Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ChickTech Brings Hundreds of Young Women To Open Source

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the more-engineers-more-cool-stuff dept.

Education 158

ectoman writes: Opensource.com is running an interview with Jennifer Davidson of ChickTech, a non-profit organization whose mission is to create communities of support for women and girls pursuing (or interested in pursuing) careers in tech. "In the United States, many girls are brought up to believe that 'girls can't do math' and that science and other 'geeky' topics are for boys," Davidson said. "We break down that idea." Portland, OR-based ChickTech is quickly expanding throughout the United States—to cities like Corvallis and San Francisco—thanks to the "ChickTech: High School" initiative, which gathers hundreds of young women for two-day workshops featuring open source technologies. "We fill a university engineering department with 100 high school girls—more girls than many engineering departments have ever seen," Davidson said. "The participants can look around the building and see that girls from all backgrounds are just as excited about tech as they are."

cancel ×

158 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

many girls are brought up to believe that (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469039)

[citation needed]

Re:many girls are brought up to believe that (4, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 2 months ago | (#47469361)

Indeed. I keep hearing this stated as a fact, over and over. It's like a lie that becomes the truth if repeated enough.

Maybe because all the females in my engineering department were women, and not girls or chicks?

Mod parent up.

Re:many girls are brought up to believe that (5, Informative)

BonThomme (239873) | about 2 months ago | (#47469683)

http://xkcd.com/385/

Re:many girls are brought up to believe that (4, Insightful)

bangular (736791) | about 2 months ago | (#47469847)

Go to any university STEM departments and here's what you'll find (with my anecdotal evidence).

Women like science. You'll have to go to the Biology department to find them. Women like math, you'll just have to go to the Applied Math & Statistics departments to find them. Women like Computer Science. You'll just have to go to the database courses to find them.

Women are different than men. Forcing this seems artificial.

Re:many girls are brought up to believe that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47470267)

What's wrong with this picture?

Just like 1 in 5. Just like "Rape Culture". The numbers just do not warrant these wild assertions.

Where's BroTech? (4, Insightful)

the_skywise (189793) | about 2 months ago | (#47469087)

"In the United States, many boys are brought up to believe that 'doing math makes you a nerd' and that science and other 'geeky' topics are for wusses," the_skywise said. "We break down that idea."

Re:Where's BroTech? (0, Troll)

Falos (2905315) | about 2 months ago | (#47469225)

I bet you think you're funny, huh? You a comedian or something, dork? Here's a nerd joke for ya: Why don't you make like a tree and GTFO?

Re:Where's BroTech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469257)

Please, that's as ridiculous as a screen door on a battleship.

Re:Where's BroTech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469399)

Yeah, obviously you've never had a BBQ cookout on a battleship in the South Pacific. You know what a PITA those water-tight doors are?

Re:Where's BroTech? (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 2 months ago | (#47469407)

Whoosh!

Re: Where's BroTech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469455)

Not a BTTF fan, I take it?

Re: Where's BroTech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469661)

GREAT SCOTT!

We've entered a parallel timeline where both mods and posters don't know about Back to the Future!

Re: Where's BroTech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469953)

How do you know it's parallel? Wouldn't that depend on which time-travel theory being postulated?

Re:Where's BroTech? (3, Funny)

Alopex (1973486) | about 2 months ago | (#47469411)

To maintain consistency, BroTech was rebranded as D**kTech

Re:Where's BroTech? (3, Insightful)

foradoxium (2446368) | about 2 months ago | (#47469427)

so true.

discrimination is discrimination, unless you're on the beneficiary side of the stick. But hey, isn't that what makes the US of A so special?

This is sexist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469091)

Why don't we just accept people as people and do away with all these diversity reports and similar crap.

If we keep focusing on how diverse we are, we miss the point of being tolerant and accepting of others who are different. Equality and Acceptance comes when we begin to realize that this type of thing only perpetuates intolerance

Re:This is sexist (0)

maliqua (1316471) | about 2 months ago | (#47469157)

I agree kind of,....

An organization entirely run by women and doesn't accept men.

Because segregation is the key to integration and tolerance right?

Re:This is sexist (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about 2 months ago | (#47469167)

whoops i thought i was replying to the post by the_skywise, begin troll with my blessing

Re:This is sexist (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469247)

I will leave this right here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem... [dailymail.co.uk]

And this more controversial one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u... [huffingtonpost.co.uk]

I will say I'm a fan of female scientists, there are some with biochemical and chemical degrees in my family (who have long since abandoned the field for hearth and home, a decision of their own choosing), but I see a lot of men who are promoting it simply trying to make women in their own image. Maybe they are dads with only one child, daughters, which is very common now or what not. But actively steering them away from traditional female disciplines just because it offends our modern senses of "diversity" and conflating equality with equal results is just as wrong imo.

Re:This is sexist (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 months ago | (#47470257)

Promoting access based on sex is sexually discriminating. Whether it's men or women, for or against, it doesn't matter. Building bias into the system under the guise of promoting 'diversity' and/or 'equality' is even worse than the original discrimination it claims to fight because it adds hypocrisy to the pile.

The reality is that 'diversity' and 'equality' are mutually exclusive. To feminists, it should be the ('empowered' female run) state that decides how and when one trumps the other, building privilege for women into the system. A system that encourages use of relevant discriminators when making decisions doesn't need any of this because it would treat everyone justly. Of course, this would also put a lot of politicians and lawyers out of a job.

Re:This is sexist (-1, Troll)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47469251)

Unlike you, I actually checked their website. While they're overwhelmingly female in structure, you're absolutely wrong in your made up assertion that they don't accept men.

Again and again, any time someone tries to work on the 90/10 problem in software development, someone pretends that each individual movement has some kind of bias, or doesn't allow men. It's never actually the case.

And I always get modded down for calling sexists crying "sexist" on their bullshit. But I eat that negative karma every time, because you're wrong and I'm not going to let this bullshit fly.

Re:This is sexist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469387)

Seems if you look through their entire board and leadership and research its 100% female. seems to me if they were accepting of men ( i didn't say they didn't allow men just didn't accept them) we wouldn't be segregated to low level functions only

even a bigot will let who they oppose clean up their crap.

Re:This is sexist (0, Troll)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47469443)

I forgot that "Marcus" was a female name. My mistake. [chicktech.org]

Bald faced liars make for the best threads.

Re:This is sexist (-1, Offtopic)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47469927)

And here come the MRAs with mod points, modding down facts because it's inconvenient.

Re:This is sexist (2, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 months ago | (#47470347)

The litmus test is in applying the opposite logic. What would the situation be if they were promoting boys instead, and someone like yourself came along and answered feminist criticism with "but see they accept women too!" Even if they did, their primary discriminator is still the sex of the student instead of relevant discriminators, like aptitude and interest. The bottom line is you (or some other feminist) would have called someone out for saying

"While they're overwhelmingly male in structure, you're absolutely wrong in your made up assertion that they don't accept women."

Re:This is sexist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469989)

The token male who suddenly appeared on the internet in April of this year, with no information to back up "his" existence, other than the listing on that page and a single article toeing ChickTech's party line? That Marcus?

Also: https://web.archive.org/web/20130529232614/http://www.chicktech.org/about-us. You'll note that doesn't go to the "Leadership Teams" page, because, according to that page's source, it was created 5/23/2014 (and updated this morning).

So, the AC claimed the leadership was 100% female when it's (reputedly) actually (at least) 93.75% female. Wow... you really told 'em with that "bald faced liars" bit. Do single-digit-percentile discrepancies always drive you to froth?

Re:This is sexist (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47470141)

So, now it's a grand conspiracy to fabricate fictional men in order to discredit internet commenters.

Yep. That's sane.

Re:This is sexist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47470381)

Conspiracy theories are derided because most of those require the cooperation of thousands of people that have no personal interest in maintaining the conspiracy. That's why moon hoaxers are mocked. I don't know if Marcus exists or not, he probably does and honestly I don't care. However, if he didn't, modifying a webpage to create an imaginary person does not require a "grand conspiracy" just the complicity of a few persons.

Re:This is sexist (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47470475)

"I don't care, but let me rationalize this out-of-nowhere accusation that makes no sense"

Re:This is sexist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469627)

Again and again, any time someone tries to work on the 90/10 problem in software development

When do we start addressing the 90/10 "problem" in the NBA? Or in Hair Salons/Schools/Nursing?

Re:This is sexist (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47469923)

NBA is granted permission to be gender segregated by the US congress. I don't really approve, but it is the law.

We do have programs to work on gender ratios in Nursing, [minoritynurse.com] teaching [menteach.org] , and Salons aren't exactly a career people aspire to, as if that were equivalent.

The difference is feminists don't come whining about people trying to make progress in these areas because they feel threatened. They welcome the break in stigmatized job roles.

MRAs, on the other hand, just love to pretend any attempt at social progress are an attempt to discriminate. And their whines pierce the vale of every single debate.

Re:This is sexist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47470025)

NBA is granted permission to be gender segregated by the US congress.

I think your parent would go "WHOOOOOSH" but you might take that as a purely basketball reference....

Re: This is sexist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47470005)

There are men involved in leadership. Maybe you should check out their website and educate yourself.

Re:This is sexist (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 months ago | (#47470211)

I joined SWE, Society for Women Engineers. Never had to take a DNA test or anything.

Re:This is sexist (4, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 months ago | (#47469191)

Oh, yes, because that has worked so well in the past? There are still lots of ages-old prejudices and preconceptions, like e.g. women suck at anything technical and men who become nurses must be feminine gays and so on. These things do not change unless they're forcibly made to change and ignoring these things helps no one.

Re:This is sexist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469235)

So by creating an environment only welcoming to one group is the way to the solution?

take any 2 groups any 2 groups separate them and have them work exclusively with people from their own group... then see how well they integrate when you combined them together... do they seem to have a prejudice against the other group? do they flock together or intermingle freely?

Re:This is sexist (1, Interesting)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 months ago | (#47469267)

When one of the groups is already prejudiced against and is lacking in skills and education exactly because of this behaviour, then yes, you really do need to take steps to fix this. You can get your panties in a bunch over this all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that women are, indeed, in a position where they're not being taken seriously and where they're afraid of even getting education in these matters.

Re:This is sexist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469379)

Seems to me to be a poor way to be taken seriously. It screams "we cannot compete with men so we must create our own exclusive clubs." Fear of getting an education because someone might disapprove is just pathetic.

Re:This is sexist (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 2 months ago | (#47469469)

It seems the stereotype threat theory is a myth:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:This is sexist (2, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 months ago | (#47469619)

The article doesn't actually talk about what this ChickTech is about. "According to that theory, girls tend to perform worse on tests after they've been told they'll do poorly." -- entirely a different matter. This isn't about addressing whether women do poorly or not, it's about addressing the whole premise of women even trying in the first place because of various efforts to dissuade them from it.

Re:This is sexist (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47469215)

TFA claims that "The participants can look around the building and see that girls from all backgrounds are just as excited about tech as they are." If that is true then clearly there is a problem because girls are interested but put off for some reason. At the very least it blows the argument that girls just don't like engineering out of the water.

Re:This is sexist (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469309)

If I'm talking about the national budget in some advertised talk, and I look around during my lecture and see people very interested in the topic, should I say the majority of the population loves studying economics?

What kind of fucking logic is that?

Re:This is sexist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469505)

MARKETING!

Re:This is sexist (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 2 months ago | (#47469383)

Actually, this is not accepting diversity. It is trying to force sameness.

Re:This is sexist (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 2 months ago | (#47470253)

That's because they pretend to like diversity, but come to work everyday dressed as Pennywise, or respect "Talk like a Pirate Day".

Shoot I've been harassed at work for using fountain pens with purple ink, working with my office light off, and a bunch of other stuff.

They wanmt their token diversity, but when it comes ot real diversity forget it.

Name (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469109)

The probably could've pick a name that wasn't so terrible.

Re:Name (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469179)

ChickTech was a compromise between the HoTech and BitChes camps.

Re:Name (4, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 months ago | (#47469313)

I had a business called ComputerChicks. For $500 they'd come to your house, fix up your computer and then fix you up...any way you wanted.

The authorities got really cranky about it.

But I did get meet a lot of really interesting guys over the course of 5 to 10 years with time off for good behavior.

Re:Name (1)

boristdog (133725) | about 2 months ago | (#47469559)

I actually had a business called "rent a nerd" in the early 90's when I was in my mid 20's and in great shape. I got lots of repeat calls from lonely divorced women to fix very simple "problems" with their computers. e.g. Problem: "My screen is blank!" Solution: "Turn up the brightness knob" | Problem: "My software won't load!" Solution: "You have to run the install.exe program, not the readme.txt"

If I hadn't had a girlfriend and/or a conscience at the time I would have made even more money. I did get a lot of free sandwiches & beverages, and got to see a lot of low-neckline shirts.

Here's a better name (2)

hackingbear (988354) | about 2 months ago | (#47469555)

Chick Squad

Re:Here's a better name (2)

louaish88 (731196) | about 2 months ago | (#47470153)

Teen Girl Squad

But girls really *can't* do math. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469173)

Not without some guy offering his help, then stating dumbfounded "uh, that's actually pretty hard. Are you sure that's what you are supposed to be doing? How about we do something else?"

Kuhscheisse. (3, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#47469177)

It means "Cow shit."

Looking around my cube farm:

3 rows of 9 cubes for a total of 27 cubes.

3 cubes are inhabited by boxes and spare equipment, the rest by people.

Out of 24 cubes with people, a solid half (13 to be precise) are filled with females, the rest, males.

So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech." Now, there may be a "shortage of girls" in certain avenues of the tech industry, but I'll bet dollars against pesos that there's a perfectly reasonable, non-misogynistic reason for at least the majority of those shortages.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (4, Funny)

doctor woot (2779597) | about 2 months ago | (#47469283)

You're a good statistician and sociologist. Strongly persuaded by the narrow anecdote you used to support your loosely worded presumptuous conclusion. This is the quality bullshit comment systems were invented for.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#47469801)

You're a good statistician and sociologist. Strongly persuaded by the narrow anecdote you used to support your loosely worded presumptuous conclusion.

I know, right? Do you think CNN will hire me to do a show, or should I shoot more towards the ultra-partisan MSNBC/FOX News crowds? When it comes to BS I can make Ann Coulter look like a rank amateur.

'Course, were I to respond in a slightly less sardonic manner, I'd mention how if you're the sort of person who extrapolates someone's personal anecdote about their own officemates to imply a globally-viable statistic, well, that little bit o' idiocy is on you, not me.

Slightly less sardonic...

Re:Kuhscheisse. (1)

doctor woot (2779597) | about 2 months ago | (#47469849)

Either you're implying that you really don't know how "so" works as a conjunction or you're backpedaling. I'd believe either at this point.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47470055)

Out of 24 cubes with people, a solid half (13 to be precise) are filled with females, the rest, males.

So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech."

You made the extrapolation yourself.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (2, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47469295)

So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech." Now, there may be a "shortage of girls" in certain avenues of the tech industry

Were they in actual tech roles, or non tech roles?

My own experience says I've never seen more than about 10-15% female actually in tech roles. I've never worked at a place which didn't have women in tech roles, but there's always been a bit of a skewing towards males.

Heck, when I was in school, the ratio was about the same in my classes, and seemed to drop as you went to more advanced classes. There were more in first year classes, but as you went up there were fewer people overall, and the number of women dropped faster for the most part. I was dating the only female in my classes for the last few years of school.

But my experience (yes, purely anecdotal, and I don't claim otherwise) is that out of 27 cubes the most I've ever seen is 2-3 women, and that's an upper bound.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469561)

There are women in the IT department where I work, but they're in operations, doing tasks assigned to them by more technically oriented people. In a prior job we had female developers, but they were all Russian, which points to a problem in our educational system. There's no reason Russian women should be more capable of complex technology work than American women, other than a cultural problem here.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#47469733)

So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech." Now, there may be a "shortage of girls" in certain avenues of the tech industry

Were they in actual tech roles, or non tech roles?

Seems about 50/50 - half are either in management or administrative roles, the rest are either developers, project coordinators, or systems designers and installers. In my department, 2/3 of the managers are women.

My own experience says I've never seen more than about 10-15% female actually in tech roles. I've never worked at a place which didn't have women in tech roles, but there's always been a bit of a skewing towards males.

It does seem that tech jobs tend to have more men than women in them (sure, half the women are devs, but 80% of the men are too), but I don't believe the reasoning to be nearly as misogynistic as some of these "gurls up" organizations want us to think. It's just that most chicks don't dig coding, just like most men aren't big fans of sewing. Has nothing to do with ability.

Heck, when I was in school, the ratio was about the same in my classes, and seemed to drop as you went to more advanced classes.

Interesting, I had the opposite experience - I recall 1 female student in most of my 100-level classes, but when I came back to the higher level stuff after a 2 year hiatus, about a 1/4 of the students were ladies; still not "equal numbers," but significantly higher enrollment than a few years prior.

But my experience (yes, purely anecdotal, and I don't claim otherwise) is that out of 27 cubes the most I've ever seen is 2-3 women, and that's an upper bound.

What part of the country? I'm in the Midwest, I wonder if perhaps geographics/local demographics is an influencing factor?

Re:Kuhscheisse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47470167)

Better ration then I've seen. I can't find any sexy male waiters at Twin Peaks or Hooters. Why?

Re:Kuhscheisse. (2, Funny)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47469323)

So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech.

Your survey of your immediate surroundings isn't very convincing in the face of much wider studies and larger data sets. Are you one of those people who doesn't believe in climate change because it's quite cool in your office?

Re:Kuhscheisse. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#47469625)

So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech.

Your survey of your immediate surroundings isn't very convincing in the face of much wider studies and larger data sets. Are you one of those people who doesn't believe in climate change because it's quite cool in your office?

Unlike the author of TFA, who doesn't even bother with facts or statistics at all, but rather predicates their entire platform on the statement "Dur, we need more gurls in tech!"

Seriously, go read TFA. It's not so much an article as an advertisement for the organization.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469367)

Analysts, testers, managers, yes. Developers? Not so much. I've only worked with a few women coders in my career (interestingly, all of them were awesome programmers). Even in college, there was a relatively equal gender balance in IT but very few women enrolled in programming classes.

My wife is a teacher. Her school has somewhere around 50 classrooms. Out of all the teachers and staff, there are only two men.

But I never wanted to be a teacher. No amount of encouragement or support would have pushed me toward that profession. I just have no interest in it.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (0)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 months ago | (#47469369)

But were they young, cute girls?

Re:Kuhscheisse. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#47469589)

But were they young, cute girls?

No...

OK, suddenly I have a "good" reason to support this ChickTech idea...

Re:Kuhscheisse. (1)

woodworx (1780214) | about 2 months ago | (#47469565)

much as I like the english to german translation, I think Norm Schwartzkopf called it better during the first gulf war. Bovine Scatology.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (1)

Yunzil (181064) | about 2 months ago | (#47469869)

They say that almost 20% of the world's population is Chinese. However there are no Chinese people working in any of the offices on the same floor of the building as me. Therefore I conclude that all these so-called experts are wrong and there are in fact no Chinese people.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469901)

Do you suppose there is actually a natural reason women are drawn to professions that involve dealing with people such as medicine and law and not objects like machines? I think there is. And I also think its a mistake to take their naturally occurring desires and telling them it is wrong to be drawn to a type of subject they desire and should instead pursue things they have a hard time getting interested in and, once most of them are 'exposed' to it (I love that term. Its like they are Amish people who never even used a computer or modern appliance before) find not that they can't do it but that they just really don't like it? Feminists and others who find a conspiracy behind every bush need to reflect a little bit more deeply about how reality rarely mirrors their politics.

And isn't it astounding that more women don't choose welding and HVAC repair as professions? They are as rare there as they are on the moon and no feminist is decrying women for not getting involved in that area.

Re:Kuhscheisse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47470191)

I work on a programming team of three. I am the only male. I'd like to see fewer females in tech, thank you very much.

This is sexually racist (0)

doctor woot (2779597) | about 2 months ago | (#47469237)

I abhor the use of personal resources to aid any specific group of people for any reason. People should spend their money only in ways that further my own interest, I'm too insecure to have it any other way.

People trying to help others overcome inequality makes me sick.

Re:This is sexually racist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469945)

Yes. And lets use up your money first since that is the only money that will work on this 'intractable' problem. Then we'll go pillage another poor fool at the point of a government gun and see how that works.

Coastal Big Cities only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469241)

In other words not very effective at all.

Coding (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469265)

They can't drive, but we expect that they can code? I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Coding (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469461)

How often do you have to take your car to the collision repair shop there buddy?

Women can drive, and generally are BETTER drivers than men, at least in terms of insurance risk. Men tend to be more aggressive, impulsive and reckless in all that they do, driving included. So, where successful race-car drivers tend to be men (due to their aggressiveness), the average man is a worse driver than the average woman.

Full disclosure.... I'm a middle aged man with a clean driving record, posting as AC to protect my mod points for today..

Relevant question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469817)

How many of them of them collision repair shop mechanics are women? Maybe women are disadvantaged in getting those jobs too. Better start a training program.

Re:Coding (1)

aevan (903814) | about 2 months ago | (#47470183)

I've seen studies go either way. I've seen claims that women CAUSE more accidents (random braking etc) that they themselves don't get INTO the accident, but effect the people they had cut off etc (claims by traffic cops). I've watch women apply makeup while making lane-changes on 6-lane highways, or declare they waited long enough to cross a highway "they'll just have to stop". Personally come across as many accidents caused by hesitation as by aggression.

tl;dr: Both genders have their share of incompetent morons.

Great Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469287)

ChickTech sounds like a great idea. Teach women to make their own online sex surveys and horoscope generators.

hmmm... (1)

woodworx (1780214) | about 2 months ago | (#47469531)

my seventeen year old daughter scored a 5 on the AP Calculus AB exam. she intends on teaching High School Math. ( why she wants to go back to high school, I have yet to understand.) so in my mind, girls get to choose what they want to do just like guys do. dunno why girls don't choose geekage as much as guys do... could be the tan line possibilities.... (or not)

Re:hmmm... (0)

the_skywise (189793) | about 2 months ago | (#47469757)

Hear hear...

In my experience it's not that they can't be programmers it's that they don't WANT to be programmers. The smartest women in my family is a bio-engineer. The second smartest got an MBA (well.. y'know...we love her anyway. ;) ) I've known women physicists, astro-physicists, doctors (the MD kind), veterinarians, and psychiatrists. (None in a professional capacity) All of them geeks in one way or the other but all of them HATE computers and only use them as a necessary evil. I work in IT and have worked with a FEW women programmers compared to the hundreds of men I've encountered and worked with.

It's anecdotal to be sure, but I don't see women being scared out of STEM fields so much as women don't seem to "like" technical engineering/machines as career choices even though they're perfectly capable of doing the work. Is that something to do with existing patriarchal social power structures or something more intrinsic to how the sexes look at problem-solving? (This is aside from the sexism that IS inherent in all the fields but I don't think that's the core problem.)

Re:hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469943)

Exactly! It's like trying to get women interested in cars. A few do. Most don't.

Peer pressure? (1)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | about 2 months ago | (#47469539)

My completely anecdotal non-scientific evidence is that girls interested in math, science, and tech were mostly discouraged by their peers. Communities to support girls and women pursuing tech are great and all, but I feel like for a lot of girls it's going to come down to one very simple question: do I get new hobbies, or do I get new friends? It wouldn't surprise me if a majority of girls choose the latter.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe things have changed since the decade or so since I was a high school student. Maybe it really was just my high school. But my suspicion is that this is still common, and ChickTech is going to have to find a way to solve the peer pressure problem.

Re:Peer pressure? (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 2 months ago | (#47469609)

I found this interesting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]

Re:Peer pressure? (3, Insightful)

the_skywise (189793) | about 2 months ago | (#47469829)

I have to question the analysis after this:

"These STEM majors, as with economics, begin with few women enrolling and end with even fewer graduating. This “leaky pipeline” has been somewhat puzzling, Arcidiacono said, because women enter college just as prepared as men in math and science. On average, women more eagerly spend time studying than men do, a trait that should theoretically attract women to STEM fields, which generally assign more homework."

More homework? Women should be attracted to STEM fields because they "generally assign more homework"?!

Well... THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM.

F- that... That's not at all why I wanted to go into "STEM" fields. I wanted to build s**t.

geek stuff is for pimple-faced, socially awkward (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 2 months ago | (#47469567)

BS on anyone thinking "geek is for boys". Everyone knows geek work is for both pimple-faced, socially awkward boys AND fat girls too.

Which doesn't explain why my boss is so good at it, nor why my mom was an awesome programmer and analyst - neither of them are fat.

ehhhhh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47470311)

Shut up, Meg!

Re:geek stuff is for pimple-faced, socially awkwar (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 2 months ago | (#47470477)

Sorry you had to find out like this, but your mom is a boy.

Open Source Women (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 2 months ago | (#47469599)

I just love the sound of that.

Oink

Re:Open Source Women (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47469883)

but the code is still obfuscated like crazy.

Feel good kumbaya (3, Informative)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 months ago | (#47469675)

a) there's nothing special about Open Source
b) being excited about something is not tangible
c) self-esteem is not the point
d) being a career non-profit means that you never created value
e) Oregon is full of hipsters and douches

to a larger extent, this is culture war. (0, Troll)

nimbius (983462) | about 2 months ago | (#47469811)

The largely patriarchal narrative woven into the fabric of the american dream is that women are caretakers of children and roasters of turkey during holidays. Whereas the soviet union in the 1970's boasted much greater equality in the workplace in terms of female STEM headcount, the US doubled-down on rhetoric, shuffled 'in god we trust' into the pledge, and made haste to forget rosie the riveter ever existed.

We have an entire party in government that literally see women as uselessly inferior to men. We cant even approach the idea that women are, in terms of sexuality, to be treated as equals to men. Womens healthcare at the local and state level is nothing short of an embarassing campaign to wipe the scourge of contraception off the map, at any cost. Colleges routinely hush up rape cases and take it upon themselves to redact student names and details of repression and reprisal. Its also sadly true that not a day goes by where a politician or religious leader claims to speak for reason when they ardently affirm rape can be 'legitimate' and its the womans fault. Our approach to womens education is inconsistent at best as women didnt get to attend military colleges until the 1970s, and it wasnt until 2013 that we decided they could not only participate in the military but actually serve a combat role.

so yeah, if we ask ourselves why the deficit exists its because we have tacitly and communally agreed that women are inferior, despite a thin veneer of nodding and applause for our insistent declaration that women are no different than men and can achieve anything.

Shameless Plug (1)

psybre (921148) | about 2 months ago | (#47469835)

Also see:

The Ada Initiative [adainitiative.org] .

Selective Service (5, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 2 months ago | (#47469857)

Wake me up when women are required to register for Selective Service, and qualify to be shot or blown up against their will.
https://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm [sss.gov]

WHO MUST REGISTER

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male immigrants living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.

Re:Selective Service (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47470115)

How about instead of forcing women to fight against their will you just stop forcing anyone of any gender? Most first world countries don't have any kind of mandatory service.

Re:Selective Service (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 2 months ago | (#47470275)

Because they rely on ours. It would be interesting to see the change if we pulled all protective forces back.

Re:Selective Service (1)

blue9steel (2758287) | about 2 months ago | (#47470409)

You're right of course. Heinlein had the correct solution, namely that all conflicts should only be initiated by referendum and that anyone voting yes is automatically drafted if it passes.

Re:Selective Service (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 2 months ago | (#47470423)

Every country has plans to mobilize men, except maybe in Africa where they prefer to draft little boys. The socialist countries don't need any kind of registration because all citizens are already tabulated into the collective through national IDs, health insurance, welfare, etc. Though the OP's complaint is rather trivial, I'd be more outraged about the average female's tax/entitlement ratio.

Not the way to do it.... (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 months ago | (#47470245)

"In the United States, many girls are brought up to believe that 'girls can't do math' and that science and other 'geeky' topics are for boys," Davidson said. "We break down that idea."

Except, of course, for the fact that by trying to focus attention on how males and females are being treated differently where gender should be irrelevant, they are, in fact, treating the different genders differently when the notion of gender should be irrelevant, which only perpetuates the problem

The feministas win again... (2)

buckfeta2014 (3700011) | about 2 months ago | (#47470293)

It's one thing to have an organization comprised of women, it's another to go all-out like penis-hating feministas.

20 years from now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47470325)

Whenever I hear about stuff like this, I can't help but imagine there will be massive layoffs in tech just in time for all these people to be in it.

White males got into tech early because they were in the right demographic. Next, White males will get into something else because they'll parlay the money they made off tech into... something else.

So maybe 20 years from now it'll be, "Why aren't there enough minorities in the recreational marijuana industry?" I'm just throwing that one out there; but come to think of it you see an awful lot of White growers getting away with it, and an awful lot of minorities dealing a little and getting thrown in jail.

So yeah, lots of things cause things to be the way they are.

How about just providing everybody equal opportunity and letting people sort it out for themselves? Yeah, I know... to simple, and not likely to spawn a bunch of organizations that can hold fundraising dinners and shake hands with politicians.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>