Women Programmers

Are there that many? In all the places I've worked, I've met maybe three.

As of 1 October 2001, I am working with one for the first time in my life, believe it or not.

In my row of offices, programmer count is: 5 women, 13 men. I never really noticed that the numbers weren't roughly equal until someone pointed it out to me. -- AmitPatel

I knew one. Once.

I am one. -- CarolineFoster

I'm a creative designer, do I count? (all my stuff is coded) I'm learning to programme but I'm just a beginner really, qbasic at the moment then VB in September 2004 (a college course) etc. -- SusannahWilliams?

My resume & programmer colleague chick count:

 - JGA - 1 chick (starting in 1989)
 - NBCi - 1 chick
 - Web sites - only me
 - Environmental Software - 2 chicks
 - Odetics - 6 chicks
 - FirstSource? - 2 chicks
 - Omnigon - 2 chicks
 - SystranSoftware? - 1 chick
 - SammyStudios? - 1 chick

Average team size is 5. Region is SouthernCalifornia, of course. -- PhlIp

What is this - do you only work in poultry farms or something? - nt

I'm making an oblique reference to the expression, "Support equal rights. Chicks dig that."

Off and on; here and there. I think most women have better things to do with their lives than write code - like become managers. I've seen more female managers of software projects than female programmers (expressed as a percentage). At the risk of making a sexist remark: Good communication and people skills are valuable for success in management.

I've seen some companies actively promote and encourage sexual and ethnic diversity (and leverage the skills of the disabled). The Union Pacific Railroad IT department and Master Card International come to mind as excellent examples of corporations that enjoy the benefits of this diversity. Believe me, I've seen it do them a lot of good.

I've also seen other corporations that clearly discriminate based on sex. (I won't mention their names, for obvious reasons.) I've seen men promoted over women who were clearly more qualified *and* capable. I've seen women hit the "glass ceiling" of promotions. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." These corporations were clearly hurting themselves: These practices cause capable women and men to leave, as there really are better places to work. -- JeffGrigg

I'm a weird case. My mother is a programmer, and has been since the mainframe days, so I never developed any stereotypes of programmers.

I do know that there's not only a certain amount of gender stereotypes and gender bias. Even if you are dealing with a situation where women programmers aren't discriminated against, women discriminate against programming. At the University of Illinois, where I just recently finished my education, there were two things at play. First, a lot of women would pass up the program because they didn't want to be the stereotypical geek chicks. Second, at UIUC, spending your free-time (i.e. time not spent on homework, classes, or studying) on programming was almost a requirement. And a lot of the women CS majors, because of the first reason, wouldn't want to give up that time.

So some companies are male-dominated because of choice. Game companies are pretty bad at this, from what I can tell. But other companies would love to have more women, but they just don't want to hire a woman who's much less qualified than the other candidates just to have women in the office.

-- KenWronkiewicz

I'm a similar case - my mother was a FortranLanguage/RPG programmer in the days of "the computer was in another building" so she never had any sorts of issues with us kids having lego, mechano, computers... My dad's an aerospace engineer (recently retired) so I grew up with a culture of fiddling with stuff for real as well (this is the sort of person who says things like "why buy a roof-rack? We just need some aluminium sheet and couple of steel bars...") and became a developer. My sis, on the other hand, became an accountant...

Games companies are incredibly testosterone driven. They seem to be carefully engineered to have an environment where the correctest answer is the one shouted the loudest. It probably explains their dreadful project failure rates. -- KatieLucas

A counter-example - at my company we currently have four female programmers and two males. The ratio has been different in the past, but we've never been an "all boys club". -- AndrewMcKinlay

Same here. Lots of females in our department grinding out code here at TM. -- NickBensema

One theory I've heard regarding the lack of women in the field is that programming involves some unhealthy obsessiveness (staring at a monitor for 18 hours straight, for example) that is more prevalent in men than it is in women. Women tend to have better-balanced personalities and a wider range of interests. -- KrisJohnson

Not my wife, but then she is a programmer.

There also seems to be a shortage of black programmers, or at least I have yet to work with one. I've worked with Hispanics, Asians, Russians, and Arabs, but no blacks yet except for one network admin. I think, but can't prove, that in general programmers are a lot more accepting of diversity than many other groups, so hopefully this will change with time.

I've worked in small PreIpo startups, and at FortuneFiveHundred? companies, and I've noticed that the mix of people seems to vary with the size of the organization. The large companies had more African-Americans, women, and Hispanics than the smaller companies, who tended to be overwhelmingly male and white, east Asian, and south Asian. The large companies also had formal corporate diversity organizations within HR, and formal employee networks for women, African-Americans, Hispanics, LGBT folk, and other groups.

I have known quite a few African-American programmers, but they've mostly worked for large corporate IT departments, rather than the tech industry itself. I wonder if they're being disproportionately affected by offshoring.

And yes, I do code for fun. -- SusanDavis

When I saw the title of this page, I was expecting something similar to the topic of "women drivers" (in England, at least, women are stereotypically bad drivers). Make of that what you will. -- JimArnold

So why do we always have lower motor insurance rates than men in the UK? Make of THAT what you will :) (It's because we're secretly better drivers, we just crash our cars so we have an excuse to buy a nice lovely new one, what can I say, we like shopping it's in our nature.) -- SusannahWilliams?

I'm a woman programmer, and I take pride in being better at Counter Strike than most of the men. That makes them angry :) -- NickWhite

I'm a woman programmer and I have more leg hair than a lot of other men. -- SusanRoy

Thanks for sharing, Susan. TMI, but thanks for sharing anyway. :-)

Hehe yeah prolly too much information. But why have people got that preconception that women should have baby smooth legs? I don't mean to get all Feminist on you all, but seriously, if I wear jeans all day, do you really care if gurls have leg hair? (apologies for ThreadMode) -- SusanRoy

I discovered waxing last year. Sometimes I am a little fuzzy the week before my appointment but its been SO worth it and the hair is less noticeable than when I was shaving! And my husband doesn't mind at all in the winter, and only a bit on the underarms in the summer.

This Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/edlife/12STABINE.html got me thinking about why so few girls go into computer science and engineering. Is it that society puts of barriers for them? Do friends and family discourage girls from going into these fields? If so, is it explicit or implicit? Or is it society at large that discourages them? Or is that if you pickle a brain in the hormones that female brains get dunked in before birth, they just end up being predisposed to to certain things, computer programming just not being one of those things. Can schools do anything to increase girls participation? Even if schools can do something, should they? Is there a different way to teach computer programming that is more girl-friendly? Are current programming education practices sexist, unfairly favouring boys? Should girls be re-conditioned to have as much interest in engineering as boys? Or should schools merely ensure that there are as few barriers as possible for girls who choose to go into science and technology?

I think that to be a top quality programmer you have to love programming, and have to want to do it beyond the arbitrary limits of your job. For whatever reason, I've met maybe 2 female programmers ever that have that desire. Most women programmers are competent, and will produce good code with no fuss and no nonsense, and are less likely to get distracted into adding fluff for fun, but ultimately, for learning, implementing and evangelizing advanced ways of working, for some reason I've only really encountered this in men. This may be due to personal failings - I talk programming with men more, and talk to the female members of the team about other things. Whether this is because they don't want to talk programming, or because I subconsciously assume they wont, is another discussion entirely.

I do however see a lot of women doing IT work that's important to a project, without necessarily being "Programming". E.g., my current projects (I'm on 4 right now) have many women involved. One is a programmer, 3 are HTML developers (I don't class this as programming; sorry), one is a DB Architect, one is a Business Analyst and one is a Project Manager. I think the people oriented roles (BA, PM) are very much more suited to female skillsets (being sexist about it - but in a complimentary way - I lack the people skills these ladies demonstrate daily). However, the DB Architect is extremely proficient at her role, and the HTML developers are equal to their male counterparts.

At my last company, we did have two female systems administrators (unix sysadmins). They were every bit as competent as the men, every bit as knowledgeable, and comparably pragmatic and willing to help and to get things done. However, while acknowledging this, I was secretly delighted about it, because it does seem to be so rare across the industry as a whole.

Some of the best programmers I've known are women. Curiously though, I don't know many women hackers. The top-quality women programmers I know seem to be very into their jobs, but they don't write all that much code for fun. -- JonathanTang

1. "[W]hy so few girls go into computer science and engineering":

"Is it that society puts [up] barriers for them?" In my schooldays (1950s-1970s), it was more perhaps a question of role-modeling and tacit expectation. These are subtle but powerful influences.

"Can schools do anything to increase girls['] participation? Even if schools can do something, should they?" Yes and yes. Math/science/engineering jobs pay way more than general office work and are way more prestigious. More importantly, ALL creative/intellectual endeavor/energy should be cherished for the precious gift to society that it is.

"Is there a different way to teach computer programming that is more girl-friendly?" Yes. Something as simple as changing the topics in concrete examples would be a good start. (Yes, I know there are girls and women who love sports, cars, toolboxes, etc., but let's get some diversity going for us arts/humanities types.)

2. "The top-quality women programmers I know [...] don't write all that much code for fun." (In response to Jonathan Tang):

I'm a woman, and I'm programming, but (sigh) I'm not a "top-quality woman programmer." However, I've been engaged in a massive bot project (at Pandorabots) for over a year now. I've stayed up till all hours, been totally absorbed, etc. I find the work extraordinarily difficult, so I don't know if I'd exactly characterize it as "fun," but it has been major. And I'm not getting paid for it (yet), so the motivation's not "job." -- Websafe Studio

I suggest that the environments where people talk about programming for fun are not inviting to women. There may be women who program for fun, but you are much less likely to have talked with them about it because they don't want to enter a conversation where the main issue will be their gender. It is incredibly difficult to maintain enthusiasm for geeky spaces when you have to deal with being asked out every ten minutes, or constantly fight for any respect you are given. This is doubly true in academia, where even the social skills required to hold a job are not enforced.

I've also seen other corporations that clearly discriminate based on sex. Another (reverse?) example: the British university system went through a phase of positive discrimination in which women candidates were offered almost no barrier to entry for technical degrees. e.g. women asked to achieve a 'D' at A level in any subject whilst men were asked to achieve two B's and an A in subjects relevant to the course. The predictable result was a large dropout rate for those women without relevant A levels after the first year, but at least the University was able to say that a high percentage of women entered their technical course. My feeling is that this kind of positive discrimination is incredibly patronizing to women and shouldn't happen - it doesn't solve the core problem, and in many cases builds resentment.

I find the whole idea of assigning gender to personality traits, behaviour or aptitude for tasks absolutely ridiculous. Whilst analysis of a particular skill shows that one gender is on average better than another, to apply it to an individual is flawed. Its like saying I tossed a coin 10 times and the were all heads so the next time is almost certainly going to be a head (excluding dodgy coins of course ;-p ). There is a large overlap in distribution in which a man may be a better communicator than the average women, or a woman may be better at mathematics that the average man.

Or should schools merely ensure that there are as few barriers as possible for girls who choose to go into science and technology?

Gender should be removed from the question completely, there should be no barriers to entry for studying/jobs/etc. If a man wants to be a nanny he should be allowed to train for it without prejudice. However, if he's rubbish at it that's an entirely different question that can be answered based on what he is capable of. The same applies to women doing so-called male jobs. At the end of all this, we will find that there is a trend in which one gender dominates some fields of endeavour. So long as that has occurred naturally without barriers to the other gender then that is well and good, and how it should be.

ChanningWalton

There is absolutely nothing Positive about "positive discrimination", whatever its politically-correct name may be. Perhaps one reason girls don't get into programming a lot is because girls spend too much time doing other things. Whether or not girls are brought up to value other things (like friends, family, children, food, sleep etc) more than the passion for coding, is a chicken-egg question since we don't live in a vacuum where we can do controlled experiments on the subject. Also, programming is a subject that is very foreign to anyone, male or female, on "the outside". My family is aware that I am doing something "computer related", but they don't know what it is. They can't touch and see products I'm making, and I keep telling them I'm not selling computers for Walmart (or some other company) either. Finally to risk sounding un-PC, the guy-to-girl ratio for programmers seems to be about the same as the guy-to-girl ratio for geeks in any field... coincidence....?

Supposedly (according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Sex_and_IQ), the standard deviation of the IQ of men is a bit higher than that of women. The averages are the same, but there are simply more very intelligent (>120 IQ points) and very stupid (<80 IQ points) men than there are women. It may be that this is simply a by-effect of the type of tests employed to determine the IQ, but note that IQ is a very good predictor for academic performance in life. Since programming is typically reserved to intelligent (> about 110 IQ points) people, it should be expected that there'd be more men than women doing it; just like there are more men than women in homes for the mentally handicapped. -- WouterCoene

Same reason they are not good at math. Their brains can't handle difficult problems. And you can't complain your way out in programming.

I assume you're joking, but that's not even remotely funny. It's sexist, unpleasant, and categorically untrue.

OK, I give there are a very small minority of women who are truly good at math and programming but looking at the big scale it is a scientifically proven fact that in the category of smart people, men are a larger percentage and that increases as the IQ level goes higher. I wasn't being sexist, it is science. It is not entirely because of "society" or "discrimination" that most girls aren't interested in programming or math. Also, no one is discriminating women these days to go in these fields (in fact they probably do more encouraging for them than they do for men); they simply don't want to.
You're a misogynist, and you're attempting to invoke "science" in order to defuse the fact that it's obvious. Reference to valid statistics would be fine. However, "[t]heir brains can't handle difficult problems" and the particularly unpleasant "you can't complain your way out in programming" are misogynistic statements.
Whatever you say, buddy. I'm tired of having to dumb down education material because of women who don't understand them. You know which group is really discriminated? Smart people. They have to be bored to death with dumbed down material which makes many of them set out to seek knowledge by themselves. If men and women are equal, why are there "women-only" scholarships? Why are there so many "women-only" awards in science and technology? Why are women-led companies favored more for making contracts with and get 10% budget advantage? See, it is a contradiction.
In a world where the majority of western women didn't even receive the right to vote until the 1900s, and where women continue to be denied equal rights and privileges with men, it's hardly surprising there are attempts at compensation -- and sometimes over-compensation -- for past and current inequalities. As for having to "dumb down educational material because of women who don't understand them," I suggest you re-examine your pedagogical skills, because they're obviously lacking. Perhaps your misogyny or gender bias is coming through in your teaching, resulting in an understandable loss of engagement by female students. "Smart people" being discriminated against? Utter foolishness. No one in the western world is denied equitable treatment for being "smart", and being "bored to death" only demonstrates your own lack of ability or initiative to seek out stimulating material among peers, which has nothing to do with gender.
You are so irrational and illogical. Are you a woman?
No, I am a man. Are you? Let me know when you emerge from the 19th century so we can discuss your misunderstandings about rationality and logic.
Stop trying to be so chivalrous. You know and I know there are other (bigger) reasons other than discrimination keeping women away from computers.
It's not chivalry, but simple facts. It is true that fewer women are interested in computing -- which may be partly due to general culture, partly due to male-oriented technical culture and partly a product of discrimination -- but it is not due to any measurable intellectual distinction between the genders, because there isn't one. Given a random sample of students interested in computing (as indicated by voluntarily choosing computing courses, as opposed to being required), their average level of achievement indicates no significant difference between genders.
{If I recall correctly, there are some measurable intellectual distinctions between men and women, at least on the statistical scale. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence for a broad survey of associated studies.) I imagine it takes a greater-than-average mathematical intelligence to perform effectively in advanced computing courses as you might find in ComputerScience. Men both average higher in mathematical intelligence AND have a higher standard-deviation for intelligence (which is relevant since we're dealing with the upper-tail of a statistical bell-curve), so, even before we deal with culture and such, the potential population of male ComputerScience majors is significantly greater than the potential population of female ComputerScience majors (though by how much, I am unsure... it could be as little as 30-50% greater). And it is, indeed, due to a measurable intellectual distinction between the genders. Of course, statistics over populations says very little about the achievement of individuals - there is NO evidence to suggest that those women who do pursue careers in computing will do any worse (or better) than the men. By the time they choose to pursue such careers, most of the filtering based on interest, mathematical intelligences, etc. will already have been performed.}
^^ That is exactly my point, sir. It's amazing how this can get you a misogynist's badge these days if you say simple scientific and statistical facts. This shows there is something terribly wrong with the society. Also, let me laugh my head off whenever women bring up the Wage Gap. You know if women really did get paid less for the same job and times then I should open up a company hiring only women and I would be filthy rich!!! It's amazing hw many people believe the ridiculous Male-female wage gap theory and how that is affecting new laws. This society really has been affected for the worse by radical feminists. Feminism is the most contradicting idea ever proposed by humans.
The studies cited on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence, especially those regarding IQ and SAT scores, are a matter of considerable debate. To my knowledge, the only clear, generally-accepted gender difference is in verbal ability vs. spatial reasoning. How this impacts programming ability is a matter for further research.
- {Unfortunately, debate does not change average SAT scores or results in widespread studies over children. These results are hotly debated because the implications are... undesirable to many. Some people have a habit of denying the validity of anything that denies their worldview while accepting without question those things that support it... born and bred cherry-pickers, they are. Keep in mind that a few of the studies referenced under the Sex and Intelligence article were performed with the original intent of disproving the previous studies. Anyhow, the statistical difference in standard deviation makes some genetic sense. As Marilyn vos Savant (a woman with measured IQ 228) once stated, nature can experiment more with men.}
With regard to gender-based wage gaps, these are a matter of record (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_USA). However, the causes are as much subject to debate as gender vs. intelligence measures. As for hiring only women and becoming "filthy rich," I suggest you try it. As a minority male (presumably) in an all-female organisation, you might find it difficult to impose a sub-standard wage. It's much easier to impose a sub-standard wage when you belong to a majority, power-holding group. I won't comment on radical feminism, as it is as prone to unreasonability as any other "radical" group (hence the name), but feminism per se is about gender equality. It is feminism, in the form of women's suffrage movements, that resulted in women getting the vote. Unless, of course, you think that was a bad idea?
No, I don't. I'm all for women's equality and that they should be able to vote, etc. But it is these "women-only" programs and awards (and similar exclusive services for women such as female affirmative action) which shows it is not equality but about superiority. Look at the family laws and see how they are slanted towards women. We need to get rid of these special services given to women simply because they are women and restore true equality.
{Affirmative action is considered reverse discrimination by some. However, I consider it a reasonable approach to slowly break the cultural mold that women (and minority-groups) have found themselves forced into. On the long-term scale, these programs will likely cease when the people promoting the programs feel society has reached a balance and are no longer willing to maintain them.}
it will spew up hate among men who feel they have to work much harder while women can get special privileges they don't deserve. Same thing in universities where the men need much higher grades to enter while the women have the bars lowered for them. This is wrong and discriminatory. (And kinda ironic with all this positive discrimination women are still NOT accomplishing in these areas, there is something about the rich spoilt child who fails and the peasant's child who works much harder with the chances against him and succeeds in the end.) We can never have true equality with these in place..
{It takes a special sort of man to hate so easily. And I don't mean that in a good way. True equality has never existed and never will in this world - be it more intelligence, more money, better looks, greater strength, more fortuitous opportunity, et cetera, everyone has unique circumstances. Any man whose hate is predicated only upon a perceived unfairness will be swallowed by it, for he will never run out of things to hate.}

(did not write the first line)You know it's funny. I took human development this semester, female professor. They drove home that men took to the technical sciences more(esp analytical problems), and women to the social sciences(esp human-centric problems) more. This isn't my opinion, it's in the textbook, and I'd be marked wrong for saying otherwise on her tests. Is it true? Who knows, but the class is just as much credit as my cs or math classes. Of course this is a professor who says things like "then viagra came out much to the chagrin of women" and "we like our men, someone has to keep the machines running". I think she thought she was empowering women, but it just kinda seemed like a wierd rehash of sexism.

It's certainly true that, for example, in university enrolment figures the male-female ratios in the technical sciences tend to favour men, while the social sciences favour women. That is reflective of interests, not ability. It's the notion that "women aren't good at math" or "their brains can't handle difficult problems" that is ludicrous. As for the professor's comments about viagra, keeping machines running, etc., they are sexist, unpleasant, and categorically untrue. Sexist discrimination is unacceptable regardless of its source or target.
- Well, according to the text it is by ability not interest (don't blame ME, I'm just quoting the text). Essentially the text is says that men tend to be better at certain tasks, and women at other tasks. There was no judgement about which of the tasks is more important or difficult, just that there are (whether for social or biological reasons) differences. All the female programmers I've met were perfectly competent at it, they were just rare. Ironically, my oldest sister -is- a firefighter, bulked up for it, and was on the first all-female firefighting squad. On the flip side is the recent JadeRaymond? controversy. Evidentally she's the lead in some way for the video game Assassin's Creed. Well, a rather unflattering comic came out basically accusing her of being whored (sorry for the term, but it's accurate) out to young gamers to get them to buy the game. JadeRaymond? is evidentally a perfectly competent technical person, but there is some validity to the accusations as the company she worked for did go perhaps a little overboard on using her in promotional videos(as well as her image in popup/banner ads). So, like every kind of controversy... it gets a little messy. One one side you've got a competent professional being misused by her company as a sex symbol to promote a product, on the opposite side you've got her being villified for something she probably wasn't really aware of and being singled out for being female.

Her experience is far different from mine. Among the women programmers I know are the president of our rocketry club, a dev at Intel working on the Linux USB subsystem, and a freelancer specializing in Linux filesystems. -- IanOsgood

{'categorically untrue'... someone likes that phrase. I, being the pedant I am, wish he or she would change it to 'untrue categorically'. Categorical untruths are just as rare and valuable as are categorical truths - they are, without exception, untrue. There is at least one woman who is a likely exception to this 'categorical untruth' about 'viagra, keeping machines running, etc.' - a likely candidate being the professor herself. Further, I'm fairly confident you can find at least one woman whose brain is incapable of advanced mathematics. Ah, well. I understand the reactionary attack; sexism is a horrible, awful thing even when well-founded in statistics. At least statements made with sufficiently rigorous data-sources can be accepted as unpleasant truths (e.g. "the olympic records for women power-lifters are 20-30% lower than those for men even in equivalent weight-classes" or "the standard deviation of IQ in women has proven smaller than the stanard deviation of IQ in men" or "the ratio of male U.S. presidents to female U.S. presidents is currently infinity".) But even statistical truths shouldn't be used to prejudge the individual statistical exceptions - if a woman wishes to be a firefighter, she should need only prove that she is capable of bearing the same load as is used to judge the men. And for women programmers, they need to pass the same tests and solve the same problems. I strongly agree that sexual discrimination is socially, and morally unacceptable, regardless of source or target.}

<snip>

My original points were obviously clear and understandable to anyone with a modicum of reading skills, and you're obviously bright enough to know that what I called "artistic license" (which, in retrospect, was a poor and hasty choice of phrase) was merely to emphasise a point, in a manner that is frequently undertaken even in academic writing as long as the essential point is not deflected. So, I can only conclude you're quibbling for the sake of it. Stop it. If you can't engage with the substance of the debate, then don't engage in it. You do yourself no favours by spouting random, pointless pedantry, and your contributions in that respect add no value and merely detract from the central issue.

{The original speaker could argue the same thing, buddy. He could say: "my point, which was about statistical truths and whatnot, was obviously clear and understandable to anyone with a modicum of reading skills who was even vaguely aware of the context." Don't be so quick to assume you're better with your communication than the person you're calling a 'misogynist'. Where you feel that your point is emphasized, I feel that your point is in error. I get really irritated it when people emphasize their own error as though making it bolder somehow makes it truer. Where you call what I do "pointless pedantry", there seems to be a strong relation with your own meaningless trumpeting... trading error for emphasis similarly "adds no value and merely detracts from the central issue."}

{If you wished to avoid quibbling, you chose an incredibly unwise course of action: defending your own errors to a self-admitted pedant. If you didn't have a decent idea on how that would go before you dove in head-first, you should now have a better idea for the future.}

{However, this whole discussion digresses. I'm clipping it. You can clip the rest when you get around to it.}

Mostly ignoring the above section I have one thing that I have noticed through my own observations. I have a CS degree and have working and personal relationships with programmers of both genders most working at IBM. I also have a lot of involvement with youngsters and an hobby of studying developmental psychology. I have a GS troop of 7th graders and have 2 younger brothers and 2 younger sisters.

Boys and men tend to be openly competitive and confrontational in a male only group. They are always challenging each other in areas of mental or physical prowess. They are ridiculed by even their good friends for not being smart enough or strong enough and often wrestling matches, RPG games or chess challenges decide the hierarchy.

Girls and women tend to compete covertly. They gather into cliques with an obvious social or intelligence hierarchy and they are always jockeying to be in a better position with the queen bee. They are put down for not assimilating their looks, behaviors and interactions with boys to match the leaders of their clique or for being too aggressive. If they succeed too well then they are also ridiculed for being unoriginal.

These are the stereotypes set up by society. The football players, hockey players, cheerleaders, dance team, academic decathlon team, drama club, chess club, honor society and the like all reinforce these ideas. Most adults you encounter growing up reinforce these as well by telling their sons not to play with that doll, but to bash these two trucks together instead. Also when they praise their daughters when they cradle a baby in their arms and pretend that it is their own child they reinforce that this is the behavior a girl should have. Constantly things more and less subtle than this occur shaping a young persons ideas of the careers they can aspire to. These everyday things can overwhelm a boy who wants to grow up and be a nurse, or a girl who wants to grow up to be a programmer.

I think everyone agrees that Programming is still a male dominated world.

The conclusion I come to is that it is not as simple as saying that programming is better suited to men. The more complicated issue here is that societal gender stereotypes created a culture that men are used to and women are not.

Now that those generalizations and stereotypes are out of the way everyone knows people who are the exception, and there are a lot of them on both sides of the spectrum.

DanielleBurkhart

It's easy to try to blame culture. It couldn't be denied that is exerts some sway. However, to claim culture as the only or greatest separation between man and woman can be inadvertently demeaning. This claim would in one way insist that women and men are entirely capable in all respects. It denies what they actually are, and the identity of someone belonging to a particular gender. To some degree, with such a culture dependent classification of gender, it would be questionable whether such a mind set would even recognise the existence of gender except in the crudest biological sense, making words such as "man" and "woman" near to redundant.

Cultures and gender oriented (pre-determined) aptitude have a synergistic or symbiotic relationship. Gender oriented activities don't purely reinforce stereotypes, they manifest them. These things become associated with each gender, often because of natural aptitude or interest. On average, men have a greater interest in things like chess, and a greater aptitude which may or may not come from that natural interest. What these can be said to do, is amplify the effect which may create a more rigid set of rolls for each individual than gender flexibility allows. That is, although men may be on the whole have 20% (out of the 100) more suitable members for some roll, because the hypothetical roll would be stereotyped a male profession, the balance could be, for example, 20/80 F/M, rather than 40/60. They do not necessarily cause the gap in the first place. Cause an effect between nature and nurture can be bi-directional. These expectations have an origin. Men are expected to be strong, and usually are. The manifestation of this, is that from that expectation when strength is needed, and the choice between a man and woman is available, choosing a man in accordance will yield the most accurate results (if this is the only available information to base a choice on).

There are always exceptions, but you'll find this does little to detract from the average, merely raise SD or something along those lines. The exceptions are why we (western society) strive to have an equal meritocracy. It is misplaced idealism to expect the results of a perfectly equal and fair meritocracy to reflect a perfect equality amongst individuals and the groups that they belong to, for which there is no reason to believe exists beyond fear of inferiority. If we had perfect equality in respect to influence, expectations and so on, surely the results would quickly reveal that few things are 50/50 amongst gender divisions. In the first few iterations it could be expected that with some margin for error and the dynamic nature of the system (DNA changing a bit each generation for example) that the imbalances will reflect with accuracy that could not be much improved, the natural interest and aptitude differences between genders. However, given enough generations, the groups with imbalances will swell to increase the majority membership beyond the gender capability proportions that exist in actuality. This can simply be described as birds of a feather flock together. When attempting to erase this effect, care should be taken that 50/50 isn't assumed to be the original proportion which would erroneously omit the original natural imbalance that caused inflation. There are other paradigms, anything is possible. The aforementioned pattern is important in this case to highlight that cultural phenomena is not necessarily arbitrary in respect to proportional representation amongst gender.

In summary, it is a great mistake to assume that meritocracy must be at fault, and bias must exist if proportions aren't all entirely equal. If I saw a 50/50 split in such a thing, I would suspect that some funny business is at play.

Personally, I do believe there are some cultural boundaries affecting the quantity of capable female programmers. My experience however, leaves me with the conclusion that biology is easily at least equally responsible. I don't come to that conclusion because I want to be a member of the "privileged" or "right" group. In fact, I wish it weren't the case. I would love to be the minority gender in programming, as I am happy with my gender, and don't want to imagine it changed, lets assume via a simple inversion of the proportion of each gender, resulting in all the ladies pining over me because males would be such rare specimens in their natural work environment. Alas, we can't all have our idealist dreams come true.

Speakin' of spectrums, apparently people find that there are more boys than girls diagnosed with Asperger's (i.e. pathological social weakness). Not that this has anything to do with the number of girls that are diagnosed (they are underdiagnosed, apparently). What this has to do with what we were talking about? Aspergers boys get all-encompassing obsessions with, say, software. Girls are instead "guided" (ehh...) towards similar obsessions with such things as horses and literature. There's your lack of women programmers right there. (WikiPedia:User:Orngjce223)

NovemberZeroSeven