I think you're trying to find a conspiracy where there is none.
The lack of women in tech (and lack of women in science and math in general) starts at a very young age - while boys are immersed in video games and girls are having afternoon tea with their dolls. I doubt those 5-year-olds are influenced by the way women in tech are reported.
Maybe society in general assigns gender roles that we all feel forced to comply with. Or maybe we're just different. Can't men and women just be a bit different?
Although boys have outperformed girls in exams in maths at 16 here in the UK for the last three years, girls had outperformed boys at maths for the decade before that.
You're not arguing that men and women are "just a bit different" so much as you're arguing that people should conform to gender roles which don't necessarily apply.
What about gay people in tech - Peter Thiel, Tim Cook, Ben Ling? Shouldn't they have been playing with Barbie dolls, or My Little Pony or whatever at a young age too?
The point they're trying to make is that you have very little evidence of that. Specially since girls of under 1 year old are already being surrounded with girly themes from their parents. They grow up being fed girly toys and mentality. Before a girl can even understand what a "toy" is, she is already surrounded by dolls in pink dresses.
So it is really the girl's interests that differ from the boy's interests? Or is it their parent's interests being pushed to them? You don't know this, and you have absolutely no evidence to indicate that it's their born interest to like one thing over the other.
I think the takeaway here is that: yes, there is quite likely a societally-imposed suggestion that men should go into software and women should not; however, that it's not just Silicon Valley's fault, and that the genders are really groomed essentially from birth for what they're "supposed to" do.
"The lack of women in tech (and lack of women in science and math in general) starts at a very young age - while boys are immersed in video games and girls are having afternoon tea with their dolls. I doubt those 5-year-olds are influenced by the way women in tech are reported."
I don't quite understand this. First, girls play video games. Everyone plays video games. Second, are you saying that portraying female founders in sexist terms is immaterial because whatever explains women being rare in tech has already taken effect after the age of 5?
That would imply that sexism in media only merits attention at all if children 5 or under can see that media. I think that's pretty unlikely.
And what about being a decent human being to the women who are already here? I mean say for the sake of argument that we go along with this theory that something utterly irrevocable happens at the magical age of 5. Doesn't a perfunctory nod to public decency still require that, if a woman in technology says "this article about women in technology does not portray people like me in the way I would prefer," anyone who is not in that category should acquiesce, or at least show a baseline level of respect for the request?
When I was a raver, and I saw stories in the media about ravers, and I told my non-raver friends "yeah that doesn't quite correspond to reality," they were curious to hear what the reality was. When, as a first-generation American with British parents, I spot some unrealistic British character on an American TV show doing something no British person would ever do, if I point this out to Americans, they tend to listen.
I think you have to just show respect for the fact that somebody in the category that the article was about disagrees with the depiction of the category. I think that's (no pun intended) categorical, and the larger issues of sexism are irrelevant here. I think that's just common courtesy, even leaving aside your argument that media only has an effect on the mental attitudes of children, and/or that the whole thing is a done deal by age 5 anyway so why bother -- OK honestly I have no idea what your argument was there. But I made a good-faith effort to tackle it and I think any discussion of women in tech should show a token level of courtesy, just on the offchance that they turn out to be human beings after all.
In 2001, only 12% of video gamers were girls. Now in 2011, that number is 40%.[1] But the fact is, more boys play video games than girls, and 10 years ago when today's tech founders were growing up the ratio was 8:1.
I do not support sexist language or sexism in general, and was not making a comment on whether this article was offensive. Merely stating that the 5-year-old girls who are not as interested in tech as their brothers are not being influenced by online blogs.
No, they're not influenced by blogs, but they are influenced by family members/other adults telling them, "Oh no, you don't want to play with that, that's for boys." Some of us were lucky to have had parents that had no problem with us having fun with computers and video games (partially because my mom loved playing with our Intellivision :).
But there's still pressure and expectations on what kids play with. Girls get dolls - they've not been expected to play with video games and the like.
However (as the demographics are showing) - that is changing. Parents weren't into games, it was just a toy that happened to be part of the "boy" group. But they've grown up, and still play them. I was rare in that my Mom and Dad introduced me into video games and that helped spark my interest in computers. I have friends who are parents who ask their daughters if they want to try this game or that game. I can't imagine most of my friends' parents growing up doing that.
Will that shift us closer to a more balanced demographic in tech? I don't know, I'd like to hope that coming generations of women don't feel pushed away from the field due to really artificial or societal reasons.
no, i had no idea the original commenter was a woman. she didn't say "i am a woman and i was offended" either, so you're putting words into her mouth.
the author of the original post Kelly Faircloth is a woman too. that also deflates the notion that the headline, picture, and phrasing in the text was sexist.
> the author of the original post Kelly Faircloth is a woman too. that also deflates the notion that the headline, picture, and phrasing in the text was sexist.
Women can be sexist against women. In fact, any member of a group may hold prejudices against that same group, even without realizing it or believing that they are engaging in that kind of behavior or attitude, so the gender of the article's author isn't really relevant as to whether or not this piece is sexist in this instance.
I normally wouldn't write a comment echoing something that's already been said, but I wanted to say thanks for writing this, and stress again to whoever else is reading this thread that this is a hugely important point that I think a lot of people miss. And as you pointed out, it can apply to any group prejudice, including gender, race, etc.
The lack of women in tech (and lack of women in science and math in general) starts at a very young age - while boys are immersed in video games and girls are having afternoon tea with their dolls. I doubt those 5-year-olds are influenced by the way women in tech are reported.
Maybe society in general assigns gender roles that we all feel forced to comply with. Or maybe we're just different. Can't men and women just be a bit different?