Demand for software experts pushes tech salaries higher in UK Despite a flatlining UK economy, and recessionary clouds gathering, in the tech sector the competition for skilled staff remains intense, even as software job openings reportedly dip on a global scale. Computer coders and software developers are "still finding that it's still a jobseeker's market, with employers offering a …
I really don't understand why so many people are going along with the diversity for diversity's sake bandwagon.
If I read the article correctly, employers are deliberately recruiting from overseas in order just to get more women into roles because of a lack of domestic supply of people with the right chromosomes for the box-tickers.
I don't think it's a bandwagon.
There's a circular pattern of dominated jobs, eg nurses were predominantly female. It's taken time for male nurses to come into the profession in any numbers. It's all about breaking the circle and the only easy place to break that circle is to set a diversity goal (whether sex/race/whatever) and once things level up in the sector, the overall image of the profession should change so that the career seems like an open choice for everyone, and not seen as the purview of a particular sex/race/whatever... at which point the goals become mute.
But this takes time, and along the way there are people who actively try and get in the way of the process because they simply like things the way they are and don't want to see things change.
I guess going by your logic we should be aiming to get more white people into the NHS, because it's around 40% non-white, which is nowhere near close to the demographic of this country? Perhaps that's what the remit of these new "diversity managers"?
Also, dare I suggest that it's possible that women are often more suited to certain jobs, like nursing or nursery nursing, because they tend to prefer doing that? On average. Do you think that men and women are completely the same, and therefore we should not rest until we have close to 50/50 nursery nurses being men/women? It might be desirable to get more men as nursery nurses, but does it have to be 50/50?
I was about to post this as myself, but then I remembered about "that memo" from a Google employee, who dared to suggest a similar thing, as was promptly sacked for saying so.
I'm not even saying this is definitely the case. Just suggesting it might be, and should be looked into a bit more. In my experience women and men aren't the same, and on average women tend to prefer people over things.
So, how about we just carry on encouraging school girls to get into STEM subjects (and let's boost that massively) but let's drop these damaging diversity targets.
Heresey?
Also, dare I suggest that it's possible that women are often more suited to certain jobs, like nursing or nursery nursing, because they tend to prefer doing that?
That kind of viewpoint is exactly the kind of attitude that must be torn into shreds and consigned to the history books or else we will never achieve the point where any individual, regardless, can achieve their best in the field which they have natural skills and temperament.
You seem very certain that it's not even possible. You aren't offering any evidence that it's wrong, except "because I said so". I'm not even suggesting it's definitely the case, just that it's a possibility. It's possible that because of evolution, it's been beneficial for women to tend towards certain traits, and men towards different traits. That's not to say that all women are this or that, just a tendency.
I feel like this idea warrants further research. However, I can't imagine any university in this country would touch it with a ten mile barge pole, because it's simply verboten to even suggest such a thing.
Being married to a very strong woman, who is an extremely talented manager (better than I could ever dream of) and also picked up coding pretty quickly, I can state that this tendency isn't always the case. In my experience women have often made better managers. I don't think men and women are completely the same. Taking the comment out of context kind of misses the point, you need to look at the whole thing.
I really don't know if women make better coders or if men do. I've worked with some very decent women coders, who are much better than I am. I've also worked with very few women coders, but I simply don't know if that's because they often don't like it, or because of the patriarchy.
You've jumped straight to "it's the inherent bias in the system", without offering any evidence.
It's not a "viewpoint" or an "attitude", it's just an idea. We should better understand what drives certain behaviors with an open mind, so that people can be better off and more happy.
Or are you actually suggesting we should aim for 50/50 in nursery nursing? To me that seems obviously wrong, because there just aren't that many men who are interested in working with little children. Of course there are some, but it's not many.
If you think the argument should be "torn to shreds" then go ahead.
There is proof, research and evidence.
Professor Daphna Joel..
Since 2003, Joel has served as the head of the psychobiology department at Tel Aviv University, and in 2013 was appointed chair of the PhD committee of the School of Psychological Sciences.
The whole thing does get a little mushy in the middle, but there you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYpDU040yzc
We are each individuals. Remove the social pressures and then see where people go.
If you want more, then I wrote something here - http://msknight.com/loas/?p=1551 - go down to the point about a third of the way down, "So where did the black/white (or pink/blue) binary come from?"
It's an interesting video.
It does start by describing the differences between male brains and female brains, and then ends by saying there aren't any differences. And this seems to be because the spines on the dendrites of rats brains show characteristics of the opposite sex when exposed to stress.
This hardly destroys the argument.
Also, I was never suggesting that women are less capable. Just that it's possible that some women just aren't as interested in coding.
If I was in a position of deciding who gets a job, would I pick someone more like myself instead of someone more capable? I'd really really hope not, but it's hard to know your own biases. I guess men might be more aggressive in self promotion and confidence, which might help them with interviews? (but not so much at the actual job).
It's a minefield.
It does start by describing the differences between male brains and female brains, and then ends by saying there aren't any differences.
What is shows is that while there are physical differences, they have no practical meaning; because some of the most critical differences are not even, in themselves, static... they are open to change during the persons life... and that stress applied at various points during gestation, have an effect on the individual brain; so that each of us is a unique person... and that further drives the nail into the argument of brain sex.... sex has nothing to do with the brain.
What about dyslexia and autism? The consensus is that males are affected more which would hint at there being some underlying difference.
A lot of effort is put into the 'there is no difference' view by the groups who like to use the word 'assigned'.
https://www.spectrumnews.org/opinion/q-and-a/questions-daphna-joel-brain-sex-differences-may-mirage/
"Our work suggests that the brains of typical males are similar to those of typical females. So the brains of people with autism and other conditions are likely rare mosaics that are more common in one sex than the other. So the brains of people with autism and other conditions are likely rare mosaics that are more common in one sex than the other."
Similar =/= same
As previous commentard mentioned she flip flops between 'they are the same' and 'there are differences'.
The majority opinion still says that it isn't a small, off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden. As we've learned from Covid and the climate stuff we must accept the majority opinion as gospel and anything else must be shunned as heresy.
Boys are more likely to present with male traits, perhaps unsurprisingly; the problem is that too many people who should know better tend to assume it's the male traits that define all autism, so girls with autism usually go undiagnosed and eventually in their teens or as adults get misdiagnosed with stuff like borderline personality disorder instead. I read somewhere not that long ago that perhaps a majority of women supposedly with BPD when reviewed were found to not have that condition at all but undiagnosed autism. BTDT, and it's really not amusing having the wrong diagnosis at the best of times let alone one that causes so much prejudice from clinicians, especially having only discovered it by accident because nobody thought it necessary to tell me...
A friend's daughter was recently diagnosed on the spectrum and he said it was incredibly hard getting most of the 'professionals' to accept the diagnosis.
From personal experience I believe a fair % of autism diagnosis in boys stems from the 'there must be something wrong with him' mindset because the child doesn't perfectly fit some idealised norm formed in someones head. Also sometimes boys will change behaviour to meet the expectations turning into a self fulfilling prophecy.
BTDT too, but the symptoms were different; severe pain in my back (which ironically I thought was heartburn and dismissed it for three days until it became unbearable) and right lower jaw. Someone told me that's fairly typical for women but I dunno if that's true, and even if it is, "fairly typical" doesn't necessarily mean everyone gets the same, I guess.
Another moral of the story is to not try to ignore diabetes and think you can make yourself fit by drinking lots of fruit juice: "fruit is good for you, so several pints of fruit juice every day must be really good for you!" Turns out it isn't. D:
Regardless of what some people say, there are differences between male and female brains, the main one being the male brain on average weighs over half a kilo more than the female brain. Female brain neuron density yends to be more dense than male brains. And, different parts of the brain are of different sizes, and this directly affects ability. Yes, it matters. The size and density directly affect thinking ability and aptitude Notice I'm not saying one's better, just different, as the differences make for different abilities.
Homosexuality, for example, derives from one small section of the brain. Straight males have one size of this section, straight females have another size. This part of the brain in homosexual males more closely matches straight fenales, and vice versa for homosexual females and straight males. In other words, homosexuality is not a preference, it's a physical thing that can't be changed.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-food/202103/brain-differences-linked-sexual-orientation
In other news, when I raised my kids I pushed STEM equally on both my son and daughter from the getgo. Preschool on up, the wife and I worked on the idea that math and science had no boy/girl orientation, and that anyone could do it. Both developed the same until the math and science went beyond basic stuff. My son nailed it, no problem but even with my help my daughter just couldn't get the math or science down. She's intelligent enough, having a Masters in English/Lit, but the math and science requirements almost stopped her from getting a degree. She passed the easiest minimums with C minuses, with a lot of tutoring. On the other hand, the language and reading requirements likely would have crushed Shakespeare and she cruised through that like it was first grade math. The point here is, even with encouragement and help females have a harder time with math and science than males, so it's no surprise that they are under-represented in those fields. I'm under no preconceptions on abilities either. I've been doing telecom for over 30 years and in my career, most women in the field struggle to get by buy I've worked with a couple of women that are miles ahead of me in ability for the job. But for every female better than me (2 total) there were more than 20 that could do the basics but needed help if it was more than a basic problem. And, they could not retain the more complex repair for the next time. It was fine by me though, their ability to handle the easier problems left me more time to fix the complex ones.
Anyone who claims brain differences do not matter are pandering. And, they are incorrect.
"because I said so"
Unfortunately this is often the sole basis of some group's thinking.
Any suggestion that real life is different to their firmly held ideas is dismissed as 'anecdotal evidence'.
As for equality, certain jobs are preferred by certain groups. In the UK a lot of girls study sciences at school but as they get older for whatever reason they seem to shy away from them.
I work in a field that is quite heavily research based and we have a slightly less awful ratio in R&D. Its maybe 5:1 but better than my last job which was easily 20:1.
Also certain jobs (usually involving sitting in front of computers all day) tend to be suited to those on the spectrum.
People don't decide what they want in an empty space. It is heavily influenced by their environment and what they see. That's why we first need to create an environment without biases before people truly make choices based on their real interests and talents.
Men in nurseries are still looked at suspiciously. Of course that will turn away men who would otherwise like to do that job.
SundogUK,
"...we first need to create an environment without biases..."
This is impossible and trying causes more trouble than not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it is difficult does not mean we should not try !!!
[In the trying we may reduce the biases which is a worthwhile improvement.]
'Moonshot' any one !!!???
That was a dishonest, manipulative answer. He didnt say it was difficult, he said it was impossible, you shouldn't pretend otherwise. Its not that its difficult, its literally impossible. Biology precludes it. Just look at the Scandinavian countries. Their policies and social structures have gone the furthest to minimise these differences and yet the outcome has been the exact opposite of what people like you said it would be. Instead of shrinking the difference in choice between genders, it has actually widened the differences in the choices they make. Woman make more feminine choices and men make more masculine choices in Sweden than in any western country
https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/
Infact the Scandinavian experiment has failed so badly that they have actually made it illegal to do scientific studies that show the truth in Sweden. That politically correct policies cause more societal damage than they could ever hope to match with improvements. Its a disastrously failed policy and outlook on the world that sadly many people believe is true, thanks to the media, big tech and western governments constantly pushing this narrative
https://www.opindia.com/2021/11/sweden-lund-university-researcher-faces-prosecution-for-study-post-rapes-committed-by-immigrants/
"That's why we first need to create an environment without biases before people truly make choices based on their real interests and talents."
That's a nice theory, but you can't just use policy sticks and carrots to beat current reality into submission and enact massive change in a very short time, and not expect that to be massively disruptive. These things take time.
"Men in nurseries are still looked at suspiciously. "
Don't know about anyone / anywhere else, but there was a guy in our kids' daycare who was fantastic and it was sad for both us and the kids when he left. At the current after school care there is one guy to 5-6 girls, again, the guy is fun, open, kids and parents love him.
The key isn't to impose massive change through quotas, it is implementing policies that promote transparency and openness so that women / men will feel comfortable in areas with more males / females
Interesting story in the press recently. It should be of interest no matter where on the spectrum of the diversity debate one stands.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-62826983
Now, there is probably more to that story than this one report shows. But it looks, from that report, that the primary arguments against this person being given the job is entirely because he's a man. There doesn't seem to be anyone questioning the line up of candidates or their qualifications. It'll be an interesting one to follow as local councils are usually sticklers for following all the rules in this sort of matter and in particular like to be shown as being fair and diverse.
Your original post, as I understood it @msknight, asserted that the primary driver for people ending up in careers is the 'image' of the job accorded by the ("current") population distribution of the people doing said job. Thus by artificially adjusting the population you can create a self sustaining population within the job, so in theory would therefore no longer need to exclude applicants from the over represented subset.
There are a number of problems with that, both with the premise and the conclusion - but its possible I misunderstood and I am not attempting to straw-man.
The problem with what @anon posted, is trying to use statistics as a predictor for a population subset. We could very well use 'height' to demonstrate: lets say the average height of 'nurses' is below the population average. Does that mean that 'short people' are 'better suited' to being nurses? No. It means the variable you're examining has some relationship with the current population, but you can't look at a short person and assume they'd be a good nurse based on that attribute.
I agree that men and women are different. I agree that *individuals* should have equal opportunities. I don't agree that any of us are served by 'ripping opinions to shreds'. We should he trying to change each other's minds, while making every attempt to understand each other's varying opinions and what underpins them - otherwise we're just fighting.
I agree that men and women are different.
Men and women may be different, but not in the aspect of mental capability and performance in the field of I.T. I posted a few posts above a video from a respected neuroscientist that there is no such thing as a male or female brain.
I also posted to a piece of writing that I did which, while primarily dealing with the subject of transsexuality, went into the social pressures that we all face.
I could easily start listing the women who made a large contribution to our own field of work and how many were airbrushed out of I.T. history, but that is now easier to search for than ever before; because this is starting to be undone and people's contributions are coming forward.
But as long as people continue to perpetuate biases, such as giving the job to the person who they think is most likely to think as they do (reinforcement) rather than challenge them, (the much harder road) in whatever field it is... then the goal of giving the job to the person most suitable for the job itself, will not be achieved.
Changing people's minds has been difficult; there are people who don't want their minds changed. There is no other way to deal with those people other than to make laws and enforce them... because they don't want change and won't listen to evidence.
It is interesting though, the "push" for more women in IT. I've been in the business about 25 years. I've never seen a barrier at the companies I worked for, even an invisible barrier, that says "no women". Maybe it's different at your companies (in which case, why didn't you do something about it?).
So why aren't more women coming forward? In the small companies where I worked there were about 15% to 20% or so women in the IT departments (figures from memory, remembering who was who). At the larger companies that figure dropped off a little bit (again from memory, not actual statistics).
If 80% or more candidates are men, are we supposed to automatically reject most of their applications and choose only women? Why aren't more women applying in the first place?
IT is seen as a "clean" job in an office (mostly) with (sometimes) long hours. Why have I never seen a demand from the "more women in $workplace brigade" that more women be employed cleaning sewers (about 99% are men, apparently)? It's not a job I would want, so I give these people credit for doing it and don't look down on them. How about ordinary but respectable sometimes-get-your-hands-dirty jobs like telephone cable laying? How about more women steeplejacks? How about more women mechanics in backstreet garages? It does sometimes seem like this "equality" thing is not quite that equal.
Many years ago I lived in a constituency with a woman MP. The same sort of subject cropped up - why are there more women in xyz. It was pointed out that we had a woman MP, a woman prime minister, and a queen. What was stopping this complainant? Answer: not me.
You wrote: "I've never seen a barrier at the companies I worked for, even an invisible barrier, that says "no women".
OK, so read some of these comments, and remember that these guys work with us.
There's your barrier.
Research as long ago as 2016 (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35559439) shows software coding changes suggested by women had higher approval ratings than those from men - but only if their gender was not identifiable. Sigh.
I've seen a number of things in my years. It's not only the individual, it's those around them.
I had a woman from one supplier actually break down on my shoulder because one man at her office was very vocal about how women shouldn't be in I.T. and he made her life a misery; and he did this in full view of every one else in their office. No one stood up for her.
I left my last job because my new colleague (at the same level as me) with only five years basic experience in I.T. wouldn't listen to anything I told him; even down to the fact that the MAC address of the physical interface on a laptop being different to the physical interface on the docking station. (When I offered to prove it to him, he tried to prevent me showing him) He always had to have things explained to him by a man before he'd listen. The leader above us bullied me out of my job; I left a report with the HR department with evidence, but I don't think they've done anything since then. Why he hated me so much, I don't know. But he was also able to change everyone's opinions about me which lead to the manager above him accusing me of, "not getting it." ... you tell me how I'm supposed to make a change when faced with that sort of environment.
You want to see more women in male dominated fields? Then stop driving them out. You can't drive women out of these jobs and then turn around and ask, "Where are they?"
@msknight
"I had a woman from one supplier actually break down on my shoulder because one man at her office was very vocal about how women shouldn't be in I.T. and he made her life a misery; and he did this in full view of every one else in their office. No one stood up for her."
So one man in an entire office upsets a woman because he is a dick? I can believe that. I am a guy and I have worked with some dicks too. And others around dont tend to stand in the way either.
"I left my last job because my new colleague (at the same level as me) with only five years basic experience in I.T. wouldn't listen to anything I told him"
Lucky you. You got someone with some experience and no listening skills. And they wernt the same level they got put ahead of me. So I left.
"Why he hated me so much, I don't know."
Some people are just that way. Not worth the effort trying to understand what is wrong with them. Not even necessarily hatred, some people are just wired wrong.
"You want to see more women in male dominated fields? Then stop driving them out. You can't drive women out of these jobs and then turn around and ask, "Where are they?""
In my opinion for the first question I dont care. Just as I dont care about males entering female dominated fields. I dont drive anyone out, nor push anyone in.
Men and women may be different, but not in the aspect of mental capability and performance in the field of I.T.
But men and women (as a whole) have different preferences and interests.
Because this is not Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge or the Soviet Union under Lenin or Stalin then people have a choice as to what career they wish to pursue.
I remember a friend telling me about how he was surprised that a fellow university applicant wanted to become a merchant banker. Well, if your family and their friends include merchant bankers then merchant banking could become an interest for someone, but anybody else who had never seen a merchant banker, does not know of one through family or their friends, and had never seen or heard anything about merchant bankers through the media would not even know that merchant banking was an option, let alone how attractive an option it might be for them.
If you want to attract anyone into a profession then you need to people to be aware of that profession and provide a realistic view of it. You should then get people who are attracted to it, rather than people who are hunted down and lured in by box-tickers who are more concerned with social engineering than with finding a good match between candidates and roles.
-> Because this is not Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge or the Soviet Union under Lenin or Stalin then people have a choice as to what career they wish to pursue.
In theory. In practice? If you are a 5 foot overweight balding ugly male model, the best in your chosen career, they are not going to put you on the cover of Vogue. But you are indeed free to pursue this as your career choice. Meanwhile unhealthily thin women, no matter who they are, are going to be in front of you in the queue for next month's cover. Before you put your fingers on the keyboard to retort, I have heard of the Ugly model agency.
-> Well, if your family and their friends include merchant bankers then merchant banking
This paragraph here is called keeping it in the family. It is nothing to do with choice of career. It is a way to keep unconnected people out of top or even good jobs. This definitely exists.
@msknight "Changing people's minds has been difficult; there are people who don't want their minds changed. There is no other way to deal with those people other than to make laws and enforce them"
I thought we already have employment laws on discrimination in the UK. So I am interested in what laws you think need to be made and enforced? And would those laws be be discriminatory and incompatible with the current discrimination laws?
Falmari,
"I thought we already have employment laws on discrimination in the UK. So I am interested in what laws you think need to be made and enforced? And would those laws be be discriminatory and incompatible with the current discrimination laws?"
Your reply is a standard trope, used in reply to any suggestion of discrimination or bias.
Yes, there are laws to fight discrimination but they have to be used !!!
Much like there are laws to punish speeding on roads but not everyone is caught and punished !!!
Bias and discrimination is subtle and can be very indirect, especially if a group is involved as they cover and defend each other.
Try proving to HR that you are being unfairly treated if you are fighting a group who are working together.
If you think this does not happen then you are very much mistaken !!!
Sometimes HR will not 'believe' these things because it would open up a 'can of worms' that they do not want to deal with !!!
[One person unhappy (1 problem) vs many people unhappy (Many problems)]
@AC "Your reply is a standard trope, used in reply to any suggestion of discrimination or bias."
No it was not. It was 2 questions for @msknight about their comment which taken at face value implies laws needed to be introduced and enforced, rather than the current laws are in need of enforcement. So pretty obvious questions.
Now though the questions were not directed at you, that trope comment seems to be an attempt to discredit the questions, to avoid answering them.
Note, and this should probably be emphasized, this part: "...because they tend to prefer doing that?"
If women have a preference for jobs that require 'soft' people skills over jobs that require more impersonal and mechanical/engineering skills (which is supported by many studies) then of course women will be over-represented in eg nursing, childcare and teaching, and underrepresented in computing. If this is what they want, that is the desirable outcome.
"women are often more suited to certain jobs" as a consequence of women's choices is fine. It's not fine when it's an edict handed down on to them by men who are excluding them from certain professions. What really needs to be done in computing is do eradicate a 'bro' culture where women feel unwelcome, unsafe or threatened
IMHO most of the "bro" culture tends to originate with managers rather than cow-orkers: I can't speak for everyone but it's that problem with presenteeism, competitiveness and so on that makes for a more unpleasant, competitive and unproductive environment and is what encourages people to work against each other rather than with each other. It seems to bring out the worst in everyone. I've seen a lot of people asserting that women aren't interested, but IME that doesn't hold up: women were interested and came from all sorts of backgrounds (e.g. at my first job, one of my mentors used to be a secretary who just sort of fell into computing as being the albeit over-qualified typist she kept having to do other people's code entry and ended up writing her own; one of our best ops started out as a receptionist and learnt the basics of Unix by exploring her staff directory lookup screen at quiet times of day, eventually applying for a transfer) but that doesn't seem to happen any more. Maybe those opportunities to get into IT aren't what they were (I noticed an increasing obsession with qualifications and prior experience during applications and interviews over the course of my career and less and less focus on staff training) but I suspect that where IT used to be seen as a good career path, it's now better known for having turned into something that involves stress, long hours, "crunch time" and outsourcing.
It's not enough to want to "like to see more". You are basically propping up the patriarchy. It has to be very close to 50/50, or we don't have true equality, right? I mean, it works both ways doesn't it? It should also be for the tough undesirable jobs, if we're talking about quotas?
Technically 50/50 would mean inequality, as there are more men in employment than women, and more men in unemployment than women, and men are more likely to work full time.
Source: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06838/SN06838.pdf
So you'd expect to employ more men than women if you were reflecting the demographics and working patterns of the workforce (rather than the general population, which includes stay-at-home parents, children and retirees).
If we had coal mines, we wouldn't have any coal miners, it would all be machine-mined. Close to all the "easy" hand-mineable coal has been mined, what remains is super-deep coal that hasn't been mined because it was too deep for human miners, and previously there a) wasn't the technology to get it and b) we had plenty of human-mineable coal to get.
@J.G.Harston
As someone who grew up in a mining area & saw the industry wiped out for political reasons I will note that I had friends & family in mining.
There was still plenty of deep coal that needed people to obtain (machinery used at the time used people to control it - a lot of the UK seams relatively small and not really suitable for the automated kit that was available then, plus human skill to excavate in the correct places - a cave in by extracting in an unsafe area is not a good idea).
At the time of UK deep mine closures, lots of human mineable coal remained.. but it was expensive coal (hence a problem to some) e.g. at the time, even with shipping cost imported Australian open cast mined coal (as an e.g.) would be cheaper (as open cast is a cheap type of mining compared to deep mining)
All irrelevant, as the mines were left to flood and water will have caused structural integrity issues & be phenomenally difficult and expensive to extract so not a chance economically of ever reviving the old pits so a new modern max automation approach would be the only deep mine approach possible.
.... not that we would want to encourage such non green activity though
I would think we would like to remove barriers to entry. I think it very hard to make the case that white people feel uncomfortable about entering the health care workplace due to ethnic imbalances (it's not that pronounced - you'll have to think of a better example!).
However, I could see (as with male nurses in (hopefully) times gone past) that women would feel uncomfortable to enter the tech sector. They would they become part of a tiny minority. Of course, they *could* enter it anyway but a good number would be put off.
Your claim that it's possible that women just don't like coding is possible, but I would think most people accept that existing extreme imbalances in gender are self-sustaining. As such, there would need to be strong evidence of the former to prevent dealing with the latter.
@Freddie
"However, I could see (as with male nurses in (hopefully) times gone past) that women would feel uncomfortable to enter the tech sector. They would they become part of a tiny minority. Of course, they *could* enter it anyway but a good number would be put off."
Except they wernt. Coding was womans work, it was predominantly women. Then it transitioned to being male dominated.
At the start it was regarded as drudge-work and was closely related to other jobs where women were strongly represented such as bookkeeping, accounting machine operator, data entry clerk. My mother had been an accounting machine operator and toyed with moving into computing before deciding to become an accountant in the '70s.
It was like in "Hidden Figures" - computing was regarded as an unimaginative clerical task until, all of a sudden, it became an exciting new area of research! But most of the new programming jobs went to men, leaving many women doing data entry punching cards or stacking cards and changing tapes as operators.
Sadly, seeing the posts and the relation of upvotes against downvotes, it looks like there are many in the industry who would rather it stay that way and not change.
It does seem like the majority of the downvotes have been added while the USA has been awake, so it may be possible to read that they are more conservative than Europe on this issue; something which, if true, would not surprise me.
A long way to go... but change is coming. Slowly.
@msknight
"Sadly, seeing the posts and the relation of upvotes against downvotes, it looks like there are many in the industry who would rather it stay that way and not change."
Possibly but could it not be that people dont want forced change? Its one thing for people to freely choose to do what they want to do and another to be manipulated, coerced, discriminated and otherwise demeaned into change?
Some people still believe in merit and getting the job because you are actually capable and qualified to do it. Possibly even resistance to terrible discriminatory practices... which is often the justification used for applying these discriminatory practices.
But the "forced change" required is to force women to enter engineering professions against their personal preference? Isn't that some sort of human rights offence? We call it conscription when it's the military. Historically, that sort of thing has also been called serfdom and slavery.
But the "forced change" required is to force women to enter engineering professions against their personal preference?
That is approaching the argument from the wrong side and placing the onus on the women's choices, rather than when it actually lies... the men's choice to keep them out. That's the change that's being forced.
I'm sorry but trying to deflect the argument to being the women's issue is a classic argument to deflect against the men's attitude, and that kind of argument fails at the first hurdle, every time.
I'm done with this subject, because the outcome is plain, as I've already detailed.
Having done technical recruitment on the employers side of the table, we had a couple of hundred people apply for an entry level position, out of which I think three were woman.
One of them was offered a position, which they accepted. It's not the case that there is an evil conspiracy to keep woman out of IT jobs; if there was then you'd expect more woman to be applying for IT jobs. There are simply a tiny minority of woman applying for whatever reason.
From where i'm sitting the first step of more woman getting into IT would appear to be more woman applying for IT jobs.
Or maybe ask women why they're not applying and listen to them instead of making assumptions and speaking for them. If I was starting over I wouldn't work in IT because of the now well-known problems of presenteeism, pressure, aggressive competitiveness and lack of job security. Easily enough solved, create an atmosphere that fosters collaboration, offers career progression and job security and a pleasant working environment. This isn't just "women's stuff", it'll benefit men too, it seems they're just more prepared to put up with poor working conditions. I dare say it'll also benefit the employers, though it'll be a battle to get them to perceive their IT staff as an asset rather than an undesirable expense.
Placing all the blame on women for not applying for jobs in what is perceived as being a toxic industry is really missing the point.
Edit: and there it is, a downvote before the 10 minute editing window is even over. That's your problem right there. Maybe I should've just let the men mansplain it for me.
And maybe we have one of the core issues here. The world of work is pretty dog eat dog and climbing the ladder can be done almost as well by hard work as by chucking others under the bus. One of the worst managers I've ever worked with was female and was all too happy to chuck people under the bus. She is now engineering manager and would be my manager if I hadn't got a much better job :) I once said no to her and that was me marked for life!
I recall a protest at a US college (university) where some protester was shouting about how college should be about creating a home and not education. We're now producing a generation of people who have been spoon fed and wrapped in cotton wool who have trouble operating in the big wide world.
There are few jobs with unlimited security, a career progression and no pressure. Maybe being part of the AWU in the US.
Don't put your political bias into it. Conservatives don't care about identity politics other than it causes a bunch of unnecessary trouble. I'm incredibly conservative and have never had an issue working with, or even for, women. Sex, race, religon, none of that matters. Ability to do the job, on the other hand... We Conservatives do take great issue with being saddled wiyh diversity hires who were hired soley for checking a box, and that box was not "being able to do the job." And before you say it, if they can be taught to do the job, there's no problem.
Diversity is good but its never good for box-ticking reasons. If a person is going to be shit in the job based on their race/colour/gender than picking them just based on that because you have to meet diversity targets is a bad reason to pick the person.
Well yeah, that's all very well, but...
In my office it's 100% men. Well it's just me. And I think I'm a man. Hard to tell these days.
But being serious for a minute, even when I used to go to an actual office it was 70% - 90%+ men
The gender divide is kind of pronounced, isn't it?
The question is, why?
It wasn't always this way. Women in IT were by no means a rarity 30+ years back and the first place I worked was close to parity; it wasn't until '90s management arrived with its obsession with hire-and-fire, artificial team-building exercises, presenteeism and workplace competitiveness all of which usurped the old order like job security, career progression, a friendly and collaborative atmosphere and so on. It was just unpleasant, all the back-biting, endless reorgs and continuous redundancy programmes and it was impossible to get anything done. And the last few places I worked were so stripped back that they didn't even have a cafeteria; an ante-room right outside the toilets where you could make coffee doesn't really count as well as having that that "ew" factor and it's a far cry from the professional catering, recreational areas, staff shop and so on when I started.
Shouldn't come as a surprise that a lot of women left and didn't come back; few want to replace them in that environment and jobs in IT aren't going to get many recommendations from women who endured the '90s and thereafter. Last time I wrote about the subject and described why women might not be keen on a career in IT because of this, a man replied "well my experience is that it's fine, there are women here and that proves it" and I was just left thinking "really?" Even if it is genuinely an okay place to work (and I'm far from convinced, all things considered) I'd guess that most still aren't otherwise we probably wouldn't have have this problem.
Though as far as the article goes, the suspicious part of me thinks it's just a ruse to justify hiring more people from abroad i.e. cheaper people who are less likely to kick up a fuss about poor employment practices.
Yes, I worked for them in the 1990s. They were letting us men in then. One of the best companies I worked for, used to treat staff well, male or female.
Founder had to call herself Steve to get interviews for IT jobs apparently. Not sure if that was 1970s or 80s.
Great company at first, with some great staff. Unfortunately took on a lot of Tupee deals with public sector contracts. Ended up with staff from the dreggs left at the bottom rather than their hand picked cream at the top.
"Though as far as the article goes, the suspicious part of me thinks it's just a ruse to justify hiring more people from abroad i.e. cheaper people who are less likely to kick up a fuss about poor employment practices."
Helps keep the wages down. In the last year I have seen some bonkers requests. An embedded programmer with 3 years of so-so experience wanting £75k outside of London.
I've worked in tech and engineering jobs for a couple of decades now, in many different fields, for companies large and small. Engineering is still 80% male, IT still more like 95% - or 100% in my current company. They're hardly imagining it. But nobody knows why. Self-perpetuating imbalance (women don't apply as they don't want a male-dominated environment) or some deeper reason?
I believe that part of the problem is the still appalling unbalance of interest in STEM subjects at school. I was a child of the sixties and I assumed my generation would be the last which knew serious gender discrimination as we were pretty much all committed to ending it.
But it seems to have got worse with some very old-fashioned groups gaining power in control of some schools, and all schools suffering from serious money shortages. In my view, we won't solve the problem until we can get schoolgirls interested in STEM careers in much larger numbers.
But how do you force children to take an interest in things they aren't interested in? I had zero interest in English literature, I was forced to take it, my grades were in the gutter. "What was Monroe talking about when he wrote this scene?" I. DONT. KNOW. It's just a nice story!
I don't want to force anyone. I want to excite. That means: investing in great teachers, interesting opportunities (we had a science club that went on trips to local technology sites), science labs, even just pointers to exciting Youtube videos (much better than the Shell, etc films we occasionally saw at school).
You can't look at this without looking at female dominated professions too.
Why are women choosing to be nurses, teachers, GP's etc.
The answer is that women have agency and choose these professions because that's what they prefer.
It's no more our fault that they aren't choosing IT than it's our fault that they are choosing to be primary school teachers.
Do women have agency? If you think no, this article highlights a big problem. If you think that women do have agency, you might find this article problematic.
It's no more our fault that they aren't choosing IT than it's our fault that they are choosing to be primary school teachers.
Do you have any evidence for that claim? I think there is a lot of blame to go round. And the lack of engagement of girls at school with STEM subjects, particularly at higher levels, is largely society's fault.
Go back 20 years and you'd be saying women don't want to be surgeons.
30 and women don't want to be doctors
40-50 and men don't want to type anything
60 years (I think) and men don't want to work in computer programming, only algorithms.
Given that all the above are long proven false, why are you so certain now?
Another victim of El Reg's bovine excrement new American house style.
That's a lot better. I for one regret how US-centric this site has become. It is almost as if the world outside the lower 48 does not exist. For most Americans, the world outside their state/city/town is a big bad place.
I work in a global company.
I don't care what race or religion my colleagues are - in fact I will never physically meet most of them, and some I don't even video call. However, I do need need to know enough about them to know what time zone they are in and what days of the week they work. All I care about is if they can do the job.
We are tech leaders, and "the best of the best".
Now our global boss is pushing that we should have equal numbers of genders and colours. Asked if he was trying to lose our "best of the best" status, he said that there were plenty of the diverse people about to accomplish this. Maybe that is true for us, where we can really pick and chose the cream, but what about others?
In the UK we have about 6.8% Black, nearly 20% Asian and most of the rest identify as white. If all the companies are looking for race equality then almost every white person going to an interview is going to get the job in some sectors, whether they can do it or not, or stand no chance in other sectors, and visa-versa. Is that really right?
Life should be a meritocracy, or how will our species improve?
AFAIK black population in UK is <10% black. England national team players varies but I would guess around 20-25% black. Black players in Premier league is almost certainly 25% or above. Managers.... they change rather quickly but I believe it's currently just the one. High-level club executives... are you kidding me?
Make of that what you will
We've advertised 8 different job positions in the last 6 months (all in IT, 2nd/3rd line and managerial positions etc.) and from memory we've had ~50 male candidates apply. We have 1 female in the whole of our support department of ~30 odd people. The company would literally do anything to employ more females, to the point where their skillset doesn't even matter (which is an awful thing to admit).
We just don't have enough interest in the industry.
The company my other half works for is hiring by tickbox rather than skillset. She is not happy as she got her job through merit and skills and now they are hiring people above her who do not have the experience or skills necessary but make the company look good on paper.
And currently it clearly isn't. The fact IT was full of women before men decided it was cool makes it pretty clear.
So what are you going to do to make it a meritocracy?
All I'm reading is people complaining about attempts to improve the meritocracy. We know that women are capable of coding so why don't they do it?
Everyone here is suggesting that we fix it by doing nothing.
I don't think that will work.
Go on, downvote away, I don't expect any sensible replies because none of you fuckers want to increase diversity as it's too lucrative for you the way things are.
Just stop pretending you're doing it for the greater good, you're arguing for the status quo.
"And currently it clearly isn't. The fact IT was full of women before men decided it was cool makes it pretty clear."
Being old enough to have parents who worked in IT in the 60's and 70's I think your take on this is not quite right. The men still predominantly did the thinking part and then the women did the data entry as this was a natural progression from the typing pool. All that has happened is the men learned how to type.
I do think that IT and engineering being a sausage fest is a bad thing but you need a certain mindset to spend all day at a computer in a windowless room slowly eroding your soul.
No, it isn't.
Fact - women are welcome to pursue an IT career.
Fact - people will hire qualified women, particularly today.
Fact - women do pursue IT careers and do well.
Fact - women become senior IT managers.
Fact - women IT managers reach the C suite.
Fact - for the most part, WOMEN DON'T WANT THE JOB!
If women in geberal were really interested in an IT job, they would be better represented. I'm working for one right this minute, who was a tech, is now a manager and will probably get the next senior management position that comes up.
AC, because I really mean "right this minute" as in I'm typing this in while on the job while a test runs.
"Now our global boss is pushing that we should have equal numbers of genders and colours."
While you may not have meant to write it that way, that is some of the moronic idiocy that's being pushed.
There's only 20% of black actors on the telly! We must have more!
Why? Only 5% of the population is black.
NO! We must have equal black, and equal indian, and equal chinese, and equal elbonian, and equal etc... And there are 66 difference genders, so the workforce must be equally 1/66th each gender.
after a bad experience I definitely do care what race my colleagues will be. Having to join a team where I was the odd one out and not understanding the langauge of the team as they went in and out of english certainly left a mark on my view of "get cheap desperate workers from overseas", sorry I mean "diversity"
I took on an apprentice software developer this year. The best training provider I found (one that gave a damn about training people, not filling seats - a rant for another day) was/still is pushing its diversity credentials above everything else.
After a painstakingly worded diverse, non discriminating, non micro aggression job advert, and a blind application process and cv review they sent me 4 white blokes for short listing. No one else applied.
I guess it must be me subliminally driving all those diverse candidates away.
Keeping to simple, non subjective opinions or language, the basic facts above are
1. All diversity requirements and best practices followed.
2. Outcome the same, no diversity in candidate pool.
But you say is my fault due to my attitude, and that needs correction.
What a time to be alive.
It's too late for me (I'm now fully retired) but age discrimination continues unchecked, despite being illegal. Anyone over 40 doesn't get a look-in, regardless of qualifications or expertise. Experience, beyond the Kindergarten stage, counts as a negative.
And then the managers squawk about skill shortages!
Disclaimer: I left the IT industry at the age of 51, having been told I was too old. Some years later, I was interviewed by the company which took over a previous employer. They seriously lowballed me on pay, and the interview finished abruptly.
Age discrimination is certainly not a given - I just got a new programming job at age 52 and the team is almost all middle-aged men, including two other new hires of a similar age to me. Anyone discriminating on age is going to miss out on a lot of experience, but I guess young people are cheaper...
If I read that some other developer earns 3 or 4 times my salary, I guess they must somehow be doing 3 or 4 times the value of my work. That makes me sad that despite my PhD and 20 years experience I'm still only about a quarter of a real developer.
Well I guess I also suck at negotiating. I'm a developer who cares highly about the quality of my work, so I don't rush it. And internally I don't understand why anybody pays me for it at all, as it's not what I would pay for, plus in my family background anything involving pressing buttons to make a computer do things is not "real" work because it doesn't involve breaking a sweat. So I see it as a win if I can negotiate the hours I want and still get paid (pro-rata); I wouldn't dare try negotiating an amount. I often get messages from recruiters trying to triple my salary, but they back off when I say I don't want to relocate or renegotiate my hours. So maybe the higher-salary jobs are for people who don't care about hours or location, and it's nothing to do with the actual quality of the code they write?
actually?
It sounds like the heated discussion between Equality of Opportunity and equality of outcome.
The first should be stimulated and encouraged.
The second leads to 'box ticking'.
All in my opinion of course, I may be wrong.
My perception is that a pay-gap definitely exists and that some professions and/or social cirkels are hard to enter. This is not the exclusive complaint for women, men struggle as well to attain certain heights.
Whether you believe the differences between the chromosome pairs are biological or social, I think trying to obtain the 'social-dilemma-resolution-of-the-day' by legislating the equality of outcome will not produce the best results.
It is probably best to accept that individuals are *different* in any which way you whish to look at it without inventing labels for every fad-of-the-day just to segregate groups.
A meritocracy is preferred in the workplace, but old and new social constructs put a stick in the spokes.
Personally I prefer a capable co-worker or manager and do not mind the chromosomes or preferred social adjective. Like religion: Keep it civil and polite and leave it at home.
Just some thoughts.
The pile of abuse above shows where part of the problem lies:
There's a lot of men in IT who think that any woman is not there on their own merit.
This (and outright misogyny) then leads to abuse, both direct and indirect - also proven repeatedly in multiple studies.
Which of course means women leave the profession, because WTF would you stay in a career where a significant number of your coworkers and managers continually undermine you?
There is also an important difference between equality and equity.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
