[website] BBC Viewpoint: More women needed in technology

[Oaktech]

I'll throw this into the room and retreat to a safe distance. Discuss.

 

BBC News - Viewpoint: More women needed in technology

[spookyspoof]

 

Reminds me of this.....

[british_government]

I will never say no to more females, especially mid 20's smoking hot females.........

[pcstru]

It's time to change things. Any chief executive with half an ounce of sense should be putting their blood, sweat and tears into ensuring that the make-up of their company mirrors the make-up of their market.

 

Unfortunately though, out of all the FTSE 100 companies, only two have female CEO's. That is quite obviously gender discrimination.

[LosOjos]

Whether or not their is discrimination is not my place to say, but surely the best person for the job is simply that; the best person for the job. I for one am sick of ticking boxes, it shouldn't matter what box you fall in to so long as you're good at what you do!

 

I always remember picking up a job bulletin for Sandwell Council that started with a standard "we are an equal opportunities employer" and ended with a footnote (these exact words): "we are particularly looking for a black, disabled female as we feel we are under represented in this area". Beggars belief.

 

EDIT: I think I ought to step away from this thread now, I get involved in far too many controversial debates around here...

Edited October 15, 2012 by LosOjos

[elsiegee40]

As a female IT person from the days of yore when punch cards ruled and nobody had thought of Windows, I agree that there are few of us in the profession. I was one of only 3 women in a Technical Support and Operations department of around 80 staff.

 

In my younger days, the only way to work in IT included night shift and on-call... with no remote support; driving into Chatham at 2am was never a favourite. I took a couple of years out when tiny children and the hours proved totally incompatible. I was the first Systems Programmer ever to require maternity leave at this place... it is fair to say that management and colleagues alike struggled with the concept.

 

These days, it is easier to be a technician and have a family life... remoting in to fix problems is fantastic! And these days employers do treat women better. By treating women better, I mean they treat their employees equally. I don't expect to be treated any differently to my male colleagues... and I certainly wouldn't expect to be 'positively discriminated' for.

 

It is encouraging to see so many women on here... and more of my generation than I initially expected as well.

[X-13]

I always remember picking up a job bulletin for Sandwell Council that started with a standard "we are an equal opportunities employer" and ended with a footnote (these exact words): "we are particularly looking for a black, disabled female as we feel we are under represented in this area". Beggars belief.

 

I've seen something similar here.

 

Though it was further. It pretty much ended with "If you aren't black, don't bother applying."

 

 

It is encouraging to see so many women on here... and more of my generation than I initially expected as well.

 

What you don't realise is that us male techs are gathering all the female techs in one place, so we can remove you all at once. [/JOKE]

Edited October 15, 2012 by X-13

[pcstru]

Whether or not their is discrimination is not my place to say,

Isn't it? 2% of top companies are run by Women. If it isn't discrimination then what exactly is it?

but surely the best person for the job is simply that; the best person for the job. I for one am sick of ticking boxes, it shouldn't matter what box you fall in to so long as you're good at what you do!

 

To some extent, sure. But if the demographics of a large body of employees (say the police) is significantly different from the social demographic doesn't that spell trouble? And if you don't take positive action to address that, why would you expect it to sort itself out?

[Achandler]

Some types of work men prefer and other women prefer, so some work places by default don't represent the social demographic. In general terms, more males prefer to do jobs such as the police, army and fire service for example. Whereas females may prefer other roles, teaching (especially primary schools), nursing. That is just how people are and we shouldn't try to force change everything to represent the social demographic, unless you would like the government to allocate you a job like in Futurama.

 

Now there may be issues with discrimination but I don't think positively discriminating is going to fix it either, if two people are identically qualified and experience, and then a male is chosen because he is male, then that is an issue. If the male candidate is actually better but because they would like more females in the workplace, so they chose the female, what problem does it solve?

[LosOjos]

Isn't it?

 

No, it has nothing to do with me and I'm in no way responsible. I haven't witnessed it, I haven't caused it, I haven't done it. Not my place to say.

[pcstru]

Some types of work men prefer and other women prefer, so some work places by default don't represent the social demographic.

Right. So women just don't want to run FTSE 100 companies. Who'd-a-thunk it.

In general terms, more males prefer to do jobs such as the police, army and fire service for example. Whereas females may prefer other roles, teaching (especially primary schools), nursing. That is just how people are and we shouldn't try to force change everything to represent the social demographic,

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that women would like to be doing those jobs and that they are represented better at the lower levels but that as you rise up the ladder, the proportion drops. How do you explain that? That the ones that do want to be police prefer being lower down the ranks? Is that like the FTSE 100 companies, women just don't have much ambition?

Now there may be issues with discrimination but I don't think positively discriminating is going to fix it either, if two people are identically qualified and experience, and then a male is chosen because he is male, then that is an issue. If the male candidate is actually better but because they would like more females in the workplace, so they chose the female, what problem does it solve?

 

It helps change the culture of an organisation where it has been demonstrated that no other method works.

[LosOjos]

Ah, just checked and yes, it was you (@pcstru) who kept on with the goading in the last controversial thread I got involved in. I'll step away now as I sense a repeat. Have fun!

[pcstru]

Ah, just checked and yes, it was you (@pcstru) who kept on with the goading in the last controversial thread I got involved in. I'll step away now as I sense a repeat. Have fun!

 

Yet here you are the one who seems to think it necessary to rake up the past and call it "goading". I'd say that was a good an example of Ad hominem. How about if you are going to attack something, attack the points being made.

[localzuk]

Isn't it? 2% of top companies are run by Women. If it isn't discrimination then what exactly is it?

 

Nope. You can't possibly make that claim with just that statistic. I'm pretty sure hair dressing is dominated by women, as is 'nannying' (the first man ever is now attending the college in Bath).

 

All it proves is that 2% of FTSE 100 companies are run by women... Did women apply for all the posts when they came up last?

 

What are the proportions of women in the lower ranks of those companies? Is it 50/50 in the finance dept? 50/50 in the marketing division?

 

Positive discrimination is a con - it isn't positive is it? Its negative against those who are ignored because they don't tick some demographic box. All discrimination is bad in my view.

 

The best person for the job should get the job, whether they are a white male, a black female, disabled transsexual or a green slug from Pluto!

[Achandler]

I gave examples of where there is more male/ female ratios, either more male or more female. I don't have access to the figures of the male/ female ratio at every level of every organisation. There may be more females in boardrooms in FTSE 350 companies, I don't know.

 

Clearly your view is that we have to positively discriminate and you won't accept that some people may disagree with it, and think that positive discrimination might not be a good thing. I have to agree with LosOjos here, I think I'll step away from discussing this with you, it seems it would be as productive as a does God exist or not argument between an atheist and a Christian.

 

Maybe the political system should be targeted first though, because we have had 1 female prime minister EVER, so I would have to see our percentages for that job role. Once politics has changed, then politicians can start forcing others to follow suit if that is what has to happen.

[X-13]

All it proves is that 2% of FTSE 100 companies are run by women... Did women apply for all the posts when they came up last?

 

Nobody asks that. They also don't query the qualifications/experience of any women that have applied. [There's a high chance it'll destroy their argument.]

 

 

It could be as simple as A)Women are not applying for these jobs or B) The other people were better qualified to do it.

 

 

I've yet to find someone who was turned down for a job and then claimed it was because they were a woman. I have, however, met people who whinge about not getting jobs because they're female, when they didn't even apply for it in the first place or they have no relevent experience or qualifications.

 

 

Maybe the political system should be targeted first though, because we have had 1 female prime minister EVER, so I would have to see our percentages for that job role.

 

Are women applying for the role?

 

It's hardly fair to say "we've only have 1 female prime minister EVER", if there has only ever been one woman who wanted to do it.

Edited October 15, 2012 by X-13

[pcstru]

I gave examples of where there is more male/ female ratios, either more male or more female. I don't have access to the figures of the male/ female ratio at

every level of every organisation. There may be more females in boardrooms in FTSE 350 companies, I don't know.

Well OK. So some figures from a European Commission report into Gender equality :

 

"Gender imbalance in decision-making positions is observed in various domains: politics, economics, science and research. However, the situation is worst in business management with much fewer women than men at all levels of business management. Many large companies still have no women on their boards and there are only few female executives. In 2010, one in three (34%) large companies in the EU and at least half of the companies surveyed in ten countries had men-only boards and another third (32%) of companies had just one female representative; in Europe's largest publicly quoted companies, on average, only one out of ten board members is a woman and so are only 3% of board chairpersons."

 

 

Now, obviously I don't have the figures for every company and every level, but I'd be extremely surprised if the employee gender ratio at board level ran all the way through a company. 1 in 10?

Clearly your view is that we have to positively discriminate and you won't accept that some people may disagree with it, and think that positive discrimination might not be a good thing. I have to agree with LosOjos here, I think I'll step away from discussing this with you, it seems it would be as productive as a does God exist or not argument between an atheist and a Christian.

. I accept people do not agree with me and I am quite capable of changing my mind when evidence suggests my view is wrong. I'm deeply sorry that I put my points in a way that has obviously damaged the rather sensitive sensibilities of a few posters here but yes, perhaps those with such delicate views who don't like them challenged are better off avoiding discussion. So, err, bye then.

Maybe the political system should be targeted first though, because we have had 1 female prime minister EVER, so I would have to see our percentages for that job role. Once politics has changed, then politicians can start forcing others to follow suit if that is what has to happen.

 

Maybe it should, it is certainly not immune. Female MP's number around 150 out of a possible 650, there are 5 in the cabinet out of 22. Do you think women are perhaps less political?

Edited October 15, 2012 by pcstru

[localzuk]

Another factor to take into account - I know of loads of women who had careers, got quite high, and then decided to have kids, and left their field to become a full-time mother. They didn't go back to it again, because they wanted to be with their kids. I can guarantee to you that some of the women working in your schools likely did this - we have at lease 2 here. They went for the jobs because of the flexibility in their hours allowing them to work a few hours a day early on with their kid, and gradually increase those hours as their kids age.

 

Thing is, businesses could do this too - but many don't, as they have a business to run and profit to make. They need stability and continuity to ensure they don't end up going bust...

[pcstru]

Nobody asks that. They also don't query the qualifications/experience of any women that have applied. [There's a high chance it'll destroy their argument.]

It is difficult to get that kind of data for women who have applied for top jobs at top companies. What we do know though is that in the humanities and arts (of which business is a part), women graduates outnumber men. In general women are 27% more likely to get a degree.

 

HESA suggests numbers of business graduates are quite evenly split at first degree with a male bias going into postgraduate. Going from that to a 1 in 10 ratio at board level. I think it would be difficult to argue it's down to qualifications.

[elsiegee40]

Another factor to take into account - I know of loads of women who had careers, got quite high, and then decided to have kids, and left their field to become a full-time mother. They didn't go back to it again, because they wanted to be with their kids. I can guarantee to you that some of the women working in your schools likely did this - we have at lease 2 here. They went for the jobs because of the flexibility in their hours allowing them to work a few hours a day early on with their kid, and gradually increase those hours as their kids age.

 

Thing is, businesses could do this too - but many don't, as they have a business to run and profit to make. They need stability and continuity to ensure they don't end up going bust...

I couldn't agree more. Like it or not, women are the primary child-carers... and if couples split, children are more likely to live with Mum.

 

As a Mum with a very highly paid job (equal footing with my accountant husband in the 1990s) in IT, once we had finally paid our way out of the 1990 housing slump, I decided that life was too short to carry on working silly hours and struggling with the children.

 

There were two choices: 1) Get a nanny and carry on working, but hardly see the children... the eldest had started school, so day care wasn't needed for both, but school pick-up was real issue

or 2) Get a life and career that worked better round them. I chose the latter.

[witch]

They went for the jobs because of the flexibility in their hours allowing them to work a few hours a day early on with their kid, and gradually increase those hours as their kids age.

 

Thing is, businesses could do this too - but many don't, as they have a business to run and profit to make. They need stability and continuity to ensure they don't end up going bust...

 

Hopefully this might be addressed by balancing the maternity/paternity leave situation, and also make it more common for men to take time off when their children are born. Then both sexes will be able to take 'career breaks' and companies will just have to get used to it.

As for the positive discrimination thing - I dont agree with it at all, BUT it is important that we address the lack of expectation of females to be doing tech stuff. We women are still the exception in an IT world - I started as a test engineer and was the only female in the dept until my friend from college joined me. That was a long time ago but I do wonder if anything much has changed.

By the time I had children, I was earning a lot of money as a tech headhunter, and we did discuss mrwITch staying at home with them but he couldnt really do it as tech was moving too fast.

[localzuk]

Hopefully this might be addressed by balancing the maternity/paternity leave situation, and also make it more common for men to take time off when their children are born. Then both sexes will be able to take 'career breaks' and companies will just have to get used to it.

As for the positive discrimination thing - I dont agree with it at all, BUT it is important that we address the lack of expectation of females to be doing tech stuff. We women are still the exception in an IT world - I started as a test engineer and was the only female in the dept until my friend from college joined me. That was a long time ago but I do wonder if anything much has changed.

By the time I had children, I was earning a lot of money as a tech headhunter, and we did discuss mrwITch staying at home with them but he couldnt really do it as tech was moving too fast.

 

At university, there were roughly 20 women on the BSc Computing course I was on, out of about 300 of us. So, the issue exists at a much earlier stage than uni.

 

I'd suggest it is partly down to that earlier cartoon - girls being shuffled into non-engineering playing etc... Same with science clubs and the like.

[pcstru]

Another factor to take into account - I know of loads of women who had careers, got quite high, and then decided to have kids, and left their field to become a full-time mother. They didn't go back to it again, because they wanted to be with their kids.

 

I believe this is a genuine factor that does upset the balance - certainly from 50/50. What I would question is that it (choice by women) alone is responsible for the imbalance we see in companies.

 

There is another discrimination that is rampant - pay. When I worked for a private sector company I was in a position where I knew what most people were earning. I constantly saw two people doing the same jobs with much the same experience, qualifications and length of service etc. Yet there was a definite skew in pay with female employees generally 10-20% worse off than their male peers.

[witch]

At university, there were roughly 20 women on the BSc Computing course I was on, out of about 300 of us. So, the issue exists at a much earlier stage than uni.

 

I'd suggest it is partly down to that earlier cartoon - girls being shuffled into non-engineering playing etc... Same with science clubs and the like.

Absolutely - you only have to go and look at all the pink and blue toys in Toys-r-us to see how the genders are segregated from an early age.

There IS a difference between the way men and women think and I am not sure there will ever be as many women in tech as men, but I am sure there would be more if it was presented in a different way. Ditto there would be more male nannies, nurses and primary school teachers if things were done differently

 

*mind you, there were 4 women on my course so maybe things have got a bit better!

[localzuk]

Absolutely - you only have to go and look at all the pink and blue toys in Toys-r-us to see how the genders are segregated from an early age.

There IS a difference between the way men and women think and I am not sure there will ever be as many women in tech as men, but I am sure there would be more if it was presented in a different way. Ditto there would be more male nannies, nurses and primary school teachers if things were done differently

 

*mind you, there were 4 women on my course so maybe things have got a bit better!

 

I think it was the same uni too wasn't it? Lancaster?

 

Thing is, I'm not ashamed to say that as a kid, I played with My Little Ponies as well as knex and lego etc... I had an upbringing based on what I wanted to do, rather than what I was supposed to do. But then, my dad is a teacher. My brother went a totally different way to me - he's a carer in a hospital.

 

Some parents try to mould their child into everything they wish they were - just look at those stupid pageants and how they're taking a hold over here now.