[website] BBC Viewpoint: More women needed in technology

[localzuk]

I have just had a thought about this. My response to the headline would be "why?". What does it matter if women don't go into tech related jobs? What does it matter if men don't go into 'social' type jobs?

 

Is it actually providing society with a problem?

[pcstru]

I have just had a thought about this. My response to the headline would be "why?". What does it matter if women don't go into tech related jobs? What does it matter if men don't go into 'social' type jobs?

 

Is it actually providing society with a problem?

 

The article addresses one aspect. Half the population is female. They have talent, intelligence and if men/women do 'think' differently, a particular and unique perspective to offer. If they are not represented in a sector, then we are potentially less competitive.

 

Societally, role models are important. If girls don't see women doing particular jobs, then they less likely to be inspired to follow. The lack of men in primary teaching jobs is perhaps equally of concern from that perspective. Maybe it is contributory to boys falling behind academically at school.

[elsiegee40]

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

 

Nope, It was me at Lancaster @localzuk

 

There weren't many women on my course in the early 1980s... 4 or 5 max.

 

As for girls in Technology... it's said that girls seems to take a much greater interest in science in single sex schools.

 

At my co-ed grammar school, back in the dark ages (I left in 1982), girls were positively discouraged from the sciences. We had to choose between O'Levels in Physics and Biology and girls were expected to choose Biology. We also had to choose 2 from Geography, History and Chemistry... girls were not expected to do Chemistry.

 

Guess who did both Physics and Chemistry and did not do Biology or History? My head teacher was not a happy man. The three best Physicists in the class were all girls though and all the daughters of engineers. One is me, one went to work for Rolls Royce as an engineer and the third graduated from Cambridge in Maths and became a researcher.

 

When I did A level, I wanted to do Maths and Physics and couldn't decide between Chemistry and Further Maths. I can still see the pain on my headmaster's face as he said "I'll put you down for Further Maths"

 

I really, really hope that attitude has changed. My daughter went to a single sex grammar and was encouraged in her science interests.

Edited October 15, 2012 by elsiegee40

[dhicks]

At university, there were roughly 20 women on the BSc Computing course I was on, out of about 300 of us.

 

At university in the UK I found the same, although in Canada the balance was rather better - not 50%, but maybe 25%-30% women in computer science classes. I got the impression the North American university system was quite flexible, allowing students to chop and change their classes rather more than we were used to in the UK. Everyone did a four year degree and seemed expected to do a minor and a major subject, to the extent that, in some cases, you could pretty much make up your own degree title as you went along. Women maybe had enough sense to go for major-with-a-minor-and-a-bit-of-something-else type degrees, with the minor or the bit-of-something-else being computer science or similar, it tended to be the men who stuck stubbornly with the I'm-a-Computer-Scientist-and-that's-what-I'm-sticking-with! all-or-nothing style degrees.

 

The thing is, if fewer women are going to do jobs that require physical strength, and maybe avoid jobs that aren't ammenable to career breaks / flexible working around a family, you'd think that computing / IT / whatever would be pretty much the perfect career for them - in lots of cases you should be able to work remotely, from anywhere with Internet access, or shorter hours, etc. The lack of women in IT implies that the Information Soceity is doing it wrong, somewhere along the way - all the snazzy communication technology we've invented isn't being used in the correct way.

[SYNACK]

I read on some other site somewhere that another large contributor to the split is job environment. Apparently females are more likely to go for a job that pays a little less if it means a better work environment. They also tended to pick careers that also had better environments.

 

When viewed in this light is it any wonder that not many want to work in the darkened Renholm Industries basement with little room for progression and less respect. The somewhat more respected careers of Lawyer or Doctor generally take place in much better environments (i.e. not under a desk on manky carpet), are well paid, have room for advancement and a longer career lifespan.

[witch]

I have just had a thought about this. My response to the headline would be "why?". What does it matter if women don't go into tech related jobs? What does it matter if men don't go into 'social' type jobs?

 

Is it actually providing society with a problem?

It doesnt matter as long as we are sure that children are equally given all the options. Sadly though, this is not the case. It isnt even necessarily teacher or parents who direct children - peer pressure is a huge thing to overcome. My boys played with anything they wanted to - both had dolls and my little ponies and cars etc. They prefered the so-called boys toys, but, then again, so did my daughter.

[pcstru]

As for the positive discrimination thing - I dont agree with it at all,

 

I'm curious as to what you mean by that.

 

I don't like it - I don't think anyone does. Those who benefit from it feel then that they have to overcompensate to prove they were worthy and not just selected as the token X. Everyone else thinks they might be discriminated against on the basis of X when, hell, discrimination on the basis of X is exactly what we are trying to prevent. Everyone says what we really want is the "best" person for the job.

 

So what do they mean by that? If I say "5 A levels, 2 at A grade and one must be English", that is discrimination, positive discrimination on the basis of exam results. Few would have any problem with "positive discrimination" so far. If we have 100 candidates who meet that criteria and 20 places, what should we do? At post interview panel chats I've often heard the "well, how would they fit in" and I cringe. White middle class males were a good fit for the London Metropolitan Police in the 1980's, black, working class tattooed lesbian daughters of Welsh miners - not so much. "fit in" is a good example of where "best" can go horribly wrong.

 

Even if we choose "best" on Academic achievement, we are unwittingly biasing any selection to more privileged. And is that "best"? Is every criteria measured by academic achievement? Somewhere we accept that there is discrimination, that for a job someone will be "positively discriminating" but we ignore that is quite arbitrary and it might as well be some demographic as anything else.

 

I don't like "positive discrimination". No one should be discriminated for or against on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, disability, religion etc. But the fact that we see organisational demographics that grossly do not reflect the societal make up - that suggests that injustice is occurring often on a huge scale. I don't disagree with positive discrimination because I don't see any other way to address the issue and in the end the positive of the discrimination is a value judgement, as likely to decide "best for the job" as any other arbitrary criteria.

[elsiegee40]

I find it interesting that the men on this seem to be arguing harder for positive discrimination than the women.

 

We want everyone to be treated equally when applying for a job regardless of race, colour, creed or gender. If I thought I'd got a job because the deciding factor was my gender, I'd probably turn it down! I want to get a post because I'm the right person for the job, not because it'll increase the female head count.

[pcstru]

I want to get a post because I'm the right person for the job, not because it'll increase the female head count.

 

So what exactly is "right for a job"? You are suggesting that increasing the female headcount couldn't possibly be a good criteria yet it might be as arbitrary as "well, we wanted more "biology graduates" when applied to (say) a marketing firm. "Well, I turned it down, I didn't want it because I increased the biologist headcount!"

Edited October 15, 2012 by pcstru

[elsiegee40]

 

So what exactly is "right for a job"? You are suggesting that increasing the female headcount couldn't possibly be a good criteria yet it might be as arbitrary as "well, we wanted more "biology graduates" when applied to (say) a marketing firm. "Well, I turned it down, I didn't want it because I increased the biologist headcount!"

 

I would hope that my ability to do the job and qualifications would be the deciding factor.

 

I cannot think of a situation where being female would be an advantage... Especially in a management or technology role which are the ones we've been discussing.

 

We ladies are all different, just like you blokes. Some of us have a stronger girly side than others. Recruiting us purely because it is socially acceptable for us to wear a skirt is completely wrong. If they are looking for stereo-typical feminine traits then a bloke might actually be the better candidate. You wouldn't reject a bloke for a caring role like a nurse for example.

 

There are some roles that men are biologically ill equipped to do... Surrogate mother, brassiere model, ... But we really haven't been discussing those roles.

[X-13]

not just selected as the token X.

 

Everywhere needs a token X. I'm awesome. [And currently ill... *cough*]

[Guest Guest]

As you progress up the ladder skills such as leadership become more/most important. Is the reason why women are not "equally" represented at the top level because men are better leaders?

[pcstru]

I would hope that my ability to do the job and qualifications would be the deciding factor.

"Ability to do the job" seems to be begging the question - how can anyone judge that before you do it? Qualifications - for what? Academic achievement is a good indication that you were good in a subject at school, college, university. Doesn't mean you will be any good in a work situation. There are plenty of company bosses out there who left school with no qualifications and proved that they don't matter the hard way.

I cannot think of a situation where being female would be an advantage... Especially in a management or technology role which are the ones we've been discussing.

I would readily agree that gender is not a factor in the ability to do (say) a technology role in the same way I agree that it should not be a factor in being a FTSE100 CEO. So when there is an imbalance in the numbers, that might suggest some discrimination is already afoot.

There are some roles that men are biologically ill equipped to do... Surrogate mother, brassiere model, ... But we really haven't been discussing those roles.

Sure. And the police and army benefit from being big strapping running, jumping, climbing tree type *lads*. You could say they are the "best for the job". So would that be a good thing - an all male "best ability to do the job" police force or army?

[elsiegee40]

As you progress up the ladder skills such as leadership become more/most important. Is the reason why women are not "equally" represented at the top level because men are better leaders?

 

No. It's because fewer women choose to stay in the work force for long enough to progress to those levels. These are women with highly paid jobs. They have the money behind them to decide to give themselves and their children the time they deserve

[elsiegee40]

You seem to determined to prove that I, a mere woman, must be incorrect in my views on female promotion to the highest levels @pcstru

 

Though you are equally determined to extend the argument to all types of job which is not what this thread is about.

 

Please accept that as the only women to comment on this thread @witch and I both agree that there are other reasons to promote people than their gender. After considering all cvs and applications and interviewing those who look best on paper, an employer will decide who is likely to best be able to do this senior management role. Bolstering the numbers of females/blacks/gays/muslims at this level should not be the deciding factor and I would regard it as an insult.

 

I am entitled to this view.

[Guest Guest]

No. It's because fewer women choose to stay in the work force for long enough to progress to those levels. These are women with highly paid jobs. They have the money behind them to decide to give themselves and their children the time they deserve

 

But what makes one women leave for their children and another stay or not have children at all?

 

To say all women are the same is about as ridiculous as saying men and women are the same, which is what we are doing by pitting men against women. I think it's safe to say men and women tend to have different qualities; men are generally better physically, women better socially. But then there is also a lot of crossover. Men can work in a nursery for example, but they tend to be feminine men and masculine women can do physical jobs better than an average man.

 

To me these traits are genetic, no amount of positive discrimination, encouragement, or anything else is going to change this programming. Can we really be sure leadership does not sit on this masculine/feminine scale?

 

Are the women who stay on at work or don't have children at all more masculine women? Is leadership a masculine quality? If a women progresses to a leadership position is the cause of this the fact she didn't have children, or is both the position and the fact she didn't have children down to a pre programmed trait?

Edited October 15, 2012 by Guest

[pcstru]

You seem to determined to prove that I, a mere woman, must be incorrect in my views on female promotion to the highest levels @pcstru

 

I try and construct arguments that stand on their own feet. I don't believe I have referred to YOUR gender or said you MUST be incorrect. If you feel patronised - "a mere women" you should perhaps read what I actually wrote, not what you seem to think I wrote.

Please accept that as the only women ...

I'm afraid I don't do argument by authority.

I am entitled to this view.

Of Course you are! I never question someone's *right* to their opinion. I don't try and persuade people they do, or don't, like cheese either.

[elsiegee40]

Much as I'm enjoying this, I have other fish to fry this evening and thus bow out.

 

You too are entitled to your views pcstru. We'll have to agree to differ

[witch]

To say that any specification for a job is some form of discrimination is disingenous to say the least, @pcstru.

Like@elsiegee40, I want to be chosen for a job because I am the best candidate, regardless of anything except my ability to do the job. @j17sparky - what we are saying is that we need to make sure that girls and boys are given the same opportunities, the same chances and are not put off studying anything.

If this is the case then any differences will be those that are indeed genetic, and not those imposed on people by society.

As for men being better leaders - no, I don't think so

[pcstru]

To say that any specification for a job is some form of discrimination is disingenous to say the least, @pcstru.

 

The word "discrimination" in the wide (and I'd say original) sense, simply implies differentiation - exactly what we are trying to achieve when we put together any job specification. The specification defines the merits and helps us to avoid discriminating on factors that are not related to actual merit.

 

I don't think it is disingenuous to use words in the correct way and I think the context I gave made it quite clear that "discrimination" was being used in that sense.

 

I'd be interested if someone addressed the points I made on the issues around "best" - but people seem to want to keep using the term without much thought about what it really means.

[elsiegee40]

Pcstru... You seem very closely related to someone I know in another life on another forum and who can also be destructively argumentative. When he gets in this mood, I leave him to it.

 

Guess what?

[witch]

The specification defines the merits and helps us to avoid discriminating on factors that are not related to actual merit.

 

Which is surely the point? We DON'T want to discriminate either positively or negatively on the factor of gender, which is NOT related to actual merit.

As for "best" - this is always going to be subjective, isn't it. It means different things to different people, and the person interviewing for the job has his or her ideas as to what "best" might be.

But this must be quantifiable to a great extent - there has to be a good reason for every requirement. For example, someone might need the strength to wield a 20 pound jack hammer. This doesnt mean it would have to be a man

[localzuk]

"Ability to do the job" seems to be begging the question - how can anyone judge that before you do it? Qualifications - for what? Academic achievement is a good indication that you were good in a subject at school, college, university. Doesn't mean you will be any good in a work situation. There are plenty of company bosses out there who left school with no qualifications and proved that they don't matter the hard way.

 

By interviewing them? It becomes very obvious in an interview whether someone would be good or bad at a job. It takes careful design of questions though. Which is actually one of the reasons I dislike the current 'send your CV' type process for applying for jobs - they lead people to focus on paperwork, and not on the person's actual ability. I may not have finished my degree, but my ability to do the jobs I apply for? I'm pretty sure I'm very good at what I do.

 

Sure. And the police and army benefit from being big strapping running, jumping, climbing tree type *lads*. You could say they are the "best for the job". So would that be a good thing - an all male "best ability to do the job" police force or army?

 

The army and police have changed *a lot* in recent years. There are many women in the police now, and the number of women in the forces is increasing also. I've a friend who is in the army, just finished her first deployment in Afghanistan, and while she was going through the training she got very annoyed by the 'women have to be treated differently' attitude that they were being forced into. ie. they were expected to do shorter runs, less press-ups, carry less weight etc... All that attitude does is lead to resentment within the forces - ie. 'why are they here, they can't do half of what we can do?' thoughts from the men. Which then forces the women to overcompensate and become more 'laddy'.

 

The army is made up of many different types of people, because it isn't all about running and shooting. Engineers, ammo techs, officers, medics etc... There's nothing wrong with women not being squaddies IMO.

[pcstru]

Which is surely the point? We DON'T want to discriminate either positively or negatively on the factor of gender, which is NOT related to actual merit.

As for "best" - this is always going to be subjective, isn't it. It means different things to different people, and the person interviewing for the job has his or her ideas as to what "best" might be.

But this must be quantifiable to a great extent - there has to be a good reason for every requirement. For example, someone might need the strength to wield a 20 pound jack hammer. This doesnt mean it would have to be a man

 

Agreed it does not have to be a man. So if that is your job spec (and let's say that is the entirety of the job spec) and you have 20 applicants, 10 of which meet your criteria, on what basis do you then discriminate? Whatever it is, it is not 'merit' (ability to do the job) since the specification should define that completely. Some jobs can be quite adequately done by a large number of people - "best" is not an issue.

[localzuk]

Agreed it does not have to be a man. So if that is your job spec (and let's say that is the entirety of the job spec) and you have 20 applicants, 10 of which meet your criteria, on what basis do you then discriminate? Whatever it is, it is not 'merit' (ability to do the job) since the specification should define that completely. Some jobs can be quite adequately done by a large number of people - "best" is not an issue.

 

As I said - interview. Then you see their attitude, whether they're actually able to do the job, and whether they'd fit into the 'ethos' of the company. (This isn't like 'fitting in', this is more like Google and their character tests - will you look to further the goals of the company etc...).