1984 again. That year was the high point for women earning degrees in computer science, which peaked at 37 percent. As the number of overall computer science degrees picked back up during the dot-com boom, far more men than women filled those coveted seats. The percentage of women in the field would dramatically decline for the next two and a half decades."

Those are industry facts, mAndrea, and my experience was the same, as I mentioned.

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-08 11:55 PM | Reply

-Because
Men are trained at a young age to behave more like women, if they don't they are diagnosed with ADHD and fed drugs.

More myth... and neither of the links you posted support that rwing nonsense.

#75 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-08 11:59 PM | Reply

-Men on average, want to take more risks to rise to the dominance hierarchy to have access to a mate, start ups are good for that. Women on average want stability and social careers, something a large corp offers.

Holy ----!

You make one hell of a good Neanderthal, mAndy. Tell us, did you pull the hair of those poor women who were unfortunate enough to werk for you?

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-09 12:04 AM | Reply

"You make one hell of a good Neanderthal,"

Holy ----! You make one hell of a purse swinging sissy.

If you have to resort to that accusation then you should ----.

#77 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 12:09 AM | Reply

#77

What I said was appropriate to, "Men on average, want to take more risks to rise to the dominance hierarchy to have access to a mate...".

And when you think you have to defend Andrea that way, well, be careful, he might try to mate with you.

#78 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-09 12:12 AM | Reply

You've never heard the expression "alpha male"?

Your problem is that you interpret that to be an endearing reference to men.

I don't. It's a generalization and nothing more.

Stop trying to be so sensitive.....or maybe you should change your name to some female version.

#79 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 12:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

- You've never heard the expression "alpha male"?

Certainly not in reference to you or Andrea, rofl!

- an endearing reference to men.

That word may not mean what you think it means.

- maybe you should change your name to some female version.

You mean like Andrea? Or Beverly?

Are you soused again?

Your penchant for butting into a dialogue just to whine about some minor point of what was being said is why the ankle-biter tag has followed you around here for years.

When you have an actual point to make, it may be the first time.

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-09 12:32 AM | Reply

"Apparently it says "chauvinistic" to rcade"

Eberly just can't get off in thread like this unless someone accuses him of being a male chauvinist.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 12:36 AM | Reply

"Your penchant for butting into a dialogue"

You call that trash you toss "dialogue"?

And several people were were having actual dialogue until you dragged your fat ass into it with your insults.

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 12:36 AM | Reply

#82 True, but you weren't one of them.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 12:37 AM | Reply

81

I wasn't accused of that.

And I prefer "racist" to get off.

#84 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 12:37 AM | Reply

83

Wow

You're hurt. Very hurt.

#85 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 12:39 AM | Reply

"True, but you weren't one of them."

Well, I had an exchange with our dear leader.

Have you ever had one with him?

Ever? Has our head master ever even addressed you?

LOL.

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 12:42 AM | Reply

"I wasn't accused of that."

You anointed yourself when you said "Apparently it says "chauvinistic" to rcade."

Your victim mentality is obvious to everybody but you.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 01:30 AM | Reply

80

My god you are so butthurt

Take your -------------------- bleeding and 1. Shove it up your ass and 2. Set fire to it.

And I'll bet you don't know even have a daughter much less one that graduated from kindergarten.

#88 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 01:32 AM | Reply

"Ever? Has our head master ever even addressed you?"

(VICTIM MENTALITY INTENSIFIES)

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 01:32 AM | Reply

87

Can you read?

It's exactly what he said.

#90 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 01:33 AM | Reply

Are corky and snoofy paid to worry about RCADE's ass and how well it's wiped?

Let me know if either of you two children have the balls to ever challenge anything he says

I managed to do it with total respect and meaningful dialogue.

Good luck with that sometime in your next 27 lives

#91 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 01:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's exactly what he said."

It is?
What about:

"I wasn't accused of that."

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 01:39 AM | Reply

"Let me know if either of you two children have the balls to ever challenge anything he says"

You like children's balls.
Got it.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 01:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I started in the Army (late 80's) as a Computer Programmer. There were a few women in our tech school back then, but it seems most were looking for other jobs in the Army that were full and they took programming just to get into the military as it was a new job back then. Most made the switch to admin or finance type jobs once they were in the military.

Today, I work for a very large government organization. My boss is a black woman, who started off as a programmer many years ago. She's highly intelligent on enterprise level management.

My staff consists of about 30 contractors broken up along three groups, Data, network and Voice. Of the 5 programmers, 2 are female (1 black). My counterpart over the programmer's group is a black female. They both can program circles around me with PHP, Oracle and Drupal. But in my Network and Data group, it's different. The Data group (Cisco type stuff), it's all male. In the networking group, the senior engineers (MCSE and MCSA types) is all male, but two of the Desktop level administrators are black females. They can make an individual client machine sit up and bark, very good at their jobs.

While I do acknowledge that I believe there are biological differences between the sexes, some girls do take naturally to mathematics and computing. But most don't.

#94 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-09 08:21 AM | Reply

Donner,

My point was the world of technology has had strange bedfellows where many modest young women of the past may not have been able to cope.

Just look today.

As less modest as women are today it still seems women can't cope with a mostly male environment where men talk...well...like guys do.

I'm not approving of true sexual harrassment and unwanted advances.

I'm just referring to "dongle" speak such as what occurred a few years ago.

If women today can't handle it, I can only imagine women in the past were less able to and might would contribute to there being less women in technology.

Women today think they're going to change the culture but I suspect all they'll do is force men to shut them out.

#95 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 08:37 AM | Reply

That disparity in degrees indicates perhaps females posses more intellect, work ethic, and focus than men. Would you agree to that?

I'm not going to jump into making big generalities about men vs. women without credible scientific evidence. I think most of what is said about gender difference is a load of hooey.

If we raised boys and girls with the same expectations, instead of hammering home the culturally driven idea they are different different different, they would have the same outcomes.

#96 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-09 08:43 AM | Reply

Women today think they're going to change the culture but I suspect all they'll do is force men to shut them out.

This is dinosaur thinking. A workplace is for professional conduct. Men who can't work without crude sexual tomfoolery are forcing themselves out with their immaturity.

Why do you make it sound like you miss "dongle" jokes, bosses feeling up their secretaries and a work atmosphere that allowed people like Matt Lauer and Louis C.K. to openly prowl for conquests? Work is for work. It wasn't some glorious era when men sexually harassed all day long at work and drank in their offices a la Mad Men.

#97 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-09 08:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Rcade,

Come on.

Humans today have not changed over the centuries.

We wear different clothes but we're still animalistic creatures.

Religion has contributed to taming the beast but is losing it's influence.

I'm not saying I agree women should be shut out. I simply believe that may be the outcome in some places.

It won't be legal but we all know how much discrimination still goes on and it's hard to pin down and prove.

BTW...Did you not read my entire post? I am not including advances, touching and true sexual harrassment. Those should not be tolerated. But dongle jokes women just need to get off their high horse.

#98 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 09:10 AM | Reply

Rcade,

And I'm not saying dongle jokes are ok in all settings or ok anywhere.

Just that women thinking they're going to change men may backfire.

I mean...men may let women change them but it's usually because of love or...well...they're getting something.

But forcing a certain type of behavior may just force men into closing doors behind them.

Like I said.

We're animalistic creatures and always will be.

#99 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 09:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Or to put it another way.

Christian values have been resisted and pushed back.

What makes you think liberals new found standards of purity in the workplace are going to do much better?

However, touching and manipulating people for sex must be forced out.

#100 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 09:50 AM | Reply

Why should women have to tolerate men in the workplace saying things like, "Is that a pubic hair on your Coke can?" And why should men in the workplace not be able to act professionally and control themselves enough to refrain from making such comments?

#101 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 10:11 AM | Reply

Gal,

Accountability. It boils down to accountability. -------- get away with that stuff. It's happening less today and less going forward because they simply can't get away with it.

#102 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 10:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Why should women have to tolerate men in the workplace saying things like, "Is that a pubic hair on your Coke can?" And why should men in the workplace not be able to act professionally and control themselves enough to refrain from making such comments?"

Because Gal, they can't control their animalistic impulses. That said, I have four brothers who learned as boys how to act like gentlemen and would never do the things these "animalistic" men have done and they are just as masculine as any of these "animalistic" men. That excuse is a bunch of crap and an excuse for bad behavior and a lack of class.

#103 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-09 10:19 AM | Reply

"If we raised boys and girls with the same expectations, instead of hammering home the culturally driven idea they are different different different, they would have the same outcomes."

I see what you are saying and I believe the outcome disparity is driven, in part, by unequal expectations....but I don't see that changing significantly going forward.

My wife is very educated, valedictorian of her HS class, accredited in her profession (She's an occupational therapist).....but....she married me. She wanted to have children and we've been fortunate enough to where she can put her career on hold for a number of years....and for good reason. She wanted to be present with the kids at home. Some women are the opposite..they want to keep working full time and pursue their career with no interruptions.

Now, staying at home isn't about what career women pursue necessarily but rather what girls learn growing up. My 2 girls have seen their mom stay home despite her intelligence, education, etc. ....that might be a factor in their choices later in life.

just sayin....and I'm of the opinion that women posses every bit of intellect, thinking skills that men do....maybe more.

#104 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 10:36 AM | Reply

Gal,

When men say things like that, call them out on it.

All I can say is YOUR mouth and manner of dressing and behaving around men better be pristine if you're going to play the office word cop.

#105 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 10:53 AM | Reply

Some people make the argument, "Boys will be boys, and men will be men." While I think there is some truth to the "boys will be boys" part of the statement, I think that men who promote the idea that "men will be boys" as opposed to "men will be men" are part of the problem. It shouldn't just be women trying to change men. Men should hold other men accountable and demand they act like gentlemen, as Eberly and Danni point out.

#106 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 10:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Women need to change too, Gal, would you agree?

#107 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-09 11:00 AM | Reply

"My wife is very educated, valedictorian of her HS class, accredited in her profession (She's an occupational therapist).....but....she married me. She wanted to have children and we've been fortunate enough to where she can put her career on hold for a number of years....and for good reason. She wanted to be present with the kids at home. Some women are the opposite..they want to keep working full time and pursue their career with no interruptions."

One of my pet peeves with the women's movement has been their advancing the belief, "Women can have it all." I believe women can have it all, but not all at the same time. Without outside help, most women can't advance to the top of their careers while at the same time being a full-time home mom, who bakes cookies for the PTA bake sales and goes to all of her kids' after school activities, etc. Most women aren't super women in that way, and we should expect them to be. OTOH, I think you can be a good mom without being a stay at home mom, and children of moms who work full time often benefit by learning to be independent in ways children of stay at home moms don't.

#108 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 11:05 AM | Reply

Gal,

Typical liberal.

Blind to your own arrogance.

It's wrong when Christians impose their morals on other people but it's acceptable when you do it.

Men should impose YOUR values on other men.

That's rich.

#109 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 11:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Women need to change too, Gal, would you agree?"

I don't know what you specifically mean by that, but I have never been one to claim that women are perfect.

#110 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 11:08 AM | Reply

"Men should impose YOUR values on other men.

That's rich."

I don't view this as imposing values so much as enforcing a standard of conduct for the work place.

#111 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 11:10 AM | Reply

108

agreed.

#112 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-09 11:12 AM | Reply

Gal,
Typical liberal.
Blind to your own arrogance.
It's wrong when Christians impose their morals on other people but it's acceptable when you do it.
Men should impose YOUR values on other men.
That's rich.

So, it is your belief that men acting professionally in the workplace is a value held only by liberals and females? Conservatives and men don't care about such things? How about conservative men whose mothers, wives, daughters, etc. work outside of the home? How about conservative women who have work?

#113 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 11:13 AM | Reply

Yikes, really messed this up:

and we should expect them to be=and we should NOT expect them to be

#114 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 11:15 AM | Reply

How about conservative men whose mothers, wives, daughters, etc. work outside of the home?

They allow that?

#115 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-09 11:15 AM | Reply

"It's wrong when Christians impose their morals on other people but it's acceptable when you do it. "

One says "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".

The other is modern-day Christianity.

#116 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-09 11:18 AM | Reply

Like I said.

We're animalistic creatures and always will be.

#99 | Posted by BillJohnson

If we are going to act like the animals I would prefer to learn our ancestors, the Bonobos.

In the Bonobo world the females NATURALLY rule the group.

How do they do that? They stick together as a group.

Also, all conflicts (even minor ones) are resolved with sex.

I am ready to start anytime the rest of you are!

#117 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-09 11:30 AM | Reply

"Typical liberal.
Blind to your own arrogance.
It's wrong when Christians impose their morals on other people but it's acceptable when you do it."

I would think that men refraining from "pubic hair on Coke can" comments in the workplace would be a standard of behavior most Christians would support. I had no idea it is a value only a blind, arrogant liberal would support.

#118 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#110,

What I mean is, and let me see if I can articulate this...

The world in general is competitive. A man's world is VERY competitive. Women who enter it, must understand this. Between men, when in competition, an amount of viciousness is tolerated. But when women come into contact with that viciousness, they think they are being done unfairly. To a man, to take out that competitive edge because of any reason, is an unfair edge to women. Which is why the "closing women out" comment made by someone else above. If he cant treat her like he would have treated a man in the same situation, well, it just seems weird to me.

I know among programmers, competition is fierce. The pursuit of knowledge is the main driver. I've heard other people who are trying to break into the field complain about people not sharing knowledge. Sometimes, that knowledge has been paid for with large student loans or hard earned failures. Not everyone is willing to just give it away. Some women may perceive that as sexist or evil, I see it as someone protecting their asset, information.

#119 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-09 11:42 AM | Reply

For what it's worth, my computer science teacher in high school in the mid-80s was a woman. Three years of learning BASIC programming, reams of computer paper, and toiling over writing hundreds of headache-inducing programs, only to find out upon entering college that no-one programmed in BASIC anymore.

She had her own personal PC on a wheel-around cart with this new-fangled operating system called "Windows" that she coveted and wouldn't let anyone touch, while we still had to load DOS each time we booted up our computers from a floppy disk into TRS80 consoles. LOL!

#120 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-02-09 11:51 AM | Reply

I heard an interesting perspective on the radio recently about perceived "differences" among genders. The viewpoint was that there are actually very few, if any, real biological differences between the sexes when it comes to areas like career interests and STEM, and that socialization from infancy onward (buying "boy clothes" and "girl clothes," pushing kids into career paths considered "normal," etc.) is almost entirely to blame.

#121 | Posted by JOE at 2018-02-09 12:04 PM | Reply

RE #121

Little Franklin Delano Roosevelt sits primly on a stool, his white skirt spread smoothly over his lap, his hands clasping a hat trimmed with a marabou feather. Shoulder-length hair and patent leather party shoes complete the ensemble.

We find the look unsettling today, yet social convention of 1884, when FDR was photographed at age 2 1/2, dictated that boys wore dresses until age 6 or 7, also the time of their first haircut. Franklin's outfit was considered gender-neutral.

www.smithsonianmag.com

#122 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-09 12:43 PM | Reply

So, what do we do? Impose quotas and ignore merit?

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-09 12:49 PM | Reply

#122 yep. And as with most common-day disasters, the march toward gender-specific clothing started with capitalism, when clothing companies realized gender-neutral clothing was too easy to pass on to the next sibling.

#124 | Posted by JOE at 2018-02-09 12:54 PM | Reply

Gal,

If twisting words around makes you feel superior, by all means continue.

#125 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 12:59 PM | Reply

#125 "if twisting words around makes you feel superior, by all means continue."

I did no such thing. But if pretending I did makes you feel superior, do what you gotta do.

#126 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 01:01 PM | Reply

So, what do we do?

#123 | Posted by JeffJ

Teach Your Children

You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good-bye.
Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picks, the one you'll know by.
Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you will cry,
So just look at them and sigh
And know they love you.
And you, of tender years,
Can't know the fears that your elders grew by,
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die.
Teach your parents well,
Their children's hell will slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picks, the one you'll know by.
Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you will cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

#127 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-09 01:02 PM | Reply

But forcing a certain type of behavior may just force men into closing doors behind them.

You need to ditch the mindset that men control the doors of the workplace any more. This isn't 1975.

Any man who wants to keep telling dongle jokes and engage in other juvenile antics will close doors -- on his career.

As Eberly said, this is just enforcing a standard of conduct for the workplace. You're making it a men-vs-women issue, but it isn't. Everybody who conducts themselves professionally at work is against dongle jokes and other sexist tomfoolery.

#128 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-09 01:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So, what do we do?

#123 | Posted by JeffJ

Learn from Nature:

Bonobo Bonobo

Along with the common chimpanzee, the bonobo is the closest extant relative to humans.[4] Because the two species are not proficient swimmers, the formation of the Congo River 1.5–2 million years ago possibly led to the speciation of the bonobo. Bonobos live south of the river, and thereby were separated from the ancestors of the common chimpanzee, which live north of the river. There is no concrete data on population numbers, but the estimate is between 29,500 and 50,000 individuals. The species is listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List and is threatened by habitat destruction and human population growth and movement, though commercial poaching is the most prominent threat. They typically live 40 years in captivity;[5] their lifespan in the wild is unknown.

Sexual activity generally plays a major role in bonobo society, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and postconflict reconciliation.[41][4] Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in tongue kissing.[42] Bonobos and humans are the only primates to typically engage in face-to-face ------- sex, although a pair of western gorillas has been photographed in this position.[43]

#129 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-09 01:07 PM | Reply

I've heard other people who are trying to break into the field complain about people not sharing knowledge. Sometimes, that knowledge has been paid for with large student loans or hard earned failures. Not everyone is willing to just give it away. Some women may perceive that as sexist or evil, I see it as someone protecting their asset, information.

I disagree with this 100%.

At your job, if you aren't sharing your knowledge with your coworkers, you are making your company weaker.

Outside your job, if you benefit from other people sharing knowledge with you at places like Stack Overflow, you should do the same. It's not like our knowledge is something to hoard that has value forever. We keep having to learn new things, which means we're relying on other people to share what they know.

#130 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-09 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You're making it a men-vs-women issue, but it isn't."

He's also making this a liberal vs conservative issue, which it also isn't.

#131 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

--the march toward gender-specific clothing started with capitalism,

We should adopt unisex clothing like Mao's China. Now there's a social justice model to emulate.

#132 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-09 01:17 PM | Reply

What the hell? Unisex clothing is as American as apple pie. I'm wearing this romper now.

images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com

#133 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-09 01:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

We should adopt unisex clothing like Mao's China. Now there's a social justice model to emulate.

#132 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-02-09 01:17 PM | FLAG:

And Hitler was a vegetarian. Your guilt by association games are tired, you barely literate hack.

#134 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-09 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Rcade,

I never said only men control the doors to the workplace.

You're twisting my words around.

I've worked with women in management.

They're smart and tough.

And they're not overly sensitive.

Granted, out in the open people watch their mouths now more than they used to.

However, from my experience companies hate whiners.

And people hate snitches.

Just saying in the long run smart women are going to learn to leave their sensitivities at the door if they want to advance.

Like I said, touching and forcing people to have sex are taboo.

#135 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 01:30 PM | Reply

"However, from my experience companies hate whiners.
And people hate snitches."

And that needs to change. People need to be able to take action when they are being treated in an unacceptable way in a professional environment. And guess what? Your obnoxious machismo aside, people tend to work better when they are not tormented. Surprising, I know.

#136 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-09 01:37 PM | Reply

Like I said, touching and forcing people to have sex are taboo.

#135 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2018-02-09 01:30 PM | FLAG:

Except when they are not because "women ask for it" or because "they are probably lying about it."

#137 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-09 01:38 PM | Reply

People need to be able to take action when they are being treated in an unacceptable way in a professional environment.

That is happening in a big way, and the workplace Neanderthals don't like it one bit.

#138 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-09 01:40 PM | Reply

"A man's world is VERY competitive. Women who enter it, must understand this."

What is this "man's world."
Do you just mean "the world?"

What must a man understand when he enters a "woman's world?"

I think you're talking a bunch of nonsense you can't even define.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 01:47 PM | Reply

"Just saying in the long run smart women are going to learn to leave their sensitivities at the door if they want to advance."

Smart men too?, or do men just not have sensitivities, so there's nothing they are forcrd to abandon to try to get ahead?

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 01:49 PM | Reply

We keep having to learn new things, which means we're relying on other people to share what they know.

Is that why you sell your books? For a price instead of free?

#141 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-09 01:51 PM | Reply

What is this "man's world."

It's Boaz. In his world just going to Wal*Mart for a pack of Twinkies is a life and death struggle of man against the cruel beasts of nature, where women stay at home preparing supper for their warrior hero and liberals cower in fear, begging for some Twinkie crumbs to fall nearby.

#142 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-09 01:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"A man's world is VERY competitive. Women who enter it, must understand this."

Which world are you referring to as "a man's world"? The world of work, in general, or the world of computer programming, in particular?

#143 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 02:33 PM | Reply

Before anyone gets all bent out of shape, I do not believe women should put up with crap at work just because they are female.

I do believe turning a blind ear to stuff people say helps everyone get along within reason.

However my statement about smart women. In 50 years I predict women will be in mgt in larger numbers but they're not going to be like some people think.

They're going to be tough but I don't believe work environments are going to become bastions of mutual respect and no cussing or dirty talk.

In the long run I don't see the human race changing its spots.

#144 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 02:33 PM | Reply

I never said only men control the doors to the workplace. You're twisting my words around.

I don't think it required any twisting. You said two things that sounded like men control the workplace.

1. "Women today think they're going to change the culture but I suspect all they'll do is force men to shut them out."

2. "But forcing a certain type of behavior may just force men into closing doors behind them."

In the long run I don't see the human race changing its spots.

I don't know why you would think that when the American workplace changes all the time. Today's work is drastically different than 1980's and 1940's. Before that in 1900 there wasn't much of anything comparable to work today.

Men aren't hard wired to behave like cretins at a modern workplace any more than we're hard wired to crap outdoors. We find ourselves in a fast-moving industrial civilization in workplaces that would be completely alien to our ancestors four generations back.

#145 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-09 02:57 PM | Reply

"Men aren't hard wired to behave like cretins at a modern workplace any more than we're hard wired to crap outdoors."

They can't accept that.

It's all about making excuses for ------ male behavior with Boaz and BillJohnson.

It's basically Stockholm Syndrome, only they don't realize they have spent their lives imbued in the culture of toxic masculinity.

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 03:23 PM | Reply

#143,

Anywhere men only used to have to only deal with men.

#147 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-09 04:26 PM | Reply

Rcade,

There's 2 types of doors being referenced.

Doors to the company and doors you have to get through to advance.

These are figurative, not literal.

It could happen that a woman might get hired but find herself unable to advance because her personality is viewed as not a team player.

Her co-workers or immediate supervisor may become passive aggressive.

My point is I believe mature women wanting to get ahead will continue to pick their fights carefully and dongle talk may not make the list of issues they choose to take on.

#148 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 04:59 PM | Reply

Fine, but your focus is on the women being treated poorly in the workplace instead of the men treating them that way.

Women are always told to toughen up when men behave badly.

If men act like professionals in a professional environment women don't have to toughen up.

Why isn't that the solution? Men aren't entitled to be jerks at work just because that's how it used to be.

#149 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-09 08:22 PM | Reply

Why isn't that the solution?

Because he's a man.

#150 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-09 08:39 PM | Reply

Rcade,

"Women are always told to toughen up when men behave badly."

Do you think all men have thick skin?

Some men have to toughen up too.

#151 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 09:03 PM | Reply

Rcade,

"If men act like professionals in a professional environment women don't have to toughen up."

Have you ever held a job outside the world of academia?

You really sound like some of the campfire chats we had when we got stoned and fantasied about how everyone should just love each other and get along.

#152 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 09:09 PM | Reply

"Rcade, ... Have you ever held a job outside the world of academia?" - 152 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 09:09 PM

Ignorance of our host is most unbecoming.

But not surprising, coming from you.

#153 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-09 09:32 PM | Reply

Rcade,

My speciality has been helping medium sized companies that have grown beyond their ability to manage their accounting systems.

They were usually privately held companies.

I should explain to the owners how they need to be nice and more professional. Haha.

The hard cold fact is I was hired to perform a function and they paid me to do it.

You liberals think you can tell everyone else how to behave and somehow they will be let you because you are so smart and wise.

I DO want to see women get ahead and they can't whine everytime the men around them behave like neanderthals.

BTW...are you under some impression all women are sweet and polite?

The office environment is a breeding ground for anger and frustration where people lose it from time to time.

My motto is forgive easily and often.

#154 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 09:39 PM | Reply

I should explain to the owners how they need to be nice and more professional.

No, they hire people who know what they are doing for that. Stick to the spreadsheets.

#155 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-09 09:53 PM | Reply

"Have you ever held a job outside the world of academia?"

LOL.
Like academia is immune from this.
Larry Nasser worked at Michigan State.

#156 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 10:23 PM | Reply

Noone is denying there are differences between men and women.
What we're saying is, you shouldn't treat men and women differently.
That means not hitting on women at work, if you wouldn't hit on men at work.

If you can't pull this off, you didn't grow up yet.

#157 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 10:25 PM | Reply

Redial,

I was being sarcastic.

That was my point.

It seems people in this thread have some idea they can make other people change.

I agree with you.

#158 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-09 11:12 PM | Reply

Have you ever held a job outside the world of academia?

My career has nothing to do with academia. Are you smoking pot around a campfire again? You might want to pace yourself.

You liberals think you can tell everyone else how to behave and somehow they will be let you because you are so smart and wise.

I said there are professional expectations in the workplace.

Apparently you think men are so weak they can't control themselves at work, so they need to be protected from the consequences of bad behavior. You keep objecting to some pretty non-controversial statements.

"Act professional at work" is not a liberal position. It is not a conservative position. Most of the men here, liberal and conservative alike, have no problem with this expectation. We act like professionals and expect others to do the same.

Now tell us again that men can't change because men are pitiable creatures who can't learn anything.

#159 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-10 08:11 AM | Reply

Rcade,

"Most of the men here, liberal and conservative alike, have no problem with this expectation. We act like professionals and expect others to do the same."

Apparently you believe I approve of male bad behavior or that I don't believe men should be professional?

I behave professionally. I refrain from gossip. I keep my personal life separate. I do not go on the offensive but I will defend myself.

My emphasis is on my own behavior.

If a company wants to implement policies that get men fired for any kind of suggestive banter, that is their right.

Of course standards of acceptable behavior would need to be placed on women too.

No suggestive clothing. No flirting. They would be expected to adhere to the same standards of professionalism.

You suggested I am only concerned with the way women respond but not interested in how men behave.

Are you under some impression women are a bunch of saints at work and men are the only ones who behave badly?

The last thing offices need is civil war between men and women.

Sure...we should ALL behave professionally (whatever that means) but humans are not perfect and unless companies want to be firing and retraining all the time, we have to accept the fact we are all imperfect people who need to co-exist.

Sometimes we just need to cut people some slack and they will do the same for you.

That's how things work now.

#160 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-10 11:18 AM | Reply

I'm done with this thread....

#161 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-10 11:20 AM | Reply

"Apparently you believe I approve of male bad behavior or that I don't believe men should be professional?"

You seem to be saying it has to be tolerated.
That's acceptance.

#162 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-10 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Are you under some impression women are a bunch of saints at work and men are the only ones who behave badly?

I haven't said anything like that. "Act professional at work" is obviously a standard for everyone, not just men.

#163 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-10 04:14 PM | Reply

Rcade,

What would be your solution to the "professionalism" issue?

How would you go about getting men to be more professional?

Anyone can point out problems.

What is your solution?

Be specific.

#164 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-10 11:12 PM | Reply

How would you go about getting men to be more professional?

In my world, we fire the ones who are not.

#165 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-10 11:54 PM | Reply

This whole thread sounds so funny, can see many here have never worked in a big corporate environment with 100s of employees and those comments totally bare out.

#166 | Posted by Crassus at 2018-02-11 12:10 AM | Reply

have never worked in a big corporate environment with 100s of employees

We have about 8,000. What's your point?

#167 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-11 12:14 AM | Reply

There is a huge difference between small and large companies, also big difference between up in office and down on floor, the language is different, the whole entire environment is different.

#168 | Posted by Crassus at 2018-02-11 12:24 AM | Reply

There is a huge difference between small and large companies, also big difference between up in office and down on floor, the language is different, the whole entire environment is different.

Guess what? That is going to change. And a lot of folk "up in office" are going to get punted, and so are a lot "down on floor" until companies adjust. I see it every day. Working class heroes like Archie Bunker wouldn't even be hired today.

#169 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-11 12:37 AM | Reply

Yes I agree, but there will still be huge differences in the environments between the office and floor. People say things on the floor that would never go in the office, and the reverse is true

#170 | Posted by Crassus at 2018-02-11 12:43 AM | Reply

People say things on the floor that would never go in the office, and the reverse is true

That will depend on the people. "Office" and "floor" people will always joke around with each other in a comfortable group.

Anything consistently hostile or inappropriate in either venue is going to end your career.

#171 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-11 12:51 AM | Reply

I agree, but the language on the floor is usually more guttural, than office do to the nature of the difference in environment and types of people.

#172 | Posted by Crassus at 2018-02-11 01:40 AM | Reply

Redial,

""Office" and "floor" people will always joke around with each other in a comfortable group."

That is along the lines of what I'm saying.

However, there will be the Adria Richards of the world who will disagree.

This thread seems to show a zero tolerance for such things by some people.

#173 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-11 08:17 AM | Reply

This thread seems to show a zero tolerance for such things by some people.

A lot of companies are developing a zero tolerance attitude toward workplace harassment.

Some people will just have to get used to that idea.

#174 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-11 09:10 AM | Reply

"""Office" and "floor" people will always joke around with each other in a comfortable group.""

I work for a company with zero tolerance for sexual inuendo, much less harrassment. There are many men who work right outside my door, who I pass in the warehouse often during the day. And there are young and attractive women here too who also pass them every day. No, there are not "jokes" or other types of sexual inuendo here, probably one of the reasons I've stayed with this company for so long. I appreciate the atmosphere, where I can even go to a Christmas Party, where alcoholic beverages are served and still all the employees act like adults. Oh wait, we had one not behave quite so appropriately one year, he wasn't there the next day. As it should be.
And that is not a made up story, that happened and actually there was even more to it that I won't go into.

#175 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-11 09:14 AM | Reply

Redial,

Is the joking among a group harrassment?

#176 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-11 09:16 AM | Reply

"Is the joking among a group harrassment?"

Yes Bill, I shouldn't have to tell you that. It is beyond harrassment and into bullying. Thanks for playing.

#177 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-11 09:18 AM | Reply

Is the joking among a group harrassment?

If no one is offended or intimidated, it will likely be unreported. If someone is, then it might be.

There will always be people who can't put together a sentence without using "----" three times, but they are not the problem.

The days of wallpapering the lunchroom with Penthouse centerfolds, however, are over.

#178 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-11 09:26 AM | Reply

"If no one is offended or intimidated, it will likely be unreported. If someone is, then it might be."

No one will be offended or intimidated if no one says things that are offensive or intimidating. Everyone can make faux pas statements but they can also apologize for them and learn from them. We don't need to walk on egg shells, adults should be able to handle reasonable comments for each other even if they aren't totally PC, that isn't harassment. Harassers know what harassment is. They get a thrill from doing it, they do it even when they know fully well they are doing it. Guys who don't do it should not live in fear, an accidental comment not intended to harass should never be cause for an accusation.

#179 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-11 09:38 AM | Reply

No one will be offended or intimidated if no one says things that are offensive or intimidating.

That's true enough. Managers that allow it even when no one is bothered by it are part of the problem.

#180 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-02-11 09:42 AM | Reply

Danni,

Based on this thread I am even more convinced the human race is well on its way to self annihilation.

Cameras everywhere, computer usage monitoring, chips in our bodies and snitching.

The earth will be such a lovely place in a 100 years.

#181 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-11 10:01 AM | Reply

If we're not all dead, we'll be crazy.

#182 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-11 10:06 AM | Reply

Currently 28 states are right to work states.

That means employers can hand you a pink slip for little or no reason.

This knife can but both ways.

#183 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-11 11:34 AM | Reply

#183 you got that right Bill

The employer will say that it's a mutual agreement that can be terminated by any party at any time.

Sounds fair, oh I don't like your shirt

#184 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-11 12:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort