OSDev.org

So assuming OP isn't just flame-bait and at least some people care about this topic. There isn't much we can do on this forum it's too niche to attract many people at all, and given how male-dominated the field is it's unlikely we'll be able to turn the tide from here. However I think it's already going the right way, it's well moderated allowing people to have their opinion heard but still keeping it civil and on topic. That said there are posts in this very thread that show how deep the anti-woman attitude runs through most "nerdy" groups.

Octacone wrote:Please keep this lovely page feminism free...triggered females having a racism related conversation...

Assuming this isn't 100% sarcasm (Poe's Law and all) this is the kind of attitude that drives people away, or convinces them that concealing their gender/race/religion whatever is the right thing to do.

simeonz wrote:...female gender...undermine their social and de-facto political status...hormonal differences...

Again just throwing out a stereotype to see if it sticks. Which testicle produces the coding hormone exactly?

Geri wrote:...liberal brainwashing censorshipping media franchize.

Geez I wish I could have read your hot take on this, based on your other posts I bet it would be mature and nuanced that's for sure

The idea of some strong biological bias for this behavior is in my opinion not particularly well founded, no matter the situation, humans don't pick nits off each other and eat them. We aren't monkeys and the difference between us and animals is that our needs and wants are much more complex. Humans are individuals with individual interests, there is no biologic predictor for being an astronaut, or a tax attorney and definitely not a programmer.
So my idea, is that we discuss this in a mature way, if we think there is something important to say, but otherwise we just try to be welcoming and inclusive. We (as engineers) like to consider ourselves logical and procedural, not driven by emotion, so lets apply that to the way we judge people. Not by knee-jerk reaction or by applying some stereotype, but by their contributions.

PS. try not to use "Females" as a noun - in English, that implies we are talking about animals, not other people. I understand you want to look like an impartial observer, documenting the habits of the female human, but it doesn't work.

StudlyCaps wrote: PS. try not to use "Females" as a noun - in English, that implies we are talking about animals, not other people. I understand you want to look like an impartial observer, documenting the habits of the female human, but it doesn't work.

but this use sounds so sexy! (not only in english)
In fact I think girls are better humans than guys, but, unfortunately, they kind of dislike science, computing etc, in general. let's face it. And I think talking about the reasons why this is so, even for the neuropsychologists or how they are called, is a hard topic. Like the IQ difference between race groups etc. I am not a specialist and don't know why girls are not inclined to this field. but I am certainly one of those who want them to appear there more and more. I don't know what should have been done to achieve this. But I'm sure, - not fighting "sexist" jokes. Humor is always a good thing. It's not an anti-woman attitude, rather opposite.
Honestly, I think nothing will change cardinally, no matter, will the society "talk about it" or not. Still raising this question is needed, to obsolete those stupid stereotypes. At least that tiny part of women, wishing to be a part of the field, will have a possibilty to become it. without obstacles.

zaval wrote:but this use sounds so sexy! (not only in english)

hey, I don't mind it in principal, but it seems to mostly be used when saying "FEMALES are worse at X than men!"

zaval wrote:girls are better humans than guys, but, unfortunately, they kind of dislike science

This is the issue though. This isn't a fact, this is just a stereotype. Even if you think, "well, I've seen enough to know", how much is enough. As you say, you haven't done a study, so why state it as fact when you cannot know for sure? It's impossible to separate the socialized behaviors of people from their biologically inspired ones, and even if we could, I don't know why we should.
Is it so hard to say, we treat people as equally capable and equally dedicated until we have enough experience with the individual to say for sure what they like, what they can do?
So in this vein, I'd say that the comments I mentioned in my last post, which are very much "we don't want girls joining our club" are much more influential in keeping women away from recreational programming, and from our communities, than any biological factors.

zaval wrote:not fighting "sexist" jokes

This isn't what I'm trying to do, as I said I don't know if the posts I quoted where meant as jokes, or as real opinions (maybe partly both?). If Octacone or simeonz were joking, then I'm sorry for taking it too literally, mea culpa. However, without context they are definitely anti-woman, saying it is good that women don't join us because of negative stereotypes.
I think things will change, I think that one day it will be as trite to say women are good at child care and bad at science than to say that a gay man can't whistle (as the author of James Bond once thought). It will simply be a stereotype which will fade from public memory.

StudlyCaps wrote:It's impossible to separate the socialized behaviors of people from their biologically inspired ones, and even if we could, I don't know why we should.

So what are you suggesting? Combating gender discrimination by repressing science?

StudlyCaps wrote:If Octacone or simeonz were joking, then I'm sorry for taking it too literally, mea culpa.

I wasn't joking.

StudlyCaps wrote:So in this vein, I'd say that the comments I mentioned in my last post, which are very much "we don't want girls joining our club" are much more influential in keeping women away from recreational programming, and from our communities, than any biological factors.

StudlyCaps wrote:However, without context they are definitely anti-woman, saying it is good that women don't join us because of negative stereotypes.

My English skills are deficient, and my writing is vague and verbose, but even I could not have failed to deliver my thoughts so miserably.

First, if you google for a while, you will find that contemporary science holds that men have greater tendency for tunnel vision, which means task focus, which almost paradoxically benefits engineering. I have known women that excel in science that can wipe the floor with me. They are perfectly able to tackle scientific and engineering problems. This is why I think that it is due to hormonal differences. Hormones do not determine a person's mental capacity, but the way in which it is allocated. What most women experience is dislike for the technical subjects. Men also, but less so than women. There is also fault in our education, that it presents the academic subjects in a very narrow-minded way, which repels the practical and rational mind. This particularly discourages women, which prefer to explore wide than narrow.

What I am concerned with, is how society plans to make sure that all genders, ethnic groups, social classes, etc, will stay competitive in the quartiary job segment (i.e. science and engineering). Otherwise, certain parts of the population will lose their social status as the technological revolution continues to produce automation. Back on our topic, if we fail to explore the gender differences and motivate women further into engineering occupations, we could recess into men-dominated society. And believe it or not, balanced societies provide benefits to both genders. Scientific understanding provides us with insight on these matters, because we cannot answer all questions intuitively.

Even if the conversation has been rude, the topic itself is worthwhile and relevant. Women and men have a lot of baggage to deal with and a lot of issues to tackle in their mutual future. This applies more to men's issues than women's, as men are generally the more dysfunctional gender. (I am not trying to be graceful.) However, this does not mean that there aren't problems that apply deferentially to women. And such issues, when socially relevant, need to be addressed calmly. Although not on this forum, admittedly.

StudlyCaps wrote:

Geri wrote:...liberal brainwashing censorshipping media franchize.

Geez I wish I could have read your hot take on this, based on your other posts I bet it would be mature and nuanced that's for sure

It was definitely a hot pile of something, but underneath all of that it offered a unique look at Geri's life. It's too bad I didn't get a screenshot, I'd love to hear what the nearest university psychology department could say about it.

simeonz wrote:Combating gender discrimination by repressing science

I didn't mean science should be repressed. I just think that if somebody came up with an experiment that would prove women or men are better programmers (for example) why should we do it? What good would it do to know that? (Edit: Not that they should be stopped, just I don't think there is a good reason.)

simeonz wrote:I wasn't joking.

I pointed your comment out as an example of why women expect to be pre-judged in traditionally male dominated areas, such as engineering. There is a belief that women are biologically less suited to this work, but it isn't supported by any evidence. It is a hold over from when women were deliberately excluded from these jobs.
I wouldn't try to prevent you from saying what you want, but I was using what you said to make a point.

simeonz wrote:tunnel vision

Again, you say that men are more likely to have tunnel vision. Ok, but that doesn't mean men have better task focus, task focus is about how your brain works, not how your eyes work. Even then, having better task focus doesn't necessarily make you a better engineer. You took one proven thing, then added two aspects that are just guesswork and you came up with a theory. This is a very unfair way to generalize a huge group of people, and it is not scientific.

I agree that we are heading to a crunch time, where automation will mean that the number of people needed to keep society running will be quite small. This will really shake up society. I also agree that it is worth using scientific methods to try to figure out why fewer women do work in engineering, but I think we shouldn't use that as an excuse to ignore the reason that's right here in our face. I think with a small effort, communities like this could be more welcoming to women, and I think that is worth it.

All that said, I would prefer a rude conversation (within reason ) to no conversation. Be frank and say what you mean, some people use that as an excuse to lash out, to be racist or sexist for it's own sake. That adds nothing. I think we both have the same motivation though, we both want a more free and more fair world.

Octocontrabass wrote:It was definitely a hot pile of something

I almost wish I could have seen it, Geri's screeds sure are something!

I probably should simply avoid this topic as unproductive - especially since it is far from clear which side of the war between the sexes I am siding with - but I wanted to point out a) that at least some historians of the field claim that the gender balance was reversed in the first 20 years of the computing field, but shifted for reasons unrelated to the specific technical skills of any individuals, and b) I have repeatedly asserted here and elsewhere that it is likely to reverse again in the next 20, again for reasons related to the perception of the field rather than to technical prowess.

I will try to find some links regarding the former, and explain my view on the latter, some time later

https://www.kodewithklossy.com now someone has to convince her to make osdevwithklossy.com.

What, do you think, makes OSDev so special a field that it would require a separate effort?

OK, let me rephrase that.

There's nothing special to OS related coding. What it takes to be a good OS developer is the same set of skills it takes to be a good developer, full stop. It's a different set of documentation and APIs you're working with, but so is doing database servers, compilers, web frontends, or game development.

It is absolutely fascinating to me that there are people out there who are supposedly intelligent enough to write operating systems yet think that encouraging gender diversity is "repressing science".

It is even more fascinating (in the "1/10000th speed footage of a nuclear bomb detonating" sense) that someone who genuinely believes an OS dev forum is part of a grand lizard person conspiracy to censor anything not "liberal" (translation: reeee I can't be openly racist and sexist here to cover up my own glaring personality faults as an antisocial millennial) is cognitive enough to remember how to breathe while shitposting (Geri, if you read this, it is you who is already brainwashed, please seek psychological help, else make good on your "threat" to stop posting here).

I always find gender inequality a fascinating but hard topic. I hate the simplistic and self-righteous approach that many people take, both left- and right-wing.

Right now, I think there are actually more females in university. At the same time, there are many more male professors. I agree that this is somewhat awkward. I do agree that there may be a bit of a 'boys club' culture, and this should be actively avoided if this is the case. Also, there might be a bit of a role-model problem here.

In math and computer science specifically, I think that the gender imbalance is mostly due to two things:
1. Women tend to value social coherency and 'fitting in' more. There's the stereotype of the awkward nerd, so people who prioritize fitting in, might have some objections to taking up computers or math as a hobby.
2. There's the traditional tale (I think it is a fable) that men are better at math than women, which is known to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So this encourages gender imbalance between different fields.

I would agree that I would probably like the STEM field more if there were more women. STEM is a hard field, with many people putting a large portion of their time into it. So, many peoples social lives are entirely within STEM. I'm 25, and I have quite a few friends who don't go out, and I have never seen with a girl (so my conclusion is that they are probably virgin). Now, these are (with a few exceptions) not ugly, socially awkward guys. However, this does put females in an awkward position. I did a group project once, with about 6 guys and 1 girl. The girl had a boyfriend, but still three of the guys were obviously putting effort in going on dates with her. While this was already pretty awkward from my perspective, I expect that it would be even worse for her - and I can absolutely understand that this repels many females from the STEM fields (of course it isn't always at bad as this, and this particular girl maybe would be better off with a somewhat harsher attitude - aka the '***** shield', which is a horrible sexist term).

Actually there is a paradox. In the countries where women are empowered, they seem to be more likely to choose stereotypical professions.

In top Pakistani technology universities, there's something like 60:40 male to female gender ratio, far better than the US. I have heard that in Iran, 70% of engineering students are female. In my university, three out of my four professors are women, including those who teach linear algebra and calculus, how often does it happen in the US?

I think it's because Pakistanis do not choose their major because of interest. Most of them have no idea about when they join university.

---

I have been thinking about a constant pattern for a long time, I don't know if someone has already noticed it. You can call it introvert males obsession syndrome or something.

You notice a group of males from a community obsessing over some relatively unimportant but narrowly focused thing over and over again. Greek philosophers, scientists in the Islamic golden age in Baghdad, reminiscence scholars (not sure about this one), Muslim poets in Northern India writing love poetry in 18th to 20th century. It happens now as well in the form of Western men obsessing over anime or 4chan trolls. And, of course, OSDev.

Both men and women want to be notice but there's a subtle difference. Men crave for status in their tribe. Women crave for attention from males.

Hi,

I find this a really interesting topic - although it can get heated pretty quickly. Great to see a (generally) calm discussion about it!

As for my views, I tend to be fairly against "affirmative action" in workplaces and would take the same view in a forum. When conversing on here, there are a few members whose gender I (almost certainly) know. Unless a specific topic like this comes up, however, I don't really think about it. I'm certain that there are women reading these forums just as much as I'm uncertain who they are. I also don't really care who I'm interacting with as long as they have an interest in the activity this site is dedicated to and are here by choice.

I would never aim to force a workplace or forum to have a 50:50 gender split. In the workplace what matters is who can do the job well. On a forum like this all that matters is that you have an interest and follow forum rules. As far as I can see, this forum is already gender agnostic (equality of opportunity). Active changes designed at increasing diversity by increasing the number of female users or decreasing male users is equality of outcome - a philosophy I don't subscribe to.

I also consider that people should follow their own interests rather than being "forced" (too strong a word, maybe) in to a particular activity just because they belong to a specific "underrepresented" group. If more children getting in to coding (Scratch, RPi and so on) means that there is a change in demographic here in the future that's all well and good - we probably won't even know that it's happened.

In fact, the last time I remember someone making a point of their gender on here was a few years ago and it was someone trying to troll the admins.

Cheers,
Adam

Muazzam wrote:You notice a group of males from a community obsessing over some relatively unimportant but narrowly focused thing over and over again. Greek philosophers, scientists in the Islamic golden age in Baghdad, reminiscence scholars (not sure about this one), Muslim poets in Northern India writing love poetry in 18th to 20th century. It happens now as well in the form of Western men obsessing over anime or 4chan trolls.

All these societies were completely patriarchal, in Ancient Greece it was rarely even legal for a woman to partake in philosophical debates. I suspect similar legal or social constraints existed in the Islamic golden age and in 18th century India also, though I don't know the specifics. You could also say that there where also more male bricklayers, politicians, merchants, warriors, sailors etc. then women.

As far as anime is concerned, there are huge numbers of women who have an unhealthy obsession with anime and similar media, they congregate on deviant art and tumblr though, not 4chan.

You must remember, when you look and say "women seldom choose X, this suggest a biological factor." You are ignoring that men and women effectively have entirely different experiences, from birth to death, even in the modern US. Peoples choices are shaped by their experiences, and their perception of what society expects.

AJ wrote:I tend to be fairly against "affirmative action"

I never really understood this position.
You may say that it isn't fair to judge people based on their gender, but this already happens. Affirmative action exists only to counter-balance existing negative discrimination with some degree of institutional positive discrimination.

I agree that this forum provides an equality of opportunity, but that is far from the case in wider society.

I also think that equality of outcome is a far more nuanced idea that you give it credit for, and it covers a wide range of different beliefs and practices. I do not think that many proponents of equality of outcome would agree with you that the goal of such is that there is always an exactly representative population in every occupation. It is more that all people who work with the same dedication and skill should get the same thing out, and if some factor that they cannot control prevents this than society should put it's hand on the scales in order to correct this.

Muazzam wrote:Women crave for attention from males

men crave attention and validation from men as much as women do, the difference is what society considers an acceptable way to get attention.

Hi,

StudlyCaps wrote:

AJ wrote:I tend to be fairly against "affirmative action"

I never really understood this position.
You may say that it isn't fair to judge people based on their gender, but this already happens. Affirmative action exists only to counter-balance existing negative discrimination with some degree of institutional positive discrimination.

I'm the sole owner of a small/medium-sized medical (optometry) business. I'm never going to interview someone thinking that they are ideal for the job and then reject them due to gender / race etc... Why would I? If I select purely on ability, the reputation of the business increases, I have to do less work (I don't keep having to check up on the person because I already know they are good at what they do) and the business makes more profit.

I would absolutely never deny that sexists are out there, but I think that candidate selection based purely on discriminatory factors is less common than imagined. Any business owner wants the best for the business that they have spent years building up. Why would they jeopardise that?

Cheers,
Adam