Re: Re: Omigawd! Surprised by Reality!

[footpad]

I did vote you down. In part because this has come up before and I frankly don't give a floating point about Abigail's (or anyone else's) gender. Ab's tone may be harsh, in a merlynesque sort of way, but the info is usually soundly based. Indeed, as a programmer, Abigail is worth listening to. (Granted, I don't always agree; but I do listen. To me, that is valuable, too.)

I will grant you that programming and geekdom have each been traditionally considered male sports, however, I have met a number of smart people in the business over the past fifteen years. Many men and many women. What's impressed me the most was not their gender, but what they'd been able to create using the same tools available to me. The way they've solved problems. And so on.

Yes, it's good to be inspired by people's achievements; however, it's very rare that a person's physical attributes are more commendable than their accomplishments. I believe it's dangerous to base inspiration on physical attributes. Certainly, appreciate their achievements...however, use care when basing that hope on anything else. Discrimination comes in many forms and not all of them are obvious.

I am not saying you were or are. I'm identifying, like a good programmer, a risk.

Let me put it this way. There are several monks that I have mental images of, ideas about what they look like, what they think, what they know, and (to some degree) who they are. It's common to wonder about the people behind the phosphors. It's also common, in my experience, to find that reality is far different than our idealism. To finish the point, I may have theories about the people behind the handles, but I am more than happy to be able to fit truthful images to my ideas, instead of fantastic ones.

One should certainly be idealistic and hopeful. However, you must temper that with a recognition and understanding that things may be very different than you hope. Expect that and you should be fine. However, please do not base your hope on any specific, physical, or tangible attribute--especially when dealing with something as difficult to interprete as online messages. Focus on the achievements and you'll be fine.

In other words, I believe your underlying idea is correct...if others can do it, then you can, too. I believe that very strenuously. However, I would rather you focused on actions, and not attributes. Learn the methods and live with the properties, if you will.

And the main reason your puppies aren't able to program is very simple: the Master Feline Domination Plan is working. ;-)

--f

P.S. FTR: Update (a year later): we I have two a cats and one dog.

[sierrathedog04]

Well, I would say that something not very good for women is going on. The hi-tech field is the highest paid one. Not that many American-born women are becoming programmers. Whatever it is they do instead, I think they often earn less than they would doing programming. Probably they would like programming, but for some reason they do not do it.

Feminist groups often approve of female role models for female programmers. Perhaps it works. I don't know. I have heard it said that Lady Ada Lovelace is NOT a good role model for female programmers. Yes, she worked on 19th century prototypes of computers, but she was literally insane.

I don't care whether Abigail is a man or a woman. I assumed he was a woman and that he was an example of a woman succeeding in spite of the statistics. If someone who possesses dangly bits wants to go under the name 'Abigail' then who am I to argue? But people will be surprised.

[footpad]

Update: Rewritten to more accurately reflect the points I was actually trying to make.

(You had to mention dangly bits, didn't you?)

I would venture to guess that we all have our moments of crystalline inscrutability, regardless of gender, race, age, experience, or other *useless* trivia. Yet, we also have unique experiences that can benefit the whole community, if we're ready to set aside any interest in matters that really aren't our concern.

I suppopse it's natural to be curious about Abigail's choices, but that curiosity is better handled through private /msgs, not through public discussion.

Do you remember that recent row between a certain monk and chromatic, over disagreements regarding certain DBI techniques? I can't speak for everyone, but I felt a bit queasy when some of the commentary got personal. There may have been some legitimate discussion there, however, it got lost in the icky bits.

If we seriously want to encourage everyone to our members, then we need to accept everyone for who they are, not what we perceive them to be. People have many reasons for making certain choices and, quite frankly, those choices aren't anyone else's business.

Since this is the 'Net; there are many good reasons to be cautious. I don't publish my personal details for reasons I've chosen not to share. Most people respect that. I know of other monks who've done the same, presumeably for similar, though different reasons.

Personally, I don't care how people come up with their handles. I'd rather focus on either helping them learn what little I know or learn from their skills. I want to master Perl. If I happen to learn personal details about the people that teach me, fine. But, I'm more interested in learning.

It's human nature to be curious, however, you might have been better served to have directed your curiosity more appropriately. In this case, you should have either kept quiet (preferred, in my book) or sent private messages and seen what you could have learned.

Now, it appears that we've (briefly, I hope) lost access to an extensive Perl resource--again. If it's a permanent loss this time, then we are poorer for the departure.

We need to encourage all interested parties to become involved in our art and the ones related to it. We need everyone's imagination, input, and creativity.

If you have any interest in "Star Trek," you may recall that Vulcans have a saying: "Infinite Diversity; Infinity Combinations." It's not exactly a religion, but it is a belief that all members of a society can contribute ("Each according to their gifts") and that we can only achieve our best potential when we allow all to contribute equally, regardless of their individual differences.

You are, of course, allowed to be surprised. There are other skills that you may also wish to cultivate: tact, grace, and awareness.

--f

[LD2]

Actually there are a number of women programmers, granted not as many as men - but the number is growing. I graduated from University about four years ago... and there were a number of women pursuing the degree of CS - I even had several TAs/Profs who were female - who were excellent teachers, as well programmers.

As in all areas of life, some people enjoy different things - no matter the gender or the area. The statistics grow and fall over the years and I'm sure will continue to change over time. As footpad has mentioned ... there are excellent female programmers here (i.e. neshura, kudra, etc). I think that the fact that Hi-Tech jobs are one of the highest paid - is effecting both genders in considering what sort of career path is they're choosing now days. Heck, I know of one person here who turned down a marketing position for an IT position due to the large growth in the field - even though they highly enjoyed marketing/advertising. Of course, they're now mixing both IT and marketing in their projects today. Scary thought, eh? Basically, I think that many fields may be traditionally more of one gender than another - but as in life, things change - nothing remains static forever.

P.S. what did you mean exactly by.. "not many American-born women are becoming programmers.." - does that mean if I was a woman who happened to be born in another country but raised in America - that I wouldn't fit in that sentence? Or that other countries are maybe influencing the female gender to rise up and tackle Hi-Tech - while America isn't? I guess that's another question for another day...(no, I'm not saying you're racist or anything that to that effect - just curious what was meant by it)

[sierrathedog04]

P.S. what did you mean exactly by.. "not many American-born women are becoming programmers.."

Well, in the past seven years I recall working with perhaps three or four American-born female programmers, about 10-20 foreign-born female programmers, and maybe 100-200 males. Thus, by my unscientific estimate, American-born females make up about two percent of all programmers. Not a lot, since they are 40-50 percent of the population.

Any observant person could agree that American-born females are underrepresented in programming jobs, and much much more underrepresented than are foreign-born women.

- does that mean if I was a woman who happened to be born in another country but raised in America - that I wouldn't fit in that sentence?

No, it would mean that you were not part of the phenomenon of American-born women being underrepresented in programming jobs.

Or that other countries are maybe influencing the female gender to rise up and tackle Hi-Tech - while America isn't?

It is my observation that Asian-born (e.g., India and China) women are more likely to become programmers than are American-born women. I do not know why.