zlacker

>>andren+(OP)
Once again: compared to other STEM fields, women participate less in CS than any other field except physics. By double digits percentage more in mathematics PhDs. Statistics is almost 50/50. Several rigorous earth sciences fields --- chem and biochem, for instance --- have 50% or greater female participation.

One thing all these fields have in common is that they are more intellectually rigorous and harder to succeed in than the computer software industry.

Clearly, they have something else in common. We just need to figure out what it is.

This essay, which invokes the "Google Memo", is subtly attacking a straw man. Even those almost the entire rest of STEM is better than CS, it's true that it's not balanced; it remains deeply imperfect. Physics and mechanical engineering, clustered with CS, remain the province of men. There's a expanse of STEM fields with female participation between 25-40% that you'd want to explain or correct. Is it stereotype threat? Implicit bias? Who knows? Probably not?

But that has nothing to do with why Google has so few women engineers. The work that a commercial software engineer does --- even at the lofty heights in which the profession is practiced in such a cathedral of software design as the Alphabet Corporation --- is simply not that hard; most of it is just wiring form fields to databases in new and exciting ways.

Whatever is holding women's participation in our field at or below twenty percent is artificial, and a travesty.

>>tptace+Ti
> By double digits percentage more in mathematics PhDs. Statistics is almost 50/50. Several rigorous earth sciences fields --- chem and biochem, for instance --- have 50% or greater female participation.

This is very misleading. Female post docs in the maths are below 30%, and computer science post docs are at about 20%:

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/digest/fod-wome...

There is no really justification to think that the maths "are doing better" than other STEM fields. It's certainly not a double digit difference.

> Whatever is holding women's participation in our field at or below twenty percent is artificial, and a travesty.

That's pure conjecture. There is very little evidence that this is artificial, and a few good reasons to think it's not. For instance, female participation in STEM in more repressive countries like Iran is at 50%, because it's one of a small number of careers they can choose from.

Pretty much every country in which women have more opportunities to choose from a wider selection of careers shows the exact same gendered STEM trends. Do you really believe these prejudices holding back women from STEM are somehow universal in precisely the same ways across dozens of cultures? And furthermore, that the fields that were even more sexist and old-boys-club, like law and medicine, couldn't keep women out, but a bunch of nerds with keyboards are far too scary for women? That frankly stretches credulity.

A better theory that reasonably explains all of this data is the things-vs-people hypothesis:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

>>naaski+Ko
You just gave me a sequence of data points that confirms my argument, claimed instead that it contradicts it, and then linked to a rambling SlateStarCodex post.

>>tptace+1p
Not really, you claimed double digit differences, which is incorrect as shown by the data.

You claimed widespread prejudice, which has no supporting evidence.

And you may consider the article I linked to be rambling, but it's comprehensive.