[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 110 KB, 600x762, dd9e_ada_lovelace.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1748362 No.1748362 [Reply] [Original]

Listen up, assholes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women,_girls_and_information_technology

So stop being dickweeds, do something about it and maybe the nerd generation after ours will not be shunned by females. A noble cause.

>> No.1748380

Man invented everything. Cars, the microwave, the internet, porn, everything.

>> No.1748383

>>1748380
>Men
You don't get a shared credit.

>> No.1748384

my EE graduating class (120 people) was 80% male, 20% female. of those 20% there were 2 that were worth their salt, rest were tryhards with daddy issues.

this is at a university with a well-known engineering prrogram in a tech-savvy region and a student body of 40,000 fucking people.

just keep the women out of computers and engineering, i'd much prefer dating liberal arts majors than dumb down the tech fields to where women can handle it.

>> No.1748503

>>1748380
Let's say you're not a troll - first of all: This isn't my fucking point! I could go into the details of how the statement is also false, especially when it comes to IT, but that's not even necessary because even when we assume your statement to be true, it doesn't have any relevance to what this thread is about.

>>1748384
> i'd much prefer dating liberal arts majors
Well but I wouldn't.

>> No.1748513

Women and girls are bad at computers because computers involve logical thinking. This will always be the case. Get over it.

>> No.1748522

>>1748513
You'll always be bad at debate because it involves logical thinking (or you're a troll). If you look at a country other than MURRIKA, you'll notice that in some of them, 50% of the IT jobs are done by women - and most certainly they don't suck at it, if you don't believe me, have a look for yourself.

>> No.1748535

>>1748522

why is it so hard for people to believe that men could be better at logical thinking and computers? men have historically dominated all logic-related fields including landslide disproportionate representation in inventions and scientific discovery.

source: humanity from conception to present

>> No.1748543

>>1748535
Politically correct indoctrination. People are afraid to believe the obvious when it goes against the socially acceptable.

>> No.1748557

>>1748522
How about India? As someone in the software development business for many years, I've worked with a number of programmers from India. Most of them have been men. Those that have been women, as with American women programmers, have had a poor grasp of many fundamental concepts central to the job.

>> No.1748576

>>1748535
That's not how it works at all dumbass. If you gave women equal footing, measure, merit, pay, treatment, and just treated them as equals, you will find just as many brilliant women as men rising to the occasion.
In a society where women are generally oppressed (you're not helping), would you really expect them to be trying their hardest to solve the trickiest problems in the universe when all people like you is discourage them with "durr hurr women can't do math, or logic, or drive, etc". Fuck yourself.

>> No.1748587

I really don't give a shit OP
If some woman wants to major in engineering or computer science its not a big deal.
But frankly I rather them not do it if they're going to act like feminists cunts.

>> No.1748593

>>1748576
>you will find just as many brilliant women as men rising to the occasion.
No you wouldn't. No more than if you gave little boys dolls would they rise to the occasion of birthing babies.

>> No.1748594

ITT: feminazis

>> No.1748596

>>1748535
More like GAY men with self-esteem issues have.

Because engineering is gay. :D

Besides, everyone knows girls are better at maths. They just get stuck with the kids and math goes out the window then.

>> No.1748597

>>1748593
Mind providing empirically-verifiable peer-reviewed evidence for that?

>> No.1748626

>>1748596

honestly, from what i have seen, the true response is:


some women CAN be just as good at math


on average, however, I have seen more men understand more advanced mathematics with less trouble.


this is "per capita."


an engineering course with 50 men, 10 females...

30 men will understand sufficiently. 4 females will understand sufficiently.

>> No.1748627

>>1748593
Girls only rise to the occasion of having kids because they play with dolls as children? What the fuck?

>> No.1748645

>>1748535
"men have historically dominated all logic-related fields including landslide disproportionate representation in inventions and scientific discovery."
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: Only men can do this -> let only men do this -> women can never get good at it because they never do it
And you can't defeat this by saying "hurr but all the women I've seen working with computers sucked", that's exactly my point, because they were raised to think it's not for them, thus sucked at it.
Where they were raised to find it frigging awesome - as was the case with, for example, Ada Lovelace - they were usually frigging good at it. And how unworldly would one actually have to be to suggest that they fail at logical thinking _in general_? I mean, seriously, look around you ("hurr all I see is women who don't know shit" - but all the men you know know shit?).
Also, you have an astoundingly narrow definition of "humanity", given that before the agricultural revolution, most things were frigging egalitarian when it came to men and women.

>>1748543
You see, the cases in which the "obvious" truth is, in fact, the right one are extremely rare in this world. For reference, take as one isolated example the whole "the sun moves, not the earth"-idea. You get my point.

>>1748557
Let's suppose you tell the truth; there could be numerous reasons for this: first of all, maybe women were discouraged from doing IT jobs (as you said, most were men), thus lacked proper motivation. Secondly, maybe your sample was too small. Thirdly, maybe your existing preconception (if you had one, even if it was subconscious) lead to you looking at the women's understanding of things more critically. And so forth.

>> No.1748652

( cont. of >>1748645 )


But let's suppose that there is a genetic factor involved, that women generally suck at everything_IT. Then, most obviously, there would still be exceptions (and you definitely can't disprove that, a simple look at history will reveal those exceptions to you) - and those exceptions are discouraged from doing IT work by your bullshit.
Which goes against my interest, as I would very much like to talk to women, which I can't at the moment because the intersection of our interests usually contains exactly zero elements.

>> No.1748679

the y chromosome makes men bigger, stronger, faster and generally more physically able than women.

but of course it does absolutely nothing to the brain because that would be sexist so it can't be true.

makes perfect sense.

>> No.1748684

I don't know whether there are good reasons or not for men to dominate a particular field. It would surprise me greatly if the only difference between men and women were whether their genitals were on the inside or outside. Innate differences could dominate in ways that we don't appreciate from a narrow view of the trees.

After all, it may be that women *could* be equally good at some field traditionally dominated by men, but *other* intrinsic differences tend to pattern their social upbringing in such a way that these fields have little to offer them.

Frankly I think the question is much larger than most people care to admit.

>> No.1748685

>>1748576
>If you gave women equal footing, measure, merit, pay, treatment, and just treated them as equals

why should we do this though? even among men, things like height and strength have a strong correlation with pay, employment advancement, respect and all kinds of things. should women be made immune to this?

>> No.1748688

>>1748576

This is bullshit.

Women have more than equal access in all of the STEM fields. There are many incentives and special programs designed to encourage women to work in these fields and women get treated BETTER than men of equal qualifications in computer industry.

The fact of the matter is though that women are not as good at computer science and maths as men.

This is because women tend not to be logical thinkers. I've worked with female coders and all but one were weak links who were carried by the rest of the team.

Oh and Ada Lovelace was a manic depressive who commited suicide.... just saying.

>> No.1748694

>>1748679
Nobody (except for morons and the strawmen you seem to see eeeeverywhere) said anything about the brain of men and women being exactly the same. The question is how big the difference is, whether it is bigger than the avg. difference between, say, two individual men chosen at random. And this is what we're debating now, if you can call that debating and if anything like a debate is actually remotely possible on 4chan.
Also, as I said, let's suppose that women are, after all, "dumber" on the whole; the question remains whether they are _so_ dumb that there will never be a significant amount of them who at least have "respectable" skills in computer science.

>> No.1748697

>>1748684
"Frankly I think the question is much larger than most people care to admit."

Yes, because people are frigging stupid and never think thrice.

>> No.1748703

Why do people think that women are shunned from science.

Here are a few observations I've made in my 4+2 year stint at university doing a bachelors and masters.

Women are always top of class for the biology fields at my school. Also women equal or outnumber multiple biology classes. If we get down to brass tacks, there should be a drive to get men into the biology field at my school.

In a more general sense with women and science. Women have no self confidence. Science is a cut-throat field where your credibility is questioned constantly by people much smarter than you. Rightfully so, we don't want crackpots. Women take it WAY too personally when their work gets criticized. I've seen it constantly with lab mates where they shut down with stress, sometimes cry, when the professor simply questions their work. With the guys, they just power through even harder while grumbling about it but not taking it SO personally.

I got tired of all this "not enough women in science and engineering" bullshit that's nothing more than political correctness. As people have said before in this thread, men are better at these logic problems.

>> No.1748704

>>1748652

The exceptional women who want to work in IT do work in IT. And women who work in tech get more support and encouragement than the men do. So you have no argument really.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/28/women-in-tech-stop-blaming-me/

Also any guy can meet women and talk to them. If you cannot find common interests outside of IT with another person you are seriously fucked up and need to spend more time getting a life and less on white knighting.

>> No.1748706

>>1748688
> This is because women tend not to be logical thinkers. I've worked with female coders and all but one were weak links who were carried by the rest of the team.

But how do you know this can be attributed almost exclusively to genetic differences and not the ones in early childhood education etc.?

>> No.1748712

>>1748704
> Also any guy can meet women and talk to them. If you cannot find common interests outside of IT with another person you are seriously fucked up and need to spend more time getting a life and less on white knighting.

Well I _am_ seriously fucked-up, that's kind of my point (that I would need more women who are also seriously fucked-up).
Also, it's not white-knighting, I've seen it, women usually don't like it when you defend them _like that_.

>> No.1748725

>>1748697
I didn't fucking say that.

>> No.1748728

>>1748725
But I did.

>> No.1748739
File: 90 KB, 504x1005, smbc1883.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1748739

>> No.1748744

>>1748739
Thumbs up for SMBC, exactly my point.

>> No.1748747
File: 13 KB, 410x211, how_it_works.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1748747

>> No.1748754

>>1748688
You guys realize that more women will be doctors then men? They had to do Calculus, and be >90% if not higher. And, no, they won't all be in obgyn or pediatrics. Have men gotten stupider? Or have different points of view started to allow better access?

Most advanced math books are black and white, and guys won't mind that. But girls will, they're more color sensitive. Lower level Calculus books are all shifting to answer the new clients: more color, softer lettering, lighter weight. But the content is the same!

And most math departments have more and more girls students. I've seen some with 40-60.

Math is an aesthetic thing first, applied 2nd. And do girls and guys like the same art? When it's a high enough level... they both love it equally. It's getting to the higher levels that's trouble. But more women are reaching that level, and the textbooks will start reflecting that.

Are the real number line and clothing stitches not the same thing? It's all in the POV... but the object is the same.

>> No.1748756

>>1748706

I don't care if it's genetic or social! The fact is that it's there.

The whole idea that women get paid less than men for doing the same work when they are just as capable is bullshit anyway.

If it was true I would start a company hire only women coders and then make a fortune because I was paying them less than other companies while outperforming them.

Why doesn't anyone do that? because it doesn't work... companies that try fail. Hard.

White Knighting isn't going to get you laid anyway just accept jobs that require critical thinking and accepting reponcibility are never going to attract lot's of women.

>> No.1748764

>>1748728
Oh I thought you were being sarcastic and attacking my position with your wormwood tongue. Friends forever?

>> No.1748766

Hey OP, read this article then try to debate with us about this.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/28/women-in-tech-stop-blaming-me/

>> No.1748778

>>1748754

That's because modern education is a hostile environment to men. Higher education for men is dropping across the board in all subjects.

It has nothing to do with women's innate skills in maths, science or the arts.

>> No.1748809

ITT sexy beautiful lesbians

>> No.1748814

>>1748754 >continued
Boys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawtooth_wave
Girls:
http://scrubberbum.typepad.com/patterns/2009/01/dinosaur-hat.html
And finally:
http://www.temarimath.info/investigations/thimblering/thimblering.html

Y'all be clueless bout the world and the people in it.

>> No.1748817

>>1748766
But this is only remotely relevant to what we are debating here; I think we have already cleared up that women, generally speaking, don't want to become computer scientists/coders or, as for the article, "entrepreneurs" or that they're "not good at it".
The question is whether this is an innate, genetic phenomenon or merely a consequence of upbringing, education etc. (refer to the SMBC comic some other guy posted).
Nature vs Nurture, as always.

>> No.1748822

>>1748778
Well, I say it's because they're getting stupider. ;p

>> No.1748830

Men succeed better in science

Women have an almost 100% chance they can get laid if they go to a nightclub.

Seems like a decent trade off to me.

>> No.1748841
File: 149 KB, 500x375, 1284158823779.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1748841

>>1748830
No.

>> No.1748850

>>1748766
>>1748704
That article doesn't say shit. Some people put the rare female techie on a pedestal? NAWWWW I HAD NO IDEA

>> No.1748859

There is no doubt whatsoever that there exists quite a sizeable grouping of females who can, will. and absolutely should be allowed and encouraged to the sciences and society at large.

However, it is an outright fact that the male gender carries a more intrinsic "urge to ability/power/skill" than what can be found within the average member of the female gender, and that the current social drive (in certain areas) for every last women and girl to go out into the world and "make something out of herself", creates far too many unhappy and broken people who would much rather settle down early on and start a family.

>> No.1748871

>>1748817

Neither you or I are able to answer the question of nature vs nuture.

However there are already many pro female programs to encourage women to enter technology fields. And more women then men are currently getting advanced degrees.

What more do you want?

>> No.1748875

>>1748859
>encouraged to contribute to the sciences and society at large*

>> No.1748876

>>1748871
Less biologists, less "I do it for the money"-people, more TRVE NERDS.

>> No.1748898

>>1748876
"less" - Hm. My English sucks, I know it does, I've seen it - that's why the rest of me is just going to enjoy the show...

>> No.1748903

>>1748712

>Well I _am_ seriously fucked-up, that's kind of my point (that I would need more women who are also seriously fucked-up).

On a side note you have the wrong attitude here. Women don't want a guy who knows he's a fuck up and is willing to settle for them because they are the best he can get. They want a guy who 'can get any girl he wants but chose them because they are soooo special!'.

You really want to meet women and get laid? start taking dancing lessons. There are far more women than men there and you have at least one thing in common with every single one of them.

>> No.1748922

>>1748778
Not to mention the myriad of programs and groups that exist to give young women a "chance" for the future, and the considerably higher attention, effort, and care placed on female-centric issues, whereas similar or the very same problems affecting males are largely ignored.

>> No.1748958

>>1748903
Bitter much? Liking a girl makes her special, and but she was special before you liked her.

Not liking her also makes her special... in the sense that you don't like her.

Getting "any girl he/she wants... but he/I choose me/her" is a teenage fantasy for both parties. In truth, any number of people could do, but the "specialness" must be a maxed, so people create an elaborate fantasy.

Anyway, it's about solving problems. And men and women both do that all day, they just have different focii.

But my problems are a special case. ;p

>> No.1748989

For the people interested in the nature and nurture debate over sex differences, especially pertaining to the reason more men are in engineering/physical science/etc., this debate should interest you.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html

>> No.1749029

>>1748688
Ada Lovelace died of cancer btw. Wrong twice in a row. ;p

>> No.1749032

Men have over 6 times the grey matter related to cognition. That might be one reason.

>> No.1749051

>>1749032
Doctors spent years poking at Albert Einstein's brain... without finding much specialness.

In an ironic twist, Einstein had been tutored in science by a doctor as a teen. So his magic brain... was made magic by a doctor being human and decent and teaching him as best he could.

:d your angry tears are delicioussss

>> No.1749078

>>1749051
>albert einstein

yeah lets all create arguments based on single data points and just for kicks lets pick those points from the greatest data outliers of all time. all conclusions drawn from this must be perfectly legit, i mean how could they not be? right?

>> No.1749085

>>1749051
Huh?

There were several parts of that man's brain that were larger, smaller, thinner, and thicker than the average fucknut's brain.

And even if these "anomalies" didn't exist, the man in no way, shape, or form thought like most people do, and most assuredly had his own way of percieving and mentally dealing with reality. He sure as hell wasn't just someone "further ahead" in terms of education or somesuch nonsense.

>> No.1749102

>>1749085
>>1749078
:D
Now's the part where I call everyone a eugenics loving Nazi! Checkmate!

But seriously, men and women (heck, animals too) both spend all day solving problems. What those problems are, and the tools they use, might be different. Now a tool created by "the mind of Man" might not be the same as one made by women. Does a particular solution exist? Sure! Can an infinity of solutions exist? Heck yeah!

But preference does exist, and the debate is about "the best possible solution" which, to me, doesn't exist between men or women.

It's an individual, microscopic choice.

>> No.1749109

>>1749085
My head is extra big, and I even have trouble finding hats! Sooo... bow before me?

>> No.1749260

>>1749102
- Did I win? Yay!
- Not quite, me! It that's true, why do women get special treatment in grants for STEM, huh?
- Well sure me, I'd like it too if grants were equal, but open up a math textbook, and you've got Cauchy starring up at you. Now, say you're an 18 year old college lady, what'd you do?
- Cauchy? Yuck! No wai! I'm looking at Euler!
- Heh, yeah me too. Gauss is best tho.
- Haha!
- Anyway, now we got miss bubblegum looking at Cauchy. Is she going to want some of that?
- No!
- Right! So we got a 1/3 chance that miss bubblegum barfs. That's why special attention is needed.
*me nods head*
- Yeah. Maybe one day, we'll give credit to Gauss for Cauchy's ideas.
- We can only hope.
- Say, where you there when someone won a debate by calling people who liked Albert Einstein nazis?
- I was! That was hilarious!
- I kno!
- Okay me, I gotta drink coffee and go berserk on a problem set now.
- Don't drink too much! You start talking way too fast if you have a lot!
- Okay me. Take care!
- Bye!

>> No.1749400

OP you say this like women were only bad at science and engineer
Frankly they suck at everything