Why are Women exiting It?
-
( Be honest - did you copy and paste this out of a middle school biology book from 1928? )
Thanks Mike he needs to join us in the 21st century. I think women needs accessible training both in content and cost because fast changing skills are hurdles that adds to the issue.
(I must be honest I have encountered awful treatment of women in IT, thankfully not very much, and I hate that I saw it, I did get into trouble for sticking my oar in ( against what I guess you'd call bullying ) , however, I felt that the males were unable to relate to the females- very cave man attitude, but as one was the boss there wasn't much I could do - we got rid of the other guy but not before the lady left to run a bar in spain.)
IT is full of tugs who bully women and tear them down women everyday, it is not related to skills or area of competence because these men like the barely skilled woman and attack the highly skilled woman. My opinion based on experience.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie -
LOL. I was a little shocked that people even buy into all that pseudo-science these days
I think women are probably leaving IT because there are better opportunities elsewhere, plain and simple. In my experience, a lot of the women I've worked with in IT come from strong business backgrounds, where a lot of men I've worked with in IT come from engineering and CS backgrounds. I'm not going to argue a chemical analysis or differences in brain structures to explain this -- for all I know it might just be that society pushes little boys and little girls in different directions.
But the bottom line is if the opportunities in IT are not as promising as they once were, the people with the business skills (men and women) to thrive elsewhere are going to be the first to leave while those without those skills are not.
-
For me I have either been the only woman in the group or one of just two of us. I think part of the reason that women are dropping out of IT are the demands. Most of my male collegues go from working on the computer at work, to working on the computer at home. None of them worry about the kids, making dinner, going grocery shopping, running errands, cleaning the house, doing laundry etc. When I was married, I didn't have time to go home and sit in front of the computer working or learning about new ideas.
At my last job, most of the women had children, and those of us that didn't have children were expected to pick up the slack. I worked really hard to pick up the extra work, and it led to burnout. It was just expected that since I didn't have kids I didn't have a life and I was willing to work every waking minute on work. I discovered that I wasn't as efficient and I wasn't enjoying working in IT.
In my current job, they would like us to all be Microsoft certified. At the moment, I am the only one pursuing that goal. I am learning a lot on my own time, but it is hard. I don't have kids, but the older I get, the less I am willing to give up all of my free time to work.
I agree that a lot of it starts in school. Girls aren't being encouraged as much as boys to pursue science degrees in general. But part of that is also in the view that we get from TV and movies. Many of the women are doctors, lawyers, police officers, surgeons and secretaries, but how many women are being portrayed as computer programmers? How many women are being protrayed as scientists in general.
-
I was lucky that my parents never told me that I shouldn't be good in math or science as I was growing up. I don't remember hearing of something so ridiculous as girls not being good at those subjects until I was an adult. Every person is unique. I do know that it would have been challenging to be a DBA when my kids were small.
Aunt Kathi Data Platform MVP
Author of Expert T-SQL Window Functions
Simple-Talk Editor -
I always feel liked I am working three jobs (7 days a week). I count I spend more time in the office and in my car. When I am home, I am doing chores except when I sleep (six hours a day if I am lucky.)
1. A database developer
2. A maid - clean the house, do the laundry and cook
3. A chauffeur for my son
-
An otherwise worthless psychiatrist once told me this:
The problem is that the men are so busy competing with each other, that they don't notice the women cooperating with each other and getting the job done. This results in the individual men thinking of the women as a single entity to be in competition with. And the women wonder why the hell they can't just get things done.
The IT world is one of personal accomplishment ("I made that"), and competition ("I did it better than you did"). Women just aren't down for that, and the ones who are successful in IT are the ones who engage in that personal achievement competition. Women who choose to work as women typically do, are then seen as people who don't fit into the culture. This is because it's the men who decided what the culture is. Women prefer to collaborate on software, while men seem to prefer to break the problem down into parts, divvy up the parts, and have a race to finish. Collaboration is effective, but it's a foreign concept to most men, and downright annoying to the anti-social geeks. It is obvious when you are doing things in a different way, and when you are the only woman... it's pretty depressing. (btw, most men don't care about that "not-fitting-in" problem, but women are uncomfortable in that situation, another reason to quit)
I think we need to ask ourselves if women leaving the IT field is really an issue to be concerned with. Male-dominated fields exist, and female-dominated fields exist. I don't think it's a concern if the difference is due to human nature. If the difference is due to women being forcibly oppressed, then obviously that's a problem, but I think it's pretty clear that women just don't like it. The number-crunchers should really leave us alone. I'm getting pretty tired of people saying "women should do more science" and "women should do more construction" or whatever women should do more of... why? Shouldn't we be doing whatever it is that we want to be doing?
I would bet if someone did statistics about how many people are in jobs that they hate... there would be far more men in that position than women.
-
-- I was a little shocked that people even buy into all that pseudo-science these days --
--Thanks Mike he needs to join us in the 21st century.--
Sorry, but that's rubbish. I contract part time for a psychological research project in London funded by one of the world's top universities run by leading Dr's and professors of psychology, it's mainly female psychologists on the project. I've had several discussions with them on the subject. They follow the evidence, which I wrote about. If you want to hold on to some ridiculous notion of righteousness without considering evidence, that's your problem. No need to ridicule those who *have* actually looked at the evidence and spoken to *experts* in the field.
Next time you think people aren't slaves to their biology, try and stop breathing. I bet your body takes over. Or next time you are ill, try and stop it through the power of will alone. Tell your stomach to stop hurting, see if you or you body is in command. Or tell depressed people to get over it. Their behaviour has absolutely nothing to do with levels of chemicals in their brain. Or autistic people to be more friendly, their brain structure has nothing to do with it. "Pay attention you rude man! Why should I take your physical attributes into account?..."
Of course, if you were involved in an accident which severed most of the communication between the different parts of your brain, it wouldn't change you, you're not a slave to your biology. The mind is infinite and has no boundaries, and you should stick with that view. Along with visual apperception and nihilism, what do the body or the brain have to do with anything?
Or, you might actually take a moment to *consider* what I wrote, and bother to look for the *research* and look at the *evidence* then you might get an insight. Nah, too much bother. No point in having an informed debate.
Instead, you can carry on believing that equal = equivalent. Well, it doesn't, not in reality and not mathematically. I did NOT write that women couldn't achieve the standard of work in the same technical field as men, just that their propensity to want to do this and/or likelihood to be capable of this is not as high. This is backed up by statistics and research. It doesn't have to be right, but it might be worth considering.
As for those who think men can't work in teams and women aren't over-competitive and are team-orientated, you might be interested to know that lots of research points the other way again. Men in teams want to win/succeed as a team, but women aren't as bothered, they're more interested in their individual performance/success. But then why bother with scientific method and research when you can just substitute it for opinion?
For a laugh
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml
For more debunking
-
Like I said, I could be wrong. I am no expert in the field, nor do I claim to be. And if you think you are the mere sum of your chemical components then so be it. I prefer to think that I am able to make decisions despite my chemical composition. AFAIK that might just be a ridiculous fanatical belief held by people in this country, however. Now if only the courts here would recognize that body chemistry is a valid excuse for everyone's behaviour, it will certainly do a lot to clear things up and open up a lot of avenues for people to rob and kill at will. How can anyone be responsible for anything if we're all "slaves to our chemistry"?
If you follow your thesis to its logical conclusion, a couple of shots of a various chemicals would make everyone both equal and equivalent, since the statistics and research you cite would back up your assertion that the only difference between men and women is chemistry.
Since we're following your thesis here, why stop with men and women? What effect does melanin, for instance, have on the body's chemistry and people's actions, social environment, etc.? I'm sure you could compile plenty of statistics to support just about anything you care to claim about the differences between white and black folks and attribute it to differences in melanin. That does not mean your claims are correct, nor does it mean that everyone (or even a majority) of people are not responsible for their mannerisms, actions, etc., because of a difference in chemicals in their system that is far beyond their control.
Being the expert that you are, I'm sure you're aware of the dictum cum hoc ergo propter hoc. ("with this, therefore because of this", or perhaps more commonly "correlation does not prove causation"). As the saying goes, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. We're talking about the number of women leaving a career field; one would think that the simplest, easily quantifiable, explanations should be explored first (i.e., the number of jobs available in IT, the number of opportunities available elsewhere, the number of women versus men who are promoted in the IT field, etc.) These statistics just might succinctly explain the situation without having to resort to inferences based on chemical analysis of the human body and catchphrases like "We're slaves to our biology".
-
I teach my PHD math and Masters Physics friends relational algebra both thought I had a math degree, I also had a conference with masters math degree statistician at a company I contracted, we met to clean up math errors both algebra and calculus for 13 Government required reports the meeting lasted less than five minutes everything was cleaned up because we know the where and what she also thought I had math degree. No I don’t have a math degree because my place of birth denied me access to such education.
The World is full of women like me so I am telling you that study is by research fund seeking privileged Brits whom the British comedies fondly call upper class twits.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie -
actually, I never asserted that anyone was a slave to their chemisty, or that anyone is the mere sum of their chemical components. You're the one who brought up slavery.
As an example, I mentioned *physical structure* as a component (which itself is affected by factors including hormones etc), including chemical composition. I also mentioned that the mind is infinite, which it is, but pointed out that it does have some reliance on physical components. Therefore I am taking into account each component, and not relying on any one, or rejecting any one, or relying on an assumption (which was one of the points I was making) to explain behaviour. I prefer to look at the evidence and consider all the factors. It's also why I was at pains to stress propensities as opposed to absolutes.
You might try reading the posts again. I'm also no expert, but as I wrote (if you read it) I have spoken to real *experts* on this issue, and read some of their work. That's all.
Before you ridicule others for what they post, you should really take the time to consider the strength of you reasoning and test your logic. Logic can only test the validity of the given propositions, so there's little point attacking a reasoning I haven't made based on things I haven't said. That would be a straw man argument, however logical it appears.
On the other hand, you *did* state I'd (the "I'd" is an assumption
"bought into pseudo-science", but unfortunately that statement is at least partially incorrect. They've used proper scientific method and have BSc's and doctorates. You know, that make things *real* science as opposed to "pseudo".I'm not placing religious faith in certificates, but lets face it, they *do* hold *some* weight.
-
The eugenicists were once scientists but we now know better.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie -
So... I'm a transsexual woman and I think that gives me a unique perspective on this chemical situation. I'm absolutely positive that chemical things can completely change your attitude. I take female hormones and androgen-blockers, and it has changed the way I think and feel on a daily basis. I was very 'female' in my thinking to begin with, but the hormones have changed my brain and sort of brought everything into agreement. Now my thinking and feeling is more aligned I think. I am still a top-notch developer, but I do tend to look at things from a different perspective than I used to. I have also noticed that my social skills have improved and surprisingly, people do not react to me in a funny way as they used to.
I just don't think we should be arguing over whether or not there is a chemical difference in female and male brains. There is. I also don't think there should be any argument over whether or not this changes a person's thinking. It does.
What I take offense with is the assumption that this chemical difference equates to some kind of deficiency. It doesn't. There's really not much discussion to be had about it. Men and women think differently and act differently and therefore they gravitate towards different fields. There is nothing wrong with that situation except for all the attempts to measure, classify, and interpret this situation as either "right" or "wrong". It's not right or wrong, it just is.
-
The eugenicists were never scientists, it's a philosophy. And are you truly comparing those who do research into the brain using open, standard scientific methods and publish their results in peer reviewed journals and the like - are you really comparing them with eugenicists just because you don't like what they have to say? And all they are saying is that people may have a bias due to their gender. *May* have a bias, but they still allow for the fact that anyone may display *any* potential? And strangely enough, these results seem to be borne out by experience - that boys are more interested in computers, and maths, and physics, and engineering, and sport - than girls???
Wow, the nazis.
Ridiculous. Truly ridiculous. Comparing those doing research like this to those doing selective breeding of humans is ridiculous, and by making that comparison you really don't seem to be taking a reasonable line of argument.
I'm out.
-
It's because when you say this:
"Men have higher testosterone and this affects the way their brains grow"
...you are correct. But the corollary:
"giving them an advantage in mathematical/logical thinking."
...is offensive. Nobody really cares if it's correct or not. It's offensive. That's why you're not getting a debate on the merits.
-
actually, I never asserted that anyone was a slave to their chemisty, or that anyone is the mere sum of their chemical components. You're the one who brought up slavery.
"Next time you think people aren't slaves to their biology,"
Therefore I am taking into account each component, and not relying on any one, or rejecting any one, or relying on an assumption (which was one of the points I was making) to explain behaviour. I prefer to look at the evidence and consider all the factors.
Occam's Razor. You don't necessarily need to dive into theoretical biology to explain a simple social and economic phenomenon like the movement of one segment of a population away from one career field and into another. Once you've exhausted all the simple and easily quantifiable explanations, then you start looking at peripheral correlations. When a woman says she just changed jobs is the first thing that comes to your mind really "Oh that's because you have a higher percentage of estrogen than the man who didn't switch jobs"? Personally I would start looking at the immediate factors for a simple explanation before asking for blood samples to try to infer body chemistry as the culprit. She might have found a better paying job. Maybe she wasn't treated as well as the man. Maybe her and the man were both treated like crap, but the man is just stupid enough to sit there and take it? Maybe her interests have just changed?
I would even consider the possibility that she was heading out to start her own business since statistics show that women represent 1/3 of all people involved in entrepreneurial activity, between 1997 and 2002 the percentage of women-owned firms grew nearly 3 times faster than all U.S. firms (and they continue to grow at over twice the rate of all U.S. firms). Perhaps all that extra estrogen just makes women more open to taking risks? Maybe it just makes them smarter than their male counterparts who stick it out in underpaid jobs in bad environments. Perhaps it's not even a factor.
Before you ridicule others for what they post, you should really take the time to consider the strength of you reasoning and test your logic. Logic can only test the validity of the given propositions, so there's little point attacking a reasoning I haven't made based on things I haven't said. That would be a straw man argument, however logical it appears.
You should re-read your own posts and then draw the line for us through these points: 1) women have more estrogen, 2) men have more testosterone, 3) women are "chatty", 4) we are "slaves to our biology", 5) this is why women are leaving the IT field. It will be quite an interesting argument to see all of this pulled together into a coherent argument. Personally I think it's all much simpler than that, and simple explanations may abound. Correlations also abound, but causations tend to be harder to find, with good reason. It's diapers and beer, man. Diapers and beer.
On the other hand, you *did* state I'd (the "I'd" is an assumption
"bought into pseudo-science", but unfortunately that statement is at least partially incorrect. They've used proper scientific method and have BSc's and doctorates. You know, that make things *real* science as opposed to "pseudo".I'll look into the links you provided and see if they state the things you have, and if they also theorize that women are leaving the IT field because of their estrogen and brain structure. It will be very interesting to see the method they used to prove that causation.
I'm not placing religious faith in certificates, but lets face it, they *do* hold *some* weight.
Of course. Fortunately these ladies' levels of estrogen didn't prevent them from finishing their studies and acquiring these degrees so that they can go back and prove causations concerning levels of estrogen and women leaving the field.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 50 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply