The 'white' part is pretty straightforward. THe 'male' part is trickier. If it's a simple matter of role-model discouragement, why has it been getting worse? Depending on which data set you look at, the percentage of CS graduates (bachelor's) who were female has been declining since the early to mid 80s. This matches my own experience, with a steady decline in the percentage of my developer colleagues who were female from 1989 until this year. It's not all about the so-called pipeline. There are many forms of discrimination and discouragement that apply even to women who are already in the field. That includes everything from differences in conversational style to pay disparities to actual assault.
To a large extent, most programmers are men because the people driving the culture - not just programmers themselves but execs, investors, etc. - have been men, and that culture has been more comfortable for other men than for women. (BTW I was going to use "male" and "female" but the objectifying way that "female" is used by the MRA/alt-right crowd made it sound creepy.) When those people stop injecting their old-boy-network ethos and habits into our workplaces, we might stand a chance of creating an ecosystem where someone who's not just like them can still feel like an equal.
> If it's a simple matter of role-model discouragement, why has it been getting worse? Depending on which data set you look at, the percentage of CS graduates (bachelor's) who were female has been declining since the early to mid 80s.
It depends on your perspective. You don't have to see the situation through percentage of total market share.
The absolute numbers for female CS graduates are increasing. It is just that more males are enrolling and becoming interested in CS than females.
When did this all start? when video games became mainstream
> The absolute numbers for female CS graduates are increasing. It is just that more males are enrolling and becoming interested in CS than females.
I'm honestly not sure how that changes anything. "Why isn't the growth the same for women" is practically the same question as "why aren't the absolute numbers the same for women". The same explanations and the same remedies are likely to apply either way, and over time lower growth rates will still leave us with lower absolute numbers. So no, I don't think it really depends on perspective.
According to National Science Foundation figures, the decline in female CS graduates stopped around 2008/2009. It bottomed out then and has been on the rise since.
There's no way this is positive or even neutral. Even the high of 35% was unimpressive. The long-term trend is still downwards, despite a mere couple of years at least 10% below that peak. Leveling off at 18-24% is still unacceptable, and we're still a few years short of being able to say even that is more than a statistical anomaly. When that number has reached its previous peak and is still trending upward, so that we're within a generation of full parity, then we might be able to say we're making sufficient progress.
Do you think there should be 50/50 parity in all professions from mining to nursing? I'm trying to understand why 35% would be impressive or not impressive. It's just a number and it's not clear that any profession or area of study has an established ratio that would be considered "natural" or unnatural.
Here are the NSF figures for total undergraduate degrees awarded by gender:
This is a highly reputable primary source data that contradicts your secondary source articles. Can you please point me at primary source statistics that support your claims.
Your highly reputable source (appeal to authority) doesn't show what you claim. For the last four years, the percentage of computer-science graduates who were female according to their numbers is:
18.2% 17.7% 18.2% 17.9%
That's pretty darn flat, and pretty darn low. You're the one claiming an uptick. Prove it.
> Do you think there should be 50/50 parity in all professions from mining to nursing?
Of course not (strawman). However, a male:female ratio of 7:2 is a huge disparity. Few fields are so skewed. It's also remarkably inconsistent with other data - e.g. gender ratios in other STEM fields, enrollment rates, quantitative measures of ability. It's too glaring an anomaly to be passed off with a shrug.
I said it bottomed out in 2008/09, which is why I included that table. It then stayed flat for a few years. The rise has been seen in the last 3 years, not the last 4 years on that table which ends in 2013. If you look at data since 2013, you'll see it is rising.
I'm looking around to see where I previously found figures for 2014-2016.
Don't bother. You already mentioned an statistic and he dismissed it on the exclusive basis of his arbitrary perspective and then provided less relevant alternatives as a show of his confirmation bias (not actual confirmation).
What this says is that this person is not interested in having a discussion, he just wants people to agree with him and will move the goalpost against any rebuttal of his view provided.
Thanks for the ad hominem. You might want to note that the person you're supporting just made a claim that is contrary to their own evidence. Next time, contribute.
Mentioning that you moved the goalpost is not an ad hominem; it's literally an evaluation of your argument, not of you. Specially given that I didn't address you at all.
Is it mentioning that someone used a fallacy itself a fallacy now? Of course not. Next time, provide actual arguments.
Are you seriously trying to claim that "What this says is that this person" is not an ad hominem? That's simply untrue, and obviously so to any reader. Also, I didn't move the goalposts. I asked for proof, and got back a non sequitur. The numbers didn't show what my interlocutor claimed they did, and I'm still waiting for piece #1 of the proof I originally asked for. You're awfully aggressive for someone who has engaged entirely in meta-argument without providing a single fact relevant to the topic at hand.
To a large extent, most programmers are men because the people driving the culture - not just programmers themselves but execs, investors, etc. - have been men, and that culture has been more comfortable for other men than for women. (BTW I was going to use "male" and "female" but the objectifying way that "female" is used by the MRA/alt-right crowd made it sound creepy.) When those people stop injecting their old-boy-network ethos and habits into our workplaces, we might stand a chance of creating an ecosystem where someone who's not just like them can still feel like an equal.