IT Industry Failing Women

Was there any point to the ridiculous article? Even women, even a SELFunEMPOWERED woman (pronounced woemen in Calif) knows about the origins of the word, hysterical. You either want to have children, or you don't. Who cares what you believe about it? Who cares that you would like someone else to pay for your children? Who cares that you think every male is responsible for your baby choice, and your career choice to boot? Who do these minority of women (pronounced wiman in Calif) think they are kidding with all this stuff about what they feel and what they BELIEVE? Some people believe that it is becoming awfully tiring listening to some people go on and on complaining and whining about what others of their ilk keep telling them they're supposed to be upset about. Talk about slavish mentality!

I'm glad to see that more and more men are getting fed up with the whining and carping of females who want to have their cake and eat it too, and who want to blame men for the impossibility of doing so.

The point of this article was the same as the point of all similar articles: to try to guilt-trip male readers while providing female readers with rhetorical ammunition to be used against males.

For example, we read that the proportion of females in IT is "16 per cent, down from 27 per cent in 1997." This may well indicate that the women have tried it and are finding it not to their taste. However, the article doesn't even admit this as a possibility, saying instead that the IT Job Board "undertook its research among IT professionals to better understand the issues behind this trend in order that employers know the steps that need to be taken to reverse it."

Wait a minute. Who says that such steps need to be taken? If women want to leave the industry, why should we try to prevent it? What possible good can come of trying to coax them or pressure them to stay where they don't want to stay? Who benefits by convincing women that their preference for being wives and mothers is somehow wrong?

We also read that "many women clearly feel it's a situation of 'either or' - choosing a career in the IT sector restricts their freedom to have a family." Well, perhaps the reason they feel this way is because it's true -- and not just in the IT sector, it's true in every sector. The reason is obvious: the differences between mothering and fathering are just such as to a create far more conflict between career and family for a woman than for a man. This is inherent in the definition of motherhood and fatherhood. But instead of accepting the inevitable, the article misdirects the reader's attention to the inflamatory claim that "in today's supposedly egalitarian society this is unacceptable," according to Ray Duggins, managing director of The IT Job Board.

If Mr. Duggins wishes to find the intrinsic differences between men and women unacceptable, I suppose that's his prerogative, but that doesn't make it any less neurotic. To make my meaning clear, let me paraphrase an old joke...

Q: What's the difference between a psychotic and a neurotic?

A: The psychotic thinks that men and women are the same; the neurotic knows they are different, be she just can't accept it!

I was going to reply to this article as well, but I find it unnecessary, as Guest #2 seemed to be reading my mind. All I want to add is a comment related to the following quote:

"28 per cent of women believed that being female resulted in lack of recognition by male bosses compared to 13.5 per cent of men; 27 per cent of women felt they had fewer career prospects than male counterparts, 10 per cent of men recognised this as a problem; and 21 per cent of women said they earned less, 8.5 per cent of men believed this to be the case."

These numbers don't mean anything, since they are not based on any actual data, just feelings and beliefs. Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true! How does one measure "lack of recognition"? Maybe more women felt that they have fewer career prospects because there are no advanced positions that interest them. Is this the fault of the men or the industry? As for the salary issue - show me a salary survey indicating women with exactly the same experience doing the exact same job as men but getting a lower salary. What people think and believe is irrelevant - changes should be based on facts. This article seems to imply that the numbers for the men are wrong because they just don't know what's going on. Maybe it's the men's numbers that are closer to the truth.

"These numbers don't mean anything, since they are not based on any actual data, just feelings and beliefs."

Um, are you saying that feelings and beliefs are not real things that the workplace (and society in general) should be worried about?

"show me a salary survey indicating women with exactly the same experience doing the exact same job as men but getting a lower salary"

You really are in denial then. If this were a different topic, one that didn't start long ago (in my country, anyway), with women having to fight for the right not to be the property of their husbands, or having to fight for the right to be counted as real citizens (so they could vote), or having to put up with more crap on the job than you could probably dream of, then yes, I might say that an assertion that women's salaries are lower than mens should be backed up by data. But this is not a new topic, and you may have to move out of your comfort zone to acknowledge it, but it is real.

Consider this: let's assume that women are being paid exactly the fair amount, and when their "job experience", etc matches a man's, then their salaries are the same. What a fine world this is! Ok, in this world, is there still discrimination by age? by race? by religion? by sexual orientation?

• If no, then it seems highly improbable to me that the world/country completely addressed one form of discrimination (gender), but wasn't able to deal with these other forms.
• If yes, then why can you acknowledge the existence of these others forms of discrimination, but not the one against women?

We have laws to address things like discrimination against gender, race, religion, etc because we need them. And we need them because people have blind spots that prevent them from seeing some kinds of injustice; we can even be blind to injustice to ourselves or to our loved ones. This form of blindness is not due to callousness or hate or laziness, but it does require work on each individual's part to open their eyes and minds a little, change their perspective a bit, and acknowledge that things are not perfect, and that implies that there exists things that are happening that are wrong.

"Um, are you saying that feelings and beliefs are not real things that the workplace (and society in general) should be worried about?"

This is true when the feelings and beliefs are formed based on what the person thinks is happening, without checking what is actually happening. For example, one could easily express that they believe that they are making less than another person, when they are actually making more. If we were to take action based on the belief alone, without gathering the data to back it up, then the action would be incorrect (unless, of course, that action was to inform the person of the facts).

I still stick to my assertion that we should react to facts rather than to feelings and beliefs. Obviously I acknowledge that there used to be signficant issues with all of the discrimination categories that you mention, but it is specifically the fact that the issues have been around for a long time that leads me to feel that we should be tracking progress and seeing if they have been improved, rather than continuing to base arguments on old data. Just because it used to be a problem doesn't mean that we don't have to get new data to back up a continued fight. Sometimes it seems to me that some people don't want to look for new data, because then they might find that they have nothing left to fight about.

I think "lack of recognition", especially the casual, normal kind that someone could expect in a work-place setting, will defy most means of objective measurement (other than direct monitoring). The small indignities hurt too, and they lead to "feelings" that may be exactly what was measured in the article.

I suppose you could ask what the value of a political poll was, especially given how poorly (it seems to me) they are worded... and yet they do represent (and therefore mean) something. They need to be interpreted, not ignored.

Being a women, with children and running a company is not easy it is a challenge.

I would not change a thing. I am very fortunate to be able to have a family and take care of them emotionally and financially. And sure it's alot of pressure, but I signed up for this. I don't expect special deals because I am a women, and I only play the scarlet O'hara card at home jokingly with my family. If you want everything there is a price to pay but you can have it all. I am tired of listen to the poor me card, life is hard it became harder for women after women's lib. I you want to be treated fairly it should be based on capability, and nothing else. Man, Women, black or white,gay,non gay. Who cares as long as the job gets done right. North America has gone mad trying to accodomate everyone.....And what we have to show for all this compassion, is we are being outsourced.....

I find the three previous responses to be totally out of whack with the whole culture of engineering.

As an engineer, I am able to provide a service or solve a problem because of the efforts of those who came before me and because of the efforts of others I currently work with. In addition, I can provide that service without significant fears of reprisals in the form such as lawsuits, lack of payment, etc. because others in my company who are non-engineers are integrated into my company. In other words, to be a successful engineer I must be inclusive across gender, across generations, across belief systems, across politics, etc.

To claim otherwise is outright arrogance.

The reason I am in such an enviable position is that others have/had feelings about what is right and what is wrong. Others cared about my work place comfort. Others cared about safety on the job site. And so forth. I work as an engineer to the public safer, better, healthier, etc. and to support my family, which happens to include two daughters. Daughters I might add who have great minds, but also will one day likely also be raising families.

To downplay polls that tell of dissatisfaction on the job or means and methods to improve the work place is to not only arrogance, but in the end, shows the lack of foresight those individuals possess.

I understood most of your argument until the last paragragh when you seemed to go of on one,reread it again. I think it shows a degree of arrogance on your part,it seems to me no one was trying to say surveys were of no use but the one we are discussing seems not to be logical but a load of % this % that with no real conclusion

I respectfully disagree with you. I was responding to the first two entrys by "Guest's". If you don' have a problem with what they are saying, then I see no need in further interaction with you, because we will not see eye to eye. I can assure you that I will never hire you or someone like you that mirros that attitude.

I also disagree that percentages are meaningless. Are they specifically accurate? Probably not. But peoples feelings and thoughts do definitely convey meaning. If you think not, then, again, we are at an impass.

I think that you have misunderstood our comments. I won't speak for the others, but I have no disagreement with anything that you have said. Absolutely, the engineering profession must be inclusive to ensure that all of the great minds out there have opportunity to contribute. All I am saying is that I don't think this means that the ratios of various types of members of society (gender, ethnic origin, generations, etc.) represented in the engineering profession has to mirror that in the general population. All that is required is that there be no artificial barriers to prevent anyone from entering the profession, and I think that this is the case (at least here in Canada). After that, normal desires and inclinations come into play as people make their career decisions. I don't think that the profession should make special accommodations just to attract a certain segment of the population. If we do this, we run the risk of reducing the effectiveness of the profession in its attempt to make the public safer, better, healthier, etc.

I appreciate your response. I have reread the article several times. Unless I am missing something, the article never states that the percentage of women in the IT industry doesn't mirror society. What is does state is that a percentage of women in the Industry do find "artificial barriers" in the form of lack of recognition, choosing between having a family or advancing their career, etc. I agree that specific percentages are not an accurate depiction, but taking into account the proper use of margin of error they do indicate trends. I still claim that ignoring indications of a problem is definitely wrong. Every office has a whiner or two. After awhile we become callous to their complaints. But I feel we must make the effort to at least understand their concerns, or in the end we may fail not only them, but a signifcant amount of others who may feel similar.

To be extremely fair, I should not have included your response as one I reacted against. After I re-read your response, it did appear to deal more with the statistical meaning of the poll rather than the condemnation of providing benefits for all sectors of our work force.

Again, I appreciate your response.

I do not believe these "artificial barriers" that women perceived adversely effect them in the work place are only effecting women, I believe most men would have similar barriers if they didn't believe their work took a precedent to outside activities. This is the perception of women not actual conditions they encounter, with regards to them be segregated out unfairly in this manner. If you read the artical and could see these barriers effecting any man attempting to run his life in a manner similar to these women, then the same perception may prevail, think stay home dad. Would you even consider any of these concerns if the gender was reversed. Additionally, consider there are differences in genders inherent to the work place. How many times have you taskednon professional female ofice staff to perform some role in the office and they go find a man to help them move the heavier items, there is no consideration given for the fact that some tasks are not suited for every gender. Equality must go both ways.