Outreachy Had 41 Interns Complete Their Work This Summer

[schmidtbag]

And how do you know they are actually being rejected because of their gender, instead of that simply being their perception? Men get rejected all the time, meaning for jobs as well as their ideas, yet even in areas where they are not well represented you do not hear them say that it is because of their gender. Maybe these females are just not used to the hyper competitive environment that men tend to work in? Programmers are not known to be shy about their opinions of code quality/style.

When it comes to a job hiring process, even I take "rejected due to my gender" claims with a grain of salt, because most employers don't give a reason (especially in countries where they can get in trouble for discrimination). However, you can extrapolate a conclusion considering the following variables:
* Sexual harassment is common in many work environments, often by superiors (such as those capable of hiring)
* Customers will request a man serve them instead, or express distrust in a woman's ability.
So obviously, that isn't proof that it carries into the hiring process, but why wouldn't it?
As for the hyper-competitive market, I think females are used to it since they're constantly challenged to prove themselves. Sources:
https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/9...arder-than-men
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseac.../#7644f0031770

Strong case of "listen and believe" here. Statistics please. Asking one person about their view on <anything> is not evidence in any sort of way.

There are enough people like you out there who just simply want to pretend this problem doesn't exist, and some of such people are have their own priorities to make sure others think the same way, where they create "counter-evidence" of their own. That evidence is often cherry-picked or highly misrepresented. So, I could provide many sources, I have one in another tab right now, but what's the point of posting it? You (or someone like you) will either consciously choose against believing it, or, compare it to those with the opposing agenda that enforces your viewpoint. This happens with literally every controversial political problem. You are not capable of being convinced. Take abortion for example: no matter how much you are for or against it, there's someone who feels equally the opposite of you and has their own sources.

here's the problem with the proposition you're making: It only addresses the very end of the pipeline once someone is actually involved in the corporate environment. The driving factor actually goes much farther back than that, because women make up a tiny minority of computer science students just like they make up a tiny minority of STEM majors in general, particularly in the engineering degrees that Comp Sci is most similar to, with in the best case maybe 20% of the class being female. Obviously if only a tiny minority of those trained in a profession are X, there's going to be at most that much X in the field. So the "Problem" starts before they even get to University.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean the social problem doesn't exist... That's like being in a city that's 99.9% white and 0.1% black, where many of the white people are racists. Your analogous response to that it is "it's not a problem [worth considering] because there aren't enough black people". Or if that's not quite your thought process, there's also "it's not a problem because people are inherently tribal". See how ridiculous that sounds?

It is laughable to attempt to claim that such inadequacies have a strong effect on people wanting to go into computing so I will dismiss this outright. I would therefore say it's safe to say that the choice to go into computer science is based on personal interest in computers instead.

You are way too caught up in the biological aspect, and you seriously need to drop it because its not worth talking about, it isn't a problem, and there isn't enough of a relation to it in this context. You are basically doing the equivalent of denying global warming because it's snowing in your back yard.

This is where we get into biology.

I'm ignoring this entire paragraph, because again, it's not related. Despite the fact I have repeatedly told you that I agree there's no biological problem, you keep bringing it up, as though it somehow overrides the social problem.

it's obvious they're not having trouble finding work in spite of "Social Problems".

You once again are focusing too much in 1 direction. I'm well aware of the percentages, but that doesn't prove there's no social problem. Keep in mind, of all the women I know or heard of who've had trouble getting to their position were already hired. They already have a job and paid adequately. But that doesn't mean they had to work much harder to get where they got. That doesn't mean they aren't still undermined or questioned, despite their work ethic and achievements. Reference the sources I linked to above with my response to cynical.

[schmidtbag]

Well if they're private they should kinda have whatever environment they want. And yes biases start to kick in. So blame the women (or whatever other "minority" group) for said bias because they're dragging it down for every other woman.

I don't disagree that a private company can have whatever environment they want, but that still ignores the overall problem at hand. If your check-engine-light goes on but your car still seems to run fine, do you just ignore it? Or when your car breaks down, do you blame your problems on your oil because it got lumpy? My point is, just because you don't feel like dealing with something, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. If a private company want their environment a certain way for subjective reasons, that's perpetuating the problem.

For a joking example, if 99 out of 100 women can't drive a truck, then you will clearly have a bias against a new woman applying as a truck driver. It's just based on statistics, she has a 1% chance to be the real thing after all. Simple as that.

Actually, I wouldn't have a bias, because apparently that 1 was good enough to stand out from the crowd, and therefore would probably make for a good employee...

How much harder than what? It's not like she experienced living in a man's shoes. And a LOT of people also complain of having to work harder than someone else (all white males), because this exists everywhere. Many women make a scene out of it though so probably explains why it's more common there.

If we're discussing just unemployed people, I would agree with everything you said there. But once you account for those who are employed, things start to look different. If you compare an employed woman with similar or better credentials than a man of the same position and pay rate, there is real-world evidence she worked harder to get to that position. I have already linked to this in my response to cynical.

Now I know you think I'm some white supremacist, but here's the thing. I'm completely fine with blind interviews, blind jobs and so on, meaning you hire someone only based on talent or skill and don't even know his/her name until they are hired (and fixed salary or w/e). To me this is the only way to defeat discrimination.

No... I think you are once again jumping to hyperbolic conclusions, and I think you are a prime example of the saying "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". As I've stated in another post, it's easy to think the problem doesn't exist when you've never actually witnessed it. I don't fault you for that though, because it's something that doesn't tend to happen in front of people.
All that being said, I believe you about your preferences.

So you can see why I'm so against this "positive discrimination" bullshit where, in fact, they want to cherry pick minorities instead of doing it blindly and equally. To me it's no better than white male supremacists, it's exactly the same thing.

I already knew why you were against it. I know many people in these forums (some of which I argue with) have no problem with female STEM workers. Like I said, I'm not fond of Outreachy's method, I'm just saying that it does actually help. Much like slapping a child so he/she behaves, that's a terrible way to go about it, but it does work.

[microcode]

Before the age of mass computing programming was stereotyped as a female thing as it did not involve manual labour. Look at world war 2 and shortly after, many of the top programmers were female (because the men were needed to kill each other).

Crucially a "programmer" was the computer equivalent of a "typist" or an "operator" (e.g. switchboard operator). What we call "programmers" today would have been considered "architects" or "program designers" when women were the majority of "programmers". I have nothing against people wanting to get specific people into things (and honestly, I think it's your own business if you want to contribute to a discriminatory grant program), but "programming" was secretary work until independent PC, UNIX, and home computer programmers became the majority.

When you try to distort the past, you amplify your disdain for the present, and in this case it is completely unwarranted.

[microcode]

Much like slapping a child so he/she behaves, that's a terrible way to go about it, but it does work.

Depends on the your observation timescale, and what you're willing to trade for a moment of compliance. One thing's for sure: plenty of people think it works, and that's good enough reason for many people to keep doing it.

[nils_]

What about those who identify as cats, wolves, dragons, unicorns, etc? (Yes, this actually exists) Surely they are underrepresented in STEM fields as well. If sex and/or gender is a social construct then why isn't species? Seems rather non inclusive of Outreachy to deny trans-species a chance to participate.

I would add to that, why is not okay to use the social construct of two genders (male, female) but it's completely fine to categorize someone in such broad categories as "Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, Native American/American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander" (quoted from the article, I assume these are drawn from the US census forms, excluding "White / Caucasian and "Asian"). These are completely arbitrarily drawn, I wonder why that doesn't come up more often as objectionable.

I think it's better to look at it this way: Were these undeniably flawed distinctions useful in identifying people who were otherwise unlikely to make these contributions? I would say yes and conclude that this program is a net good, even though a lot of (virtual) ink was spilled over what constitutes discrimination and whatever categories are accurate to put people in, also a lot of contributions to free software projects came out of it. They didn't spend my money on it and they also didn't exclude me from making contributions on my own time / dime so really what reason is there to complain?