General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2191285

    Why is IT nearly all male?

    Locked

    by surflover ·

    It may just be the places I’ve worked, but why don’t more women go into IT?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3061792

      hmph!

      by itgirli ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      There are plenty of women in IT. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • #3061788

        Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

        by dc guy ·

        In reply to hmph!

        Particularly in the public sector, which is a huge employer.

        • #3072057

          and more regulated

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          The public sector has more “diversity” because they will look to fill quotas, descriminating against anyone who is not the brand of person they are short on.

          I personally DO see a lot of women in IT, but it is still a good 5 to 1 odds. I seem more women in IT SALES than actual administration. That would be more of a 3 to 1 odds.

          NOTE: as many expect the women to not be good, I have found most work even harder to know their field better than many men. Then there are some that are just beotches because they feel they aren’t taken seriously or feel threatened. I personally know both type.

        • #3066022

          Maybe they are beotches because…

          by lauracs ·

          In reply to and more regulated

          …they are tired of having to work twice as hard to be considered half as good, and still get paid 79 cents on the male dollar, and then be called beotches because they aren’t happy about it. Personally, I try my best to get along with every one, but I definitely understand where the angry women are coming from.

          Anyone who believes that affirmative action is discrimination is probably not looking at the true mechanism, or how it is applied in most circumstances. There are plenty of anecdotes out there about white men passed over for incompetent minorities, but personally, I have never, ever, seen this happen. Laws and policies around affirmative action almost always only require that a concerted effort be made to outreach to diverse groups, not to hire from them at the expense of white men who are better qualified. The evidence is obvious. In spite of affirmative action and “quotas”, the field is still predominantly white and male. Women still have to be twice as talented to be considered half as good. I have been working in IT for years, and haven’t seen much of a change in that. In my opinion, 1 women to every 5 men is never “a lot” if you are looking at the numbers in a meaningful way.

        • #3065989

          affirmative action

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Maybe they are beotches because…

          The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to enforce affirmative action quotas. When quotas were mandatory, better qualified people were being passed up all the time for people who were hired on the basis of helping reach the quota. It was so bad in some industries that companies were having to aggressively recruit minority individuals who weren’t even looking for that type of job, and put a freeze on hiring for other purposes, just to get compliant.

          Since the lifting of mandatory quotas in those areas, things have settled down and gotten sane again. Now, only a few governmentally regulated organizations and educational institutions use a quota system, and their quotas are considerably less aggressive.

          Affirmative action outreach programs are great. I’m all for it. Affirmative action quotas are terrible, and should go the way of the dodo.

        • #3136008

          Agree about quotas not being a good thing

          by lauracs ·

          In reply to affirmative action

          But, since they aren’t really used, that’s beside the point. As you stated, quotas aren’t even legal anymore. And I would beg to differ with you that things are “sane” again. If they were, this thread wouldn’t have ever been started.

        • #3119546

          could it be….?

          by em dubyah ·

          In reply to Agree about quotas not being a good thing

          Could it be that a lot of women out there just aren’t interested in IT? Why must there be a mandate to have at least 1/2 to majority of women? As with any other field for that matter?
          Funny, I don’t see anyone questioning or bitching about how many women there are in construction. Waste disposal comes to mind too. I think there must be affirmative action and quotas and the whole nine yards to make sure that ALL employment and ALL levels of employment must be split down the middle!!!!
          IF it’s good for one vocation, it should be good for all.
          Sure, then goes your right to CHOOSE what field you want to go into.
          I firmly believe that there are not many women, because they CHOOSE to not go into the field.
          I work in a traing facility that hosts IT and medical office training. Guess what? VAST majority of the IT trainees – GUYS!! The medical office trainees – GALS!!
          It’s their choice, it’s their preference.
          Any attempt to change ratios in industries disturbs me. The imbalance is because of choice. IMHO.

        • #3114162

          Soapbox time

          by mechanicalmen ·

          In reply to Maybe they are beotches because…

          Once again the PC crowd rears it’s head where the real answer is obvious as h***.
          Most people agree that men use certain areas of the brain more than women, and women use cretain areas more than men. This is why more men are mechanics and IT professionals. It also explains why more women are teachers, counselors and nurses.

          If you get off your high horse and look around at the real world you might see that.

        • #3114823

          What else could we expect

          by no name specified ·

          In reply to Soapbox time

          from Knoxville, TN…hmm, bet you didn’t like that. The high horse you talk about, is it the same as me saying that in Knoxville there are only male chauvinist red-necks?

          Opportunity and society are largely responsible for who holds what kind of job. Since when are women who are mechanics looked at as sexy women? Would you fall in love with a female covered in motor oil and grease? You, yes, you personally, probably EXPECT your woman to hold a “femenine” job, thus crapping all over what you just wrote.

        • #3116442

          In my case . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to What else could we expect

          “[i]Would you fall in love with a female covered in motor oil and grease?[/i]”

          I just might. I’m probably not normal, though.

        • #3117021

          troll

          by xalorous ·

          In reply to What else could we expect

          .

        • #3136081

          Knoxville

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to What else could we expect

          No, its not just male chauvinist red-necks in Knoxville, there are female chauvinist red-necks there, too. But what they do have in common is that they can count the number of teeth they have with one hand! 🙂

          Old joke told in the SEC: What is bright Orange, 100 yards long, obnoxious, and has 100 teeth? Front Row in Neyland Stadium!!!

          How do you know the Toothbrush was invented at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville? If it was invented anywhere else, it would be called the Teethbrush. 🙂

          Two Tennessee Vols fans were watching “Old Smokey”, their hound dog mascot, licking himself between the legs. First one said “I wish I could do that”. Second one said “You better pet him first, or he might bite you”.

        • #3116757

          Cretain areas?

          by debitaylor ·

          In reply to Soapbox time

          Yes, you are SO dead right. It is obvious as h*** that you have a part of your brain that you don’t use at all; namely the part knows how to spell or know when it’s appropriate to use apostrophes.

          Have you ever thought women might just avoid the IT industry so they don’t have to deal with chauvinistic guys on soap-boxes who think they are god’s gift to the IT world? Instead they choose vocations such as teaching and nursing where they make a difference, where they get to interact with people who appreciate what they have to offer.

        • #3135921

          Thankyou!

          by person125545 ·

          In reply to Cretain areas?

          I’m forever in desperation over the terrible linguistic standards in these forums.. being ‘good’ at math or whatever should never be an excuse for bad English,and perhaps getting in touch with yr feminine side needs to be emphasised in this industry, and hey- in case yr wondering i’m not gay, I’m a kickboxer and make my own beer, but i hate seeing women dissed when they’re already disadvantaged by society and the workplace ethic. So thankyou!

        • #3135999

          I don’t have a horse

          by lauracs ·

          In reply to Soapbox time

          Okay, I’m looking around…
          Let’s see:

          You apparently believe women are not as capable of logical/rational thought as men.

          Based on your method of addressing the argument, I would say you are not inclined towards logical or rational thought.

          Ergo, you must be a woman. You shouldn’t be burdening yourself with these important, manly subjects. It might hurt your brain.

        • #3137272

          Then why was the first programmer female?

          by merrua ·

          In reply to Soapbox time

          Then why was the first programmer female?
          Industry domainance is always created by hiring police and cultural pressures.
          If people consider it demening to be a male-x or female-x or just and x then they wont want too.

          I would make a guess that part of the reason the industry is male dominated is due to the fact its been considered ‘nerdy’ and ‘geeky’

          Also because people get used to seeing male-technicians so when they look at them they think, he looks more qualified than her because he looks more like what I expect.
          However I wouldnt think thats a front-brain thought, more a subconcious influence.

        • #3137050

          Stepping off into the deep end

          by ptarver ·

          In reply to Then why was the first programmer female?

          I never thought my first posting on TechRepublic would be about this subject, but here goes:

          As the co-owner of a small computer business in the Deep South, I’m proud to say that I was one of the first in my area to hire a female computer technician. That technician went on to become the head of the IT department for our county school system. My wife who is my partner in life and our business is also a d*** fine technician and does a great job solving problem for our clients.

          Both will tell you that initially there was some resistance to their walking into crisis situations, taking over and solving the problems. However, after just a short time of proving themselves and earning the respect of the clients, that resistance vanished quickly.

          Everyone is asking, “Why are there so few female IT professionals?” I don’t claim to know the answer, but I can tell you that when we advertised for the last technician position we filled, out of 40 resumes only 3 were from women. Unfortunately, none of those three had the skill set we were looking to hire. All three had great customer service skills and if we had been in a position to hire and train from scratch, all three would have made good technicians in 6 to 12 months.

          3 out of 40 resumes means that at least in our area less than 8% of the people seeking our job were women. I don’t know how you can reach an equal level of men and women in the IT field if that percentage is consistent everywhere.

          Can anyone tell me if that is consistent around the country?

        • #3137008

          Montgomery AL compared to Meridian MS

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Then why was the first programmer female?

          Montgomery, AL seems to have a higher percentage of females in IT, even though we are about 150 miles from Meridian, MS. I work as a programmer as a mid-size regional insurance company, and our programming department is about 50-50%, and so are the Mainframe operators and Help Desk departments. However, when you get to the Network team, it is 75% male, Home Office support is 90% male, and Server Farm is 100% male. Overall, IT is about 60% male/40% female where I work.

        • #3118413

          Male technicians

          by sysgoddess ·

          In reply to Then why was the first programmer female?

          “Also because people get used to seeing male-technicians so when they look at them they think, he looks more qualified than her because he looks more like what I expect.”

          Actually, I haven’t found that to be at all true with but a very few exceptions. I’ve had a couple of very old guys who didn’t want to deal with me, always wanting to talk to ‘one of the guys’ even when the guys always had to call me over to ask for technical or product specific information.

          I have found however that the majority of my personal clients are women and are more comfortable having a woman technician working in their homes although few have verbalized it. It isn’t as though any wander about in their nightclothes but they seem much more at ease and once a woman tech has been to their home they’re almost 100% certain to request another one, if not the same one again.

        • #3136994

          Yeah – Right!

          by quickiwi ·

          In reply to Soapbox time

          Maybe because we *poor* women are used to multi-tasking on a different level we handle the demands of those *other* professions well. However maybe it’s just in my part of the world – but women are actually treated on merit – which might explain why the inhouse IT department is basically female. And no it was not gender bias on the part of the boss – he just hires whose best qualified – the only person fired in the past two years was the male who thought being male meant he didn’t have to work as hard as the rest of us. And no – his replacement was not female.

        • #3135617

          BRAIN USAGE…

          by geekchic ·

          In reply to Soapbox time

          Aw man, I can’t BELIEVE that you just said that! Men have been more mechanical in the past because it WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE for women to be “mechanical”! When I was in high school (too many years ago to mention) I wanted to take a Shop class instead of Home Economics but they wouldn’t let me because “Shop was for BOYS and Home Ec was for GIRLS!”

          But things they are a changin’! Not only can women be mechanical nowadays BECAUSE IT IS NOW ACCEPTED, they can also (because of those other brain functions you mentioned) be supportive, compassionate and cooperative, ie…they “play well with others” which from my experience in IT, is not a strong point for males.

          So I say watch out, guys that are small minded like you may end up working for a woman who not only knows her job (AND YOURS) but runs things more smoothly then you ever could.

          Also, what the heck does being a “mechanic” have to do with being an “IT Professional”?? By the way, if I was on a “high horse” wouldn’t I have a better view of things around me, so why would I want to get off??

        • #3119282

          Thank you!

          by gojints ·

          In reply to BRAIN USAGE…

          I had to fight my high school guidence counselor to take Mechanical Drawing (Drafting) rather than Home Ec – this was in the 70’s. I already made my own clothes and cooked dinner every night. If they wanted me to teach the Home Ec class, fine.

          Women can do just as good a job (sometimes better) as men in IT if given the chance.

          Don’t exclude half the population just because their ‘bumps’ are in different locations.

        • #3127723

          What a load of rubbish

          by duchess-of-woking ·

          In reply to Soapbox time

          Try instead looking at the home environment. When I first expressed an interest in Electronics the males in my family trotted out the line that it was “a mans job” and I should forget going into that field. Being stubborn I ignored all the pressures and did what I wanted and went to university and studied electronic engineering. Because very few women have the nerve to go against their family only the stronger willed go ahead, with the result that you have all noticed.

          Before you will get women going into the engineering and IT fields a change will have to take place in male attitudes to what is mens work and what is womens work. In other words they will have to accept that any job can be done by any sex.

          BTW I am a qualified electronics engineer who switched to IT about 15 years ago and now run the IT department for the European arm of a multinational. It was a tough climb, far harder than for my male colleagues as I had to battle that same attitude about what is mens/womens work.

        • #3147249

          Your post is humorus.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to What a load of rubbish

          You think that it is difficult for Women to move up the corporate ladder.

          I guess because I work for a 2 Bil. annual company that does lots of Government work, I have seen that it is far easier for an moderately attractive woman to zoom up the corporate ladder and be reporting to the executive staff than it is for any man.

          I have seen companies put women into DBA slots and then train them. I have seen a nice kid without a degree get put on a CIO’s staff. She has an nice smile and the upper management would rather talk to her than the people who know what is going on.

        • #2481535

          I knew it would happen.

          by mariosilvio ·

          In reply to Soapbox time

          Why is it that nobody bothered to answer him instead of making jokes about his state?
          Well, I’ll try my luck with two questions and I’d like to add that I don’t mind jokes being made about me, my city, my country or whatever pleases you but would appreciate if the jokes come with replies to my questions:

          1) why more women are teachers, counselors and nurses?
          2) do you really think there should be, in EVERY work place, 5% of afro-american males, 5% of afro-american females, 1% of jew men and 1% of jew women, 0.000001% of blind asian albines, etc.?

        • #3081738

          or maybe…

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Maybe they are beotches because…

          The majority of capable women have chosen to ignore the current propaganda, and instead ply their considerable talents to raisng and rearing their children, thus leaving a smaller percentage available to compete in the workforce (I realize that is perhaps a longshot, but I stillkeep hoping that women are wiser than men have been in this respect over the years)…

          Or maybe it is simply that the majority of women are smart enough to pick a career which offers better benefits and more respectable hours *smirk*…

        • #3094589

          Thanks for saying it!

          by vanessaj ·

          In reply to Maybe they are beotches because…

          It needed to be said.

        • #3118449

          I’m the good type

          by jessie ·

          In reply to and more regulated

          🙂 but I’m not into working harder than the guys. I work smarter. Blech! Yuck! Puke! Did I just type that? That’s disgusting. “work smarter?!?” what a lovely piece of corporate propoganda for giving you more work than you can possibly handle in a day and blaming it on you for not getting it done!!

          But I AM smarter than so many of the guys… cuz they’re a bunch of tools!

        • #3117803

          Jessie..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to I’m the good type

          I agree, I can’t stand those trite little meaningless soundbites. AND..I love calling people a ‘tool’, that’s been my favorite insult for a few months now.

        • #3072839

          Public Sector IT Women

          by denise.vrantsidis ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          The ratio is approximately 80% men, 20% women. The reason I see is that men do not want to let anyone know they don’t know something. So they hire other men who won’t point that out. Women operate differently. First thing they do is make a list of what’s wrong, then they fix it. So, from what I see here in IT in the public sector. Women get sick of it and go somewhere else. For myself, ask me one day and I’ll fix everything, ask me the next and I give up. If someone offers me a job on the down day, I’m gone.

        • #3073199

          Private is also geared differently

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Public Sector IT Women

          They make a POINT of diversity, instead of just taking the best applicate based only on skill. A qualified person can be turned away because they NEED to hire a “minority” or a woman or a “minority woman”.

          I also don’t see the public sector as being quite as cold of a work environment. On the other hand, there is a lot more politics. I have worked private and public, union and non-union. I am a private non-union kind of guy. It is just where I thrive and can expect to advance based on what I do or don’t do.

          Good luck with your lists! 😀 Maybe someone will make a list to fix me? ;\

        • #3057564

          I already did that list…

          by cuteelf ·

          In reply to Private is also geared differently

          It included whips and duct tape…remember?

          IMO, the reason why women aren’t in IT as much as men are:
          Back in CHILDHOOD we are not as encouraged as the boys are for science and technical work.

          During HighSchool we are not as encouraged & enthusiastic- we learn about “glass ceiling” “discrimination” and existing, hanging prefabricated roles for males and females.

          During College we are welcomed, but feel..outside the group.

          I recall being asked many times as a child what I wanted to do. School teacher? Stay at home mom? Nurse? (mostly female-filled positions).
          I said no, I want to be an 18-wheeler truck driver. I got REALLY strange looks from adults for that one.

          During HS there was a 60/40 breakdown of boys vs. girls in the Honors classes- early geeks. Not too bad, but a lot of the girls didnt stay with science/logic/technical.

          During college I felt out of place sometimes, being the ONLY FEMALE IN A CLASS OF 30 PEOPLE. Its not that I was ridiculed, its that it was FREAKING OBVIOUS I was the only woman.

          I have been welcomed in my jobs and appreciated for my skills so far in this field. This is something I want: equality. And, you know what? I think IT is a lot more equal than…Police & Firefighters for example.

          I think this job I’m doing ATM actually hired me because I’m female- Only girl in the office! And, yes, I’m critiquing, troubleshooting, documenting, and really working to make it smoother for all of us. I’m using logic, thought, process, and technical writing.

          But I do expect the men to be a bit..harsher judging me and my skills, so I’m trying more at home to study and be a good learner. I have detected a bit of..slack..towards me, as deference to a woman. (guys will let me cut in, open doors…small things like that)

          I am glad that I’m a woman: I get noticed. One decent looking chick in a field of geeky men with gadgets?? Sheesh, put me in a bikini and yall’s would be melting! I get noticed. I have skills. I get a job.

          I wish more women were involved, and I hope schools will push the girls a bit towards logic/thought/technical skills.

          My 2nd grade teacher Mrs. Duffy told me “Girls play with girls, boys play with boys”. I told her to stuff it, because I liked boys better. They weren’t whiney and they had cool ideas, compared to the stupid Barbie dolls and home-making stuff.
          I got in trouble, of course, but look where I’m at now? Kiss my 4$$, Duffy.

          CuteElf

        • #3069490

          whips and duct tape

          by surflover ·

          In reply to I already did that list…

          I must’ve missed that one :^O

        • #3069337

          Attitude!

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I already did that list…

          Are you sure it wasn’t that attitude that got you hired? If I were the hiring manager, that’d be high on my list of reasons to consider you, I think.

        • #3066012

          It’s the INFORMATION that breaks parity

          by mgordon ·

          In reply to I already did that list…

          The T/F axis on Myers-Briggs MBTI is, by some reports, gender aligned about 60%/40% with men tending to be “T” (Thinker) and women tending to be “F” (Feeler).

          Inasmuch as we are talking about INFORMATION technology, a thing that by its very nature deals with facts and data, I would expect overall to have about a 60/40 ratio.

          CuteELF reports this very ratio in high school, but it falls apart after that. Why shall we suppose this is so? We have seen some pretty silly reasons but not much deep thought.

          Public service is not a reliable indicator of preferences because those employments are “tweaked” by affirmative action policies. I worked for a GS-13 black woman, team leader of the LAN team at a large government installation, who had spent several hours trying to get a PC to boot up. It kept saying, “No operating system.” There was a floppy in the slot.

          Besides the 60/40 ratio on the T/F axis, we also have management styles. Women tend to set up a mode called “Democratic” or management by consensus; the fallback of which (in case consensus fails) is Coercive.

          So far so good; but what has it got to do with ratios in the workplace? It is this: We all work for someone; even the entrepreneur works for customers. Conflict is more or less unavoidable, also, someone must schedule the work and someone must do the work. Men and women generally have very different methods of doing these things with the result being a type of vertical gender alignment from the boss down; if the boss is a man very likely the downstream chain of command will be men. If a woman, very likely the downstream chain of command, such as it might exist in that case, will tend to be women. It is so even in the Navy which is supposed to be gender-blind. This is sexist on the face of it, but it is also more efficient, and inefficient companies cannot survive.

          Finally, in a free world, it doesn’t take much preference shift to capture ALL of an audience. I remember when “Flash Gordon” came out at the same time… well I cannot remember it, a movie by and about a famous song writer, I can even play the elevator music in my head — Jazz Singer or something like that, came out. The line for “Flash Gordon” was 99.9 percent men, with one girlfriend dragged along; and for Jazz Singer, the line was entirely women, except for one boyfriend. (The Old Mill Theaters in Los Altos, California). When someone spoke to it, the misfit boy and girl exchanged places, making the “Flash Gordon” line 100 percent men, and the line for Jazz Singer, 100 percent women. Does that mean I prefer Flash Gordon 100 percent more than Jazz Singer? No, my preference was only SLIGHT; but mirrored by everyone in the line.

          Men sometimes want power over machines. Since a computer is the ultimate machine, that kind of man is attracted to Information Technology. Those men that want power over people do not usually choose I.T. as a profession.

          Women very seldom want power over machines. It’s stupid. If they want power, and they usually do, it will be over people or animals.

          Consequently, such women as you find in I.T. will more often than not be in management or customer service; or even a truck driver installing cable modems — anything where human contact and perhaps control is a factor. Women sitting invisibly behind a tall rack, laptop computer plugged into a Aux port on a Cisco router, typing in IOS commands — I’ve never seen it — but by definition, how would I? She’s invisible, just as I am when I am doing that very thing. So it may be more common that we men suppose.

        • #3115868

          I beg to differ

          by ltheodoru ·

          In reply to It’s the INFORMATION that breaks parity

          I once worked for a white male who spent hours trying to get a PC to connect to the network. I took my laptop, and discovered that the network jack was not connected at the IDF in about 5 minutes.

          I am not a social person, and am happiest alone in a room with a computer.

          This kind of job often requires being on call 24/7 and traveling. As a single mother, I did not start in this profession until my daughter was a teenager. Now, after more than a decade in the corporate world, I work for a school system. Gone are the long hours and missing holidays (for projects that needed to be done while everyone else was gone). Gone also are the high salary, the 50% matching 401K, and the bonuses and promotions. But I do get to be an active grandmother for my grandchildren, and I have my life back.

        • #3116796

          Invisible Woman

          by legal aid society ·

          In reply to It’s the INFORMATION that breaks parity

          I’m one of those invisible women sitting in a server room, behind a tall rack, supporting a WAN of 55. I am an I.T. department of one and I do everything from SQL design to exchange to help desk to blah blah blah…. if it plugs in (practically), they call me. I work for a non-profit, in the quasi-public sector. I’m glad I work alone, I keep the user-interaction down to a minimum. As a matter of fact, if at all possible, I will remote control their desktop from within the building to fix the problem. Sometimes, I work from home, and that is wonderful. Been at this place for six years. While it does have it’s drawbacks like no room to move up- I’m already the I.T. Manager, it is my own world to do with as I see fit and they always listen to me. Occasionally, I do miss the interaction, but only with other techies.

          Maybe I should go work in a room of grateful geeks like CuteElf (-You crack me up!). I bet they are appreciative to have a woman who knows her stuff and looks good.

          I’m suprised there aren’t more women in IT. I can see where there would be more men than women simply because men are more drawn to gadgets, machines, etc. But not at this rate. I, like CuteElf, couldn’t have been happier that math and science were encouraged and supported for me in my early years. I just didn’t know what to do with it until I “found” technology. Whew, thank whoever that I’m not a nurse, teacher, or secretary.

          Fef

        • #3136120

          You really think that?

          by attackcomputerwhiz ·

          In reply to It’s the INFORMATION that breaks parity

          I am one of those women who enjoys “sitting invisibly behind a tall rack, laptop computer plugged into a Aux port on a Cisco router, typing in IOS commands.” I love troubleshooting switches and cranky software. I relish the challenge of finding the bad card in a PC so that I can bring it back on line. It’s the thrill of the chase for me!

          From a young age, I was always a “gadget” person and I could field strip a Pinto in the middle of the night if it broke down. My dad encouraged my love of machinery and allowed me to tinker as much as I wanted, so I learned how to work on any number of machines, including computers as they came out. Heck, I even took Shop in junior high, along with the sewing and cooking classes. There are lots of us out there, but that socialized discouragement does kick in with many not-so-subtle hints that we “don’t belong.”

          My high school didn’t think that I needed to be allowed near their prized PET computer when it first came in (that’s certainly showing how long I’ve been doing this). That was a job for the boys in Trig VI and I can tell you that there were ONLY boys in that class as the teacher found a way to flunk any girls who dared darken his doorstep. We belonged in Home Ec, don’t ya know?

          But, you think we are rare? Only because the real issue as IBM told me when they offered me a “customer service/ofice job” is that men in the corporate world take offense when a woman can do something with their equipment that the men couldn’t. It would be a challenge to their masculinity and that wouldn’t do.

          I heard that from some other male-dominated corporations, as well. At the same time, they were more than willing to offer me a “sit and look pretty” position at far less pay than the “real IT people” were getting.

          To this day, I have yet to see an IBM female field rep coming out to work on the equipment we lease from them.

          I did manage to find a job and so far, I am treated the same as the men–not that great and the pay is frozen for all of us, but there is no favoritism by gender.

          I have a daughter that I am teaching that she has just as much right to work in the “hard” (she is already hearing the gender stereotype in the fourth grade) jobs as the men. She has her own PC for her schoolwork and she helps her male friends when they want to access the computers at her school. But she is already hearing the “girls aren’t as good in math or science” BS and is telling me she doesn’t have to work on it because it won’t help. You can bet I went off on her teacher for that bit of nonsense.

          Work should never be based on gender, but on ability!

        • #3136682

          So how does affirmative action explain all the incompetent white men in IT?

          by lauracs ·

          In reply to It’s the INFORMATION that breaks parity

          How predictable. Every time the topic of affirmative action comes up, anecdotes about some woman or some non-white man who was an idiot and got hired anyway come out of the woodwork. Granted, affirmative action MIGHT be responsible for some of these situations. But for every anecdote I have heard about one of these people, I have seen several completely incompetent white men who seem to hold on to their jobs despite the havoc they wreck and the complications they cause for their coworkers. Everyone constantly wonders how they keep their jobs, and why they weren’t fired years ago. If you want to blame affirmative action for every case of an incompetent non-white and/or female in your workplace, then please explain how these white men, who are just as incompetent, and – in my experience – vastly outnumber their “affirmative action” counterparts, keep their jobs? To me, the fact that they exist indicates that affirmative action is not the cause of this phenomenon. It may be one part of a bigger picture, but it most certainly is not the whole picture.

          I stand by a belief in affirmative action because it levels the playing field. It does not give anyone an advantage. It simply opens the game up to people who are otherwise excluded. Are there going to be instances when it is taken advantage of, or used incorrectly? Of course. All I can say to that, is “How does it feel, white boys, to be treated the way the rest of us have been all along?”

        • #3115208

          Girl, you rule! where were you when I was single?

          by why me worry? ·

          In reply to I already did that list…

          sheesh, IT departments could use some more techie hotties to give us geeks some eye candy to drool over…LOL

        • #3136078

          My department has techie hotties

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Girl, you rule! where were you when I was single?

          Unfortunately, they were already married when they started working here. 🙁

        • #3116995

          interesting perspective

          by xalorous ·

          In reply to I already did that list…

          As a geeky man who loves gadgets, I can appreciate your comments.

          I’m also a sensitive, married man and father. I grew up with my mom and my sister, and I’ve always abhorred discrimination (of any flavor.)

          There’s an interesting dichotomy, that I thought was resolved in the 80’s. A man can hold the door, show deference to a woman and still not be discriminatory or harassing. In other words, deference is not discrimination.

          You (male, female, indeterminate something somewhere in between, black, white, or other) want to impress me? Want me to treat you with the respect due to you and your skills? SHOW me.

          I am an equal opportunity believer that anyone I meet is inferior (in my chosen field) to me until proven otherwise. No matter what certs or degrees you have.

          Oh, we had 3 girls in our mechanical engineering class while I was there. 3 out of about 20. The minority female was the first hired upon graduation, and had the best grades, but I wouldn’t bet money on her being able to engineer her way out of a wet paper bag. That was my introduction to affirmative action (aka reverse discrimination.) Oh, and by the time we graduated, it was 3 out of 12. Not bad for a small private school.

          As for schools pushing girls towards “logic/thought/technical skills,” I think that is the wrong answer. I believe that schools should offer all students the same thing and equally push girls and boys to math, science, grammar, history, home ec, etc. Why? Because, carry it to the extreme. If you consistently, over say 2 generations, push the girls towards math and science, you might find the tables reversed.

          Instead, schools should teach equality and demonstrate it by teaching EVERYONE the basics of reading, writing, math, science, art, psychology and history. Thus the preconceived roles will not hold.

          In the end, I would end up in a technical field, no matter my gender or race, because I excel at spatial/geometrical thinking. I greatly appreciate logic and problem solving.

          Cuteelf. Thank you for entering the IT field. And I thank every person who works in the field of their choice when the ‘traditional/conventional’ wisdom says they should work elsewhere. Damn the conventions! Do what your muse guides you to.

        • #3118719

          Opening doors is not cutting you slack

          by swwbo ·

          In reply to I already did that list…

          That’s just being polite. I’m quite happy when anyone opens the door for me, and I’m just as likely to open the door for him or her in return.

        • #3080434

          Discouraging girls from mathe is still alive

          by iseriesjunkie ·

          In reply to I already did that list…

          My daughter is in 8th grade and is still facing teachers who imply that girls cannot do math & science ‘cos their brains are different. Her 4th grade teacher even forced us to get her tutoring in math over the summer ‘cos she was “behind”. The tutor tested her & found she was a grade level ahead in math & just didn’t like the teacher.

          Generally, I find women are able to operate well in the gray areas of IT making up the majority of the generalists. Guys are either good at what they do or very bad at it and therefore are more inclined to be specialists at one aspect of IT.

          Seems to me there is room for both.

        • #3066145

          I like the part about whips

          by lesko ·

          In reply to Private is also geared differently

          wish we had more women here in IT who had the attitude of cutelf

          hehehe

        • #3073115

          Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          by bizzo ·

          In reply to Public Sector IT Women

          Well there’s your answer. I read the first 10 posts (80% men, 20% women). And 50% of the women, seem to be sexist (“they [men] hire other men”), are easily bored (“Women get sick of it”), inconsistent (?ask me one day and I’ll fix everything, ask me the next and I give up?), and disloyal to the company (?someone offers me a job ? I’m gone?).

          Or maybe I just read that wrong?

        • #3073100

          award

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          You get the Apotheonic Humor Award of this discussion. That was hilarious. I don’t know if it bears any resemblance to women in the IT field outside of this discussion, but that was great within context.

          . . . and, frankly, when someone comes into the discussion with a chip on his or her shoulder as denise.vrantsidis has, unmercifully logical humor is usually the only “effective” response.

        • #3137271

          Yes you did.

          by merrua ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          No one with self respect and choice will stay at a company who doesnt offer self-respect, fair treatment and the hope of promotion.

        • #3137228

          It really depends though

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Yes you did.

          A Tech can only hope to be advanced so far and nothing above that position.

          When was the last time that you heard of a Tech being advanced to Chairman of the Board of any company that they didn’t start? If Bill Gates had of been working for some big corporation or Steve Jobs do you actually think that they would have been promoted to their current positions?

          Col

        • #3137078

          Well

          by merrua ·

          In reply to It really depends though

          Well Steve jobs always seemed a bit crazy so I’d say no for him.
          Bill Gates was out to succeed, whatever he did he would have made money.

          The people who generally make chairman, at least over here, are rich and well connected. Rich and well connected people dont generally enter this area. If you want to beat the hire-my-kind-of-people rule, you start your own business.
          I dont think its because your a techie your dont get those promotions.

          But we arent talking about those kind of jobs. Promition here is the chances you would expect to get from working with the company and the chance to be put forward for more training.

        • #3120473

          Well the last big company that I worked for

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to It really depends though

          The highest position that I could have been advanced to was Country Service Manager, I was already State Service Manager and had most of the hard questions passed my way anyway. 😉

          But I really wouldn’t have wanted to go any higher than I was then as I like the position and work even if there was way toooo much paper work involved. Going up one step only would have removed me from any real work and I wouldn’t have been able to gt my fingers dirty. 🙂

          But as any tech in any company that is about as high as we can expect to be promoted as we generally have a vested interest in the Technical side of things and do not generally speaking make good managers where we have to tell the tech staff no to something that we know is right. I could handle the Yearly Budget Meetings and the constant attempt to get more money for my section but what I could never handle was my expense account as it was just painful to do and what made it even worse was I had to sign off on checking the thing as there was no one to check my listed expenses. I most likely could have bought a 747 and it would have been accepted if the payments where spread over a monthly basis for my time there. That was one aspect of the job that I really didn’t like as there where no safeguards in place for me in the event of something going wrong. I was singing off on all my staff expenses and that was acceptable but I was expected to be so honest that my own expenses didn’t need checking and I just didn’t like that. I always wanted someone to sign off on my expenses just to safe guard myself. :p

          But the next step up after Country Service Manager was middle management where I would have needed to be more of an accountant than anything else and I just loved bating them with all the errors that they made. There was one really expensive item that when brought as individual parts was several K more expensive then the complete assembly that we where selling and I was constantly on the accountants backs about this being wrong and they wouldn’t accept that they had made a mistake. So instead of using the more expensive part that was all that was really required I would use the complete assembly when I needed to replace these, this went on for something like 5 years and only stopped after I had left the company and when I needed one of these parts I rang them to check the prices and confirm that the current price list was correct then I used my spare part and ordered a replacement part which when it arrived was the more expensive bit that was not complete but just to rub salt into the wounds they had opened the complete assembly and removed the extra part as the box that it came in had the complete assembly’s part number on it and the plastic bag had been opened with the unnecessary part removed. When I rang than to complain about this I was told that most times this part was not required so they had removed it {something that I had been telling them for years previously} but the day that I ordered the bit to replace my spare they decided to actually look at what was involved and the price so they sent me the incomplete assembly and charged me the increased cost, so in the 20 minutes or so between me placing the order and them assembling it they had discovered something that I’d been telling them for years and as I was only prepared to use the complete assembly because it saved my customers a lot of money. I didn’t see the need to fit an incomplete assembly and charge them more than the complete assembly cost. They eventually after much mucking around sent me the missing part and refunded me the difference but they never did correct the price list but they just stopped allowing the ordering of the complete assembly. 😀

          Col ]:)

      • #3072062

        Plenty

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to hmph!

        and SOME of them are as bad as MANY of the guys! ;\

      • #3073448

        Where the rest of us work….

        by han810p9 ·

        In reply to hmph!

        I’ve been in IT for 32 years (yes, 32), and I’ve never seen so FEW women entering the field. I just posted two openings on several websites for network admins, and got an overwhelmingly (98%, actually) male response. I’ve also recently attended events by Cisco and Dell, and found myself the only woman there. It is sad to see it falling off like this. Back in the late 70’s early 80’s we were closing in on half….

        I have joined mentoring groups in hopes of turning this around.

        • #3073194

          Have you thought about

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Where the rest of us work….

          going to local high schools and talking to the girls there?

          I would bet that they would throw a girls-only session where you and others could talk about the posibilities in computers and science for women?

          The other thing they need to see, is just because you get a job in IT doesn’t mean your going to have to be working for IBM or MicroSoft. EVERY company now needs to have some level of IT, even if it is contracted.

          It isn’t that I feel women will make things better, it is that I feel good PEOPLE will make the field better. This isn’t a field that requires being a macho guy to do your job well.

          The biggest obstical I see? Many girls will play dumb because they know that many dumb guys will feel intimidated by them if the guys see how smart they are. Teach them to expect more out of themselves and others.

      • #3115567

        Male to female ratio

        by stuzzi ·

        In reply to hmph!

        I have been working in this field since 1986 when there were virually no women. Early on when I talked to a vendor about buying parts I was asked if they could speak to the person in charge. I said “I am the person in charge”. They assumed since I was female I must be a sectrary or don’t know what I was taking about I put them in there place and only dealt with vendors who did not do those kind of things.
        Other times people would ask me why I was in this field, like it is inconceivable that a woman could love the IT field.
        Things ahve changed for the better but we still have a long way to go. And for those who are wondering, I am not a feminist.

        • #3117000

          Feminist?

          by ladyreader ·

          In reply to Male to female ratio

          You said you aren’t a feminist. Why not? What does being a feminist mean to you? To me it means, among other things, that women get equal pay for equal work. Would you want to be paid less than a male manager doing the same work with the same experience? I am a feminist. And proud if it.

          I have been in IT for 24 years, mostly as an applications developer. I don’t make a lot of money compared to what I see on those salary-comparison web sites but I don’t know, and have never known, how my salary compares to that of my coworkers, as in our society we consider it rude to ask. And, of course, no management wants folks comparing notes lest it lead to vocal dissatisfaction and demand for more pay.

          At my last job, my IT team had more women then men.

        • #3135971

          The way we are talked to….

          by attackcomputerwhiz ·

          In reply to Male to female ratio

          Try calling the help desk of any major computer manufacturer, especially if it is in Bangalore or the like! There is some chauvanism for you! They refuse to discuss anything technical with a woman and actually talk slow with words of one syllable because they have been trained to do so. I have already informed one company that I would be recommending we take our contracts elsewhere because of their sales and help desk people.

          Today, I went out in search of a pre-made Cat6 patch cable (I needed a 250′ length, it’s Friday and I didn’t feel like making one myself today), so I went to a big store that starts with the sixth letter of the alphabet since they normally carry said cable in said length.

          The bin where it would normally be was empty, so I asked the young man on duty if they had any in the back. He proceeded to tell me that I could get a connector and put two lengths together, it would just as good. If not, then I could use 5e and told me it would work, too. Um-if that was what I needed, then I would have gotten that to begin with, right? No, I did not kill him on the spot, but I did find someone with a “supervisor” name tag and pointed out that young man as being someone who needed extra training immediately.

          The assumption is still alive and well that women don’t “do technical things.” We are going to have to wait another generation or two to get rid of that fallacy because the sales person was a generation behind me and if he still thinks that way…. 🙁

        • #3137106

          I don’t get it

          by halibut ·

          In reply to The way we are talked to….

          If I as a male walked into the same store, there would be no difference to how this sales person would have handled this sale. Why? Because he didn’t understand the facts of what you were asking. In fact I have been told similar things in a store when I asked a similar question. It would seem to be Technological inexperience speaking, not chauvinism as you may feel (thus why he is working in a store selling the product instead of actually installing it.)

          I have a problem with many of the posts in this discussion center. I see numerous examples of chauvinism and it is not all male. Women have some excellent skills in the IT field and I have worked with many that I would be proud to work with again. And I have worked with many incompetent woman that were promoted because of there other skills than with IT.

          I have also worked with many excellent and intelligent males in the IT field and many incompetent.

          I have friends who worked for Female managers that treated the woman staff like gold and the male staff like dirt, and male managers that treated the female staff like dirt.

          I don’t see the why these bashing posts need to prevail over and over again. I see a point of relating a bad experience, but objectively look at the whole in a big picture.

          Why aren’t women in IT? Why are men in IT?

          I can only speak for myself but I enjoy it, I love the troubleshooting aspect of it, and I love helping people understand something they didn’t understand before. Why don’t I do something that is primarily female industry, because I like IT, that is it.

          So before you all decide to bash the other sex please consider what objective you are trying to relate before submitting your comments.

          My $.02 CDN

        • #3118240

          The dismissive attitude is what you should get

          by attackcomputerwhiz ·

          In reply to I don’t get it

          Male salesmen are more inclined to tell a woman to do something like patching several lines together instead of taking the time to find the right part to begin with. That lack of willingness to take the the extra two minutes to look for that cable is what he needed training on.

          I didn’t put the rest of the story because I was in a hurry, but right after he walked away from me, a male customer walked up and he dropped everything for him. I watched as he walked up and down aisles to find what looked to be about $50 total merchandise. But he couldn’t take two minutes to find one cable for me.

          The objective I was trying to relate is that some men are still treating women like they don’t belong in the “geek” arena and will walk away from them without a backwards glance to talk to the men in the room, no matter which gender happens to be the IT person.

        • #3117775

          idiots

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to The dismissive attitude is what you should get

          I’d much rather deal with a tech savvy female than a tech savvy male, usually, if only because they’re easier on the eyes and more rare (thus, by the law of supply and demand, a precious commodity).

        • #3117520

          Depending on the person

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to idiots

          Two people of comparable knowledge, I will ALWAYS take the geekette over the geeks! They tend to have something called “social skills” that make it enjoyable to talk with.

          Only (as apatheon correctly labled it) a complete Id10t would discredit women and dismiss them in such a crude way. As long as they have a great sence of humor and can “take a joke”, they are a GREAT addition to any and every workforce.

          I go to a lot of trade shows and seminars and I do NOT see the women being pushed aside just so a man can be talked to. If you see this where you are, your in the wrong place.

        • #3119386

          Don’t take it personally

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to The dismissive attitude is what you should get

          In a shop once I had to resort to pulling out a wad of money and fanning myself with it to get some service. 🙂

          All the salespeople where way too busy talking about last nights Soap and where not interested in wanting to serve the customer particularly as the item that I wanted was in a locked glass display cabinet. When a salesperson eventually came to me after about 15 minutes they had the gall to ask “Do you want something?” Needless to say that shop is now out of business and quite rightly so. :^O

          Col ]:)

      • #3120409

        hmph is right !!!!

        by stargazerr ·

        In reply to hmph!

        Even if according to your count their are lesser women in IT … its the quality not quantity that counts. Women are considered more helpful and much much more polite …

        All the sales guys in my company keep telling me that i am so much more skilled and polite than the “GUY” they had before !!!

        No offense anyone…thats the truth !!! :o)

      • #3094570

        Thank you

        by jgtechie ·

        In reply to hmph!

        With all due respect and thinking away from sexual harrasment, I thank god each day that here are more women in the IT field. It would be boring if I had to see just guys every day.

    • #3061785

      girli is right

      by m_a_r_k ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      Surfer, you’ve swallowed too much salt water. I hate to admit it 😉 but girli is right. There’s a higher percentage of men in the overall workforce and there is also a higher percentage of dudes than women in IT. But I wouldn’t say IT is “nearly all male”. There ARE more women in IT than there used to be. The IT world is not as lopsidedly skewed in the guy-to-gal ratio as, for example, the construction industry or the U.S. Army.

      • #3061782

        well, like I

        by surflover ·

        In reply to girli is right

        said, it could just have been the places I’ve worked… at my last company, there was only one girl (out of ~50) under me when I started … and about a dozen (out of 120) when I left.

        • #3061773

          Your ratio was going up

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to well, like I

          From 1 out of 50 to 12 out of 120. I’m not the world’s sharpest mathmetician, but I’m thinking the odds of you finding a date went up from 2% to 10%. 😉

        • #3061758

          it’s good to be king

          by surflover ·

          In reply to Your ratio was going up

          well, I did what I could to improve morale in my organization 😉

        • #3061725

          Islamorada?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to it’s good to be king

          I noticed your location in Islamorada. Getting tired of having to evacuate when hurricanes come through the Straits of Florida?

          I grew up in Miami, and when I was little, we used to vacation in the Florida Keys (mostly on Key Largo). My parents used to own some land on Islamorada, but sold it about 20 years ago, when my Dad retired for retirement income.

        • #3061716

          Been there

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Islamorada?

          I did some scuba diving off of Islamorada a few years ago. One of my fins is laying at the bottom of the Caribbean near there. Good thing that was my last dive of the trip. I had crummy old fins anyway; needed to buy a new pair sooner or later. Do they actually have much IT there? Ain’t much there but hotels and bars.

        • #3061681

          none

          by surflover ·

          In reply to Been there

          I travel a LOT

        • #3072055

          Hotels need IT

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Been there

          big time.

          Even before they started suppling broad band to the rooms, you had normal operations of the hotel.

          Then if they are a chain, it is even more important.

          Many IT jobs today are NOT with Tech firms.

        • #3061682

          too bad they don’t still have it

          by surflover ·

          In reply to Islamorada?

          the property has skyrocketted in the last 5 years (absolutely insane)… most place have gone up 500 to 700% in the last 5 years…

        • #3071954

          Did you evacuate for Katrina and Rita?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to too bad they don’t still have it

          Both went through the south Florida area. Rita went closer to you, if I am not mistaken. My mother was without electricty for 4 days after Katrina went over Miami, the eye went right over her house. Good thing a cousin of mine had a ready supply of ice to give her.

        • #3071859

          Thanks for asking Tom

          by surflover ·

          In reply to too bad they don’t still have it

          No, I was traveling, in ATL during the storm, my place didn’t even lose power

        • #3061759

          Also depends on what department in the company

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to well, like I

          As I previously posted, males have only a slight numerical advantage (55-45) in IT where I work (insurance company). However, the Auto Underwriting department is 95% female, and the Propery Underwritng department is 85% female. Customer Service Representatives in our field offices are 99% female, but insurance agents are about 70% male. Building Maintenance department is about 90% male. The construction workers building the addition to the corporate headquarters are 100% male. IT is the only department that is close to even.

        • #3061735

          why…

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to well, like I

          why you have so few women under you is anyone’s guess. I think it’s you. But what does that have to do with IT?

        • #3061678

          I inherited

          by surflover ·

          In reply to why…

          the organization (if you noticed, the ratio went from 2% to 10% in less than a year, under my leadership)… so I don’t think it’s me, I guess I’ve just moved to places with that (low) level of female staff…

        • #3072054

          Go back and read it again

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I inherited

          You completely missed what she was inferring… :O

        • #3072045

          I saw that too, jd

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Go back and read it again

          I wonder if girli wrote it that one on purpose? haha

        • #3072041

          I do everything on purpose

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          whether or not you get it is another story. some don’t, so do and ignore it.

        • #3072039

          That’s what I figgered ;)

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          I got it right away. I chose to ignore it for as long as I could because I’m trying to learn how to become a saint. I was doing pretty good too. But when jd replied about it, I lost my will to resist.

        • #3072029

          Suprised you had to ask

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          Knowing Girlie and the way she posts, it would have to be the fifth friday in Feb before she would mispost something like that…..

          Although, she usually isn’t so quick to join us on the dark side like that! ;\

        • #3072023

          I keep thinking…

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          …that girli will some day turn over a new leaf and become a good little church girl. Hell, what am I thinking? I should know better by now.

        • #3072019

          you’d get better odds

          by jck ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          on me getting laid on a payday. 😀

        • #3072017

          Good little church girl?

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          Nope. I tried that. parochial school for 10 years (K5-9th). little plaid skirt and all. Ran from it. (well, kept the skirt).

        • #3072005

          jck, girli

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          jck, having a dry spell lately?

          girli, I did the parochial thing for my first two years of school. Boys had to wear khaki clothes. Girls had to wear church-girl blue skirts and white shirts and those funny church-girl white shoes with the big black stripe. We had nuns for teachers. They were mean as Dobermans. And most looked like Dobermans too. One time one of them asked me to get out my little reading book and read something. I didn’t understand what the hell she said. So I asked her to repeat whatever the hell she said. She got pissed at me for asking. She reared back and walloped me across the cheek. If I hadn’t been so yellow, I would have taken her out and become the school hero.

        • #3071988

          Oh girlie

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          that is a nice visual! Woo woo!

          LITTLE plaid school girl skirt, do you put your hair up in pony tails too?

          “Come to butthead, ah heh heh heh!” (while in the santabutthead costume)

        • #3071939

          ITG, please post

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          In the interest of furthering everyone’s technical competence, please post any new photos of yourself in the aforementioned little plaid skirt. Inquiring geeks want to know.

          (Now, why is IT mostly male? ‘Cause this kind of harrassment runs amok, and most women are repulsed by us.)

        • #3071936

          Ha!

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          That’s okay. I’m not repulsed, nor do I feel harrassed. I think things should be taken for the joke they are, or if not a joke, it’s still funny anyhow.

        • #3071933

          How you take it

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          isn’t important. IF you follow through with the requests, THAT is what is important! WooWoo! ]:)

          Heck with pictures, I want VIDEO! 😡
          [i]
          Wow, uncharted territory! Not used to this conversation with you. You usually seem to stay above most of the smut talk it seems. Just not as depraved as the rest of us is how I always saw it.

        • #3071915

          How you take it and what you do with it

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          That could lead to a whole new discussion. ;\

        • #3071911

          This is uncharted

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          territory for me with girlie so I made a point NOT to go down the position road. (It is the thought that counts!)

          ]:)

        • #3071900

          Yeah…

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          and [b]I[/b] was trying to steer it in a totally opposite direction with the church-girl theme. 🙂 But [i]some[/i]body veered it back again. Is “totally opposite” a redundant phrase?

        • #3073917

          just so you know

          by surflover ·

          In reply to I saw that too, jd

          I got it, but I have already posted that she IS the perfect girl in other posts (any woman who is against marriage, distrusts government, and celebrates love by getting drunk with a bunch of friends IS the perfect woman!!!)… (DUH, isn’t that your response to the “mouse jiggling” Girli ?)…;-)

        • #3116133

          So few women “under” you?

          by why me worry? ·

          In reply to why…

          some geeky guys are lucky to have a women “under” them or on “top” of them or simply anywhere near them

          LMAO

          sorry ladies if I offended anyone of you

      • #3072174

        U.S. Army 17% Female

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to girli is right

        17% of the Army’s recruits in 2004 were female. Due to the Iraq war, that’s down from 22% in 2000. I suspect that’s higher than the percent of women in IT, but I’m sure someone will look it up.

        • #3072173

          from what’s been posted

          by surflover ·

          In reply to U.S. Army 17% Female

          you and I must be in unusual areas (most of the others say that it’s nearly even)

        • #3072125

          all this concern over ratios is misguided…sexist at its core.

          by beoweolf ·

          In reply to U.S. Army 17% Female

          all mothers are women…100%. Maybe we ought to have a congressional investigation as to why women are keeping men out of the conception industry. We need to have parity. Something like Title IX might be in order?

          Yes, men dominate some industries, but the concern seems to be directed exclusively at high pay, traditonal occupations. Men do, have done the dangerous, dirty jobs…that, over years, left them broken and used up. In the recent past, we have come to understand that occupational safety is not a bad thing…so women are being included in the work force.

          I still don’t see the clamor for women being represented in occupations further down the “glamor” tree. I think having women in the work force is actually a good thing. It forces society to take an honest look at hidden stressors, danger in occupations…thus making it safer, more fufilling for men too.

        • #3072043

          What’s your point, wolf?

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to all this concern over ratios is misguided…sexist at its core.

          Who said anything about sexism or prejudice? If you noticed in one of [b]MY[/b] posts, I said diversity is a good thing. I think most guys feel that way about jobs like IT.

        • #3135966

          You want to have kids?

          by attackcomputerwhiz ·

          In reply to all this concern over ratios is misguided…sexist at its core.

          Be my guest! When men actually can get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament and the morning-after pill would be given out for free.

          And women are clamoring for those other jobs. You may not notice because you aren’t part of the hiring process. I used to live in the deep, deep south where employers still routinely throw away applications with feminine or “ethnic” names and get away with it to this day. If they aren’t working in those jobs, it’s not for lack of trying.

      • #3116950

        I don’t know about construction

        by xalorous ·

        In reply to girli is right

        There’s a lot more women in the Army than you realize.

      • #3081715

        not ‘all’ male

        by itmomma ·

        In reply to girli is right

        I’ve been working in IT for about 15 years…In those years, I’ve noticed that within IT there are specialties (ie. SysAdmin, NetAdmin, telephony) where there is a male dominance… and then there are others (Application Development, DBAs, Operators – who do more nowadays then just push buttons) where I see a strong female population….

        I happen to be a senior unix admin. To date, I’ve come across only 2 other women within my field…

        In every position/job that I’ve come into, I’ve had to prove myself. Which should happen no matter what sex I am… It’s like TRUST… you earn it.. it’s not a given…

    • #3061780

      guess I’ve been

      by surflover ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      choosing the wrong companies 🙂

    • #3061774

      I have

      by maecuff ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      10 people on my staff. 7 females, 3 males.

      • #3061770

        oh no…

        by jck ·

        In reply to I have

        I smell gender bias…hahahaha

        now you’re keepin the man down!! 😀

        personally if the IT gal is attractive enough, she can keep me down anytime…after work hours, of course…none of that on-the-job closet shenanigans.

        I’ll keep my job, thank you.

        I’ll just save the shenanigans until I run the place ]:)

        • #3061764

          Nope..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to oh no…

          I’m not keeping anyone down. I inherited this staff, so it was someone else.

        • #3072166

          oh…ok…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Nope..

          I didn’t think you sounded like the judgemental feminist type.

          You actually always reminded me of my boss at the government contractor years back. She was my coolest boss ever. Actually talked with me at my interview about Z80 programming. She wasn’t just management…she actually knew what projects involved besides a cost and timeline.

          Good to know you’re not a Schafly-wanna-be.

        • #3072144

          Not even close

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to oh…ok…

          I do, expect equal pay for equal work…would like the respect that goes along with having a penis, all that jazz, however, I’m far from militant.

          I hope I’m a good boss, I treat my employees with respect, I’m as flexible as I can possibly be. My only issue, is that we were all peers before I took this job, so we had already related on a more personal level than most bosses do with their staff. I should probably be a little more removed than I am, however, given the small size of my staff and the close quarters we are in, that isn’t likely.

        • #3072076

          trust me..

          by jck ·

          In reply to Not even close

          don’t grow a penis. I’d respect you less. Although, that probably matters little to you professionally since I’m in no way tied to you in that regard.

          As for the before and after, don’t worry about it. As long as they know they have to do their work and do it, be friends…co-workers…drinking buddies…whatever you were before you moved up.

          I don’t think like the establishment does. I try to be buddies with everyone I work with. If someone disrespects me personally, I don’t carry it into the workplace. If I’m needed to work with them, I do it and do it efficiently. And, it goes the other way. When I was a supervisor, I didn’t crack the whip in the office then buddy-up after hours. I wasn’t out to prove anything to my boss other than I ran the department well as anyone else. And, I didn’t have to alienate others to do so.

          Keep your womanly parts. Keep your attitude. Keep your professionalism. Nothin wrong with you I’ve seen yet. In fact, you’re one of the most professional, well-demeanored women I’ve talked to on this site.

          So if the brass above you tries to change you professionally…tell them to buck off and come back when you’ve broken a term of your employment agreement.

          Otherwise, you can call me and I’ll come up and show them places their ties fit that they wouldn’t have thought they would. 😀

        • #3072972

          jck..okay, I wasn’t really going to GROW one

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to trust me..

          just aquire one and hang it on my wall.

          Your post made me laugh. I report to a VP here and I can assure you he would set you straight on my ‘professionalism’. I routinely refer to him as, well, a very un-PC term that means homosexual. Either that, or I call him the foulest names I can think of just for shock value. And that’s when we’re getting along.

          On the other hand, I do treat my employees and vendors with respect. And I can conduct myself in meetings without resorting to rude hand gestures. I won’t say I’m not thinking rude things, but I can keep them to myself..

        • #3072956

          well…

          by jck ·

          In reply to trust me..

          I didn’t figure you would.

          As for professionalism…you have an established rapport with that VP. Would you do that with any of the other top brass in the corp?

          As I said, you seem professional and well-demeanored to me. You don’t just fire off on anything and everything that crosses your belief system or etiquette.

          Anyways…I better stop now before people think I’m suckin up to you. I’ve already chastised jdclyde for doing it. 😀

        • #3072943

          you aren’t in any danger..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to trust me..

          sucking up to me would get you nothing. I wield no power whatsoever.

        • #3071513

          yeah well

          by jck ·

          In reply to trust me..

          I got in trouble elsewhere…evidently, everyone takes me to be some hard-line, sicko perv.

          I gotta quit teasing with people…evidently I don’t put enough smilies in to let them know it’s a joke or something.

        • #3071234

          actually

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Not even close

          I’ve found that when the boss is perceived as “part of the team” productivity is higher.
          the team doesn’t see the boss as a force to contend against, but as part of themselves, so they respond better when you have to push for deadlines or for improvements in any area.

        • #3072053

          The old boss

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Nope..

          was a bull dyke?

          She leave to become a truck driver and wear flannel?

        • #3072051

          hey now

          by jck ·

          In reply to The old boss

          that doesn’t sound too bad…I have flannel shirts and am good at driving.

          Thanks for the professional advice, sir! 😀

        • #3071956

          Nope

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to The old boss

          The old boss was a male putz. He was the epitome of misogyny. Which, for him, having a predominantly female staff was a good thing. He had more people he could abuse.

    • #3061772

      it’s because

      by jck ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      the man is keepin em down…

      Women revolt!

      Bra burning at jdclyde’s…Friday…he’ll collect them from you personally! 😀

      • #3061767

        Keepin’ em down

        by m_a_r_k ·

        In reply to it’s because

        We’re not as bad as such crummy notorious keep ’em down places like Saudi Arabia. Oddly enough, Karen Hughes was in Saudi Arabia this week to try to furhter the spread of democracy and the American way. She gave a speech to a bunch of Saudi women. These stupid women almost unamimously told Ms. Hughes that they were living happy lives and didn’t mind being oppressed, unable to vote, have a job or drive and being mentally and physically abused by the male gender. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make the damn thing take a sip.

        • #3072165

          yeah…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Keepin’ em down

          that’s similar to all those people who were doing the Lord’s work in Jonestown by drinking cyanide-laced kool-aid too.

          If you’re abused long enough to be broken, you’ll begin to believe anything you’re told.

        • #3072130

          yeah… part 2

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to yeah…

          What is the traditional muslim punishment for women who do not submit to their husbands? Stoning would dissuade a lot of people from the exercise of free speech if their government considered it a crime instead of a right. Comparing those women to horses led to water and refusing to drink is insulting and dishonest.

        • #3071920

          Maybe and maybe not

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to yeah… part 2

          There is a big difference between not realizing what these women have been subjected to, and trying to minimalize it.

          I don’t think MARK was trying to minimalize.

        • #3071935

          If it is all you have known

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Keepin’ em down

          how could they think differently?

          I am sure you have heard similar things from people that have been in prison for long stretches. They will do something so they can get put back in because it is the only life they know.

          You have these women that have been issolated for centuries. No education, so if they were to decide to become independant what would they be able to do?

          They have been beaten down and don’t know which way is up. Pity is a fitting word.

          Although I DO like SOME of the polocies over in Saudi Arabia. Did you know if your wife has an affair you can bury them up to their necks and then throw stones at them until they are dead? How cool is that? ;\

    • #3061763

      Close to even where I work

      by montgomery gator ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      IT is close to even at my work place, with maybe about 55% Male, 45% Female.

    • #3061753

      Blame the Brain

      by jdmercha ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      Male brains and female brains are different. Males and females think differently. Although there are plenty of exceptions, studies show that males tend to be better at focusing in on a single problem. Females tend to be better at managing multiple problems. Females have a tendency to act from emotion. While males tend to act from logic. Thus more males tend to enter scientific work while more females tend to enter human services work.

      The result: more male engineers
      more female nurses
      more male IT professionals
      more female social workers

      • #3061728

        uh oh!

        by itgirli ·

        In reply to Blame the Brain

        I have a female body and a male brain. First I worked with engineers, now I’m in IT. I think logically and have almost no emotions whatsoever.
        (except about politics)

        • #3061722

          You might be…

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to uh oh!

          …the perfect woman!!!

          Did I mention that I am 41, within your desired age range for men? 🙂

        • #3061714

          Tom….

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to You might be…

          …haven’t you mentioned that about 41 times already? haha!

        • #3061676

          she is!!!

          by surflover ·

          In reply to You might be…

          see my reply in the age diff. discussion 🙂

        • #3071918

          I would venture to say

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to she is!!!

          that there are MANY here at TR that would love to meet Girlie or her astral twin somewhere.

          My only grip is that she has read so much more than I have, and I have a “few” years head start.

          The rest of the package though does seem more and more rare these daze. A young woman that is strong willed? Conservative? LOVES Monty Python? What isn’t there to adore?

          Then throw in the little skirt and oh my!

        • #3072172

          ITgirli, How’s the Weather

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to uh oh!

          On Vulcan this time of year?

        • #3071951

          Vulcan women

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to ITgirli, How’s the Weather

          I have always thought Vulcan women were hot!!! Especially T’Pol (however its spelled) from Star Trek Enterprise. ITGirli, you look anything like her? 🙂

        • #3071942

          It’s the ears

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Vulcan women

          Those little points are so hot.

        • #3071917

          Is that why

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It’s the ears

          geeks like elves too?

        • #3073468

          I’m an elf.

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Is that why

          A real one. My ears have no lobes and one of them is pointed. Oddly enough, the other one isn’t. I guess I’m only half-elven.

        • #3073342

          an elf?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          surely a drow… 😀

        • #3073324

          Girli, the elf thing

          by surflover ·

          In reply to Is that why

          just makes you that much more intriguing… are you real? or are all us geeks we just having group male fantasies? :^O

        • #3073307

          You guys are such simpletons

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Is that why

          I hate to tell you guys this but if you wanna know the truth, girli told me that she’s really a 6’3″, 298 lb out-of-work plumber who lounges around all day drinking Schlitz and watching reruns on The Weather Channel. ITgirli’s real name is ITRalph. Don’t tell girli I told you all this. This is supposed to be a secret. I swore that I’d have to kill my 9th-born son if I told anyone.

        • #3073302

          yeah…uh huh

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          And my name’s Victoria and I own a lingerie store…

          And…I do climatology studies for the Bush administration. 😀

        • #3073297

          Victoria!

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Is that why

          You’re Republican. You own a lingerie shop. You’re interested in science. All sounds good but are you single? haha

        • #3073266

          jck

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Is that why

          No. I’m not a Matron Mother or any other level of drow society. Perhaps you have spent too long in Menzoberranzan yourself.

        • #3072852

          which do you mean?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Remember…I’m old school…do you mean the computer game, or the City of Menzoberranzan, City of the Spider Queen? you know…Lolth?

          Too much time in something? Not the computer game I assure you.

          More like Monster Manual or Dungeon Master’s Guide or Deities & Demigods from back around 1981 or so.

          yeah…I played the real D&D…when you had to make up your own character sheets…none of tha pre-fab crap.

          btw…did I mention my middle name is Drizzt? King Drizzt Swill? 😉

        • #3072841

          hmph!

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Drizzt Do’Urden is a drow of character and morals, you are only swill.

        • #3072835

          jck and girli, WTF??

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Drizzl? Mexopotamia? Elven Heaven? Dowdy Doody? Valley of the Spider King? Monster Manuel’s Dark Dungeon? Where are you guys getting this load of crap from?

        • #3072831

          simpletons… yes

          by surflover ·

          In reply to Is that why

          yes we (guys) are simple… beer, sports, sex, and possibly an movie with lots of things blowing up and we’re done… any questions? :^O…

        • #3072777

          oh ITgirli…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          You see…others assumed that Drizzt because drow would be nothing but a dark, evil soul…but, he wasn’t…he broke the mold.

          Much as you assume me to be a single-faceted swill…simply because…you have a pre-conceived notion…

          Guess swill don’t do volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity or the Red Cross either. 😉

          Keep guessin, ITgirli…one day, you’ll be right…maybe…hahaha 😀

        • #3072774

          M_a_r_k

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          well…it’s all based on Dungeons and Dragons…a sub-set called “Forgotten Realms” that came out after the 5 companion sets, 6 companion books, and 1st and 2nd edition hard covers.

          Evidently, ITgirli didn’t know I have been in the game for over 25 years…hehehe.

          Guess swill aren’t supposed to read another other than skin rags either. Oh well, another pre-conceived notion of hers shot to hell. 😀

        • #3073247

          jck

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Is that why

          people judged him by his appearence, I judge you by how you conduct yourself.
          There is a difference.

        • #3073244

          Actually, Mark,

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Is that why

          It is a series of books based on a book written to be created into a game, and I don’t play the game; however, I have read nearly all of the books. Not only in the Dark Elf series, but most of Forgotten Realms.

        • #3073133

          Ya know Girli

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Is that why

          I was betting that was going to be the direction you came from, rather than the game aspect being the read-a-holic that you are.

          No wonder your single. Guys don’t like to look stupid on comparison! That is why the blonde bimbos are so appealing to many! They make an average guy [b]APPEAR[/b] smart. While you make even many above-average guys look dumb. 😀

          Between that and your willingness to put people in their place makes a dangerous combination! If you ever find yourself in Michigan, I know an old geek that would buy you dinner! Some of us actually LIKE a smart woman. 😡

        • #3073048

          Dumb girls and smart guys

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Actually, I prefer smart chicks to dumb chicks. I like a chick who can tell me if my clothes match because I’m tone deaf, balance her own checkbook because I’m uncoordinated and can’t hit the right keys on the calculator, find things for me that I constantly misplace because I’m absentminded as a bat, can fix her own car because I’m mechanically declined, knows how to cook a decent meal because I eat baked chicken three (3) meals a day,… should I go on? Besides all that, and on a more serious note (yes I can be serious on occasion), I hate talking down to anyone. I like someone I can talk to and learn from.

        • #3073011

          appearances, ITgirli

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          you judge me on how I appear to conduct myself on here.

          fact is, you have no idea how I conduct myself in my personal or professional life.

          keep assuming…it fits you well.

        • #3073008

          jdclyde

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          ya know…sucking up can be bad for your health. 😀

        • #3073004

          I prefer the smart ones too…

          by surflover ·

          In reply to Is that why

          (that was pretty good M_a_r_k :^O)… I wont even try to top it) …My best friend is the smartest woman I’ve ever met… We dated for a while… she was a great lover, but she was too intense for me full time… we still get together once in a while, and I really love her company… gotta find one like that that likes to relax a bit more 🙂

        • #3073003

          smart women

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Fact is, I love a smart woman.

          I just don’t like crass, judgemental, overbearing, or pompous women…no matter how smart they are.

          If a woman I’m interested in has to put others down to improve her own image…I don’t need someone like that. I’m better off without her, because she’ll eventually do that to me too. And, I don’t need a backstabber in my personal life.

        • #3072993

          And I like humility too

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Smart is good unless she takes herself too seriously. I like humility, modesty and some self-deprecation. Be sure you get that right. I said self-[i]deprecation[i/], not defecation.

        • #3072992

          how you “appear to conduct yourself”

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Is that why

          this is why I don’t bother to respond to most of your posts, they are mostly pretty worthless. How you “appear to conduct yourself”? And what is that suppose to mean? I think if you conduct yourself one way and everyone sees it, that it would be how you conduct yourself with them. Not much to “appear”. It is you who tries to put people down and talk down to them. Perhaps it makes you feel better and if that’s what it takes, i guess you have to do what you can. But at least stop going out trying to bait people and them calling them names when they get one up on you. You conduct yourself in a most childish way and you do not impress me. Call me names and reply in a rant if you must. Sometimes you almost act like you have some class and I think I can have an enjoyable, playful debate, but then you go and try to cut me down and I find it so very callow. I would expect better from someone who labels themself “mature”.

        • #3072986

          jck, girli

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Is that why

          You two have been sniping at each other all day. Which one of you woke up on the wrong side of the barstool? If one of you says the sky is blue, the other will say it’s burnt orange with mahogany stripes. Either grab your weapon of choice and do away with your nemesis right now, or kiss and make up.

        • #3072983

          ITgirli…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          you’re still making my point for me.

          You’re calling me things (callow, childish) when you judge me for supposedly doing to you what you are doing to me now.

          where in that last post to you did I call you anything? or the one before that to you? I simply pointed out the error in your arguments. I never addressed you with any derrogatory adjectives or nouns. I simply pointed out that you think my banter on here is how I “conduct” myself…evidently…you seem to lack recognition of the sarcasm I post at times as well.

          I won’t go back to all the posts you put toward anyone who disagrees with your views, because it is obvious that anyone who doesn’t fall in line or expresses something you take as a personal attack becomes a target of your scorn. As well by your own standards, your own words would prove yourself to not be “mature” as well.

          And if you don’t want to say anything to me or about me, I’d welcome that…more than you know.

        • #3072982

          M_a_r_k

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          ITgirli started hating me around the time I said (quite sarcastically) once that I wanted to date an 18 year old. That’s when she (and Jessie) started calling me “swill”.

          I guess she takes personal offenses to guys who don’t openly profess love for only women over 22, or women who are single parents. She seems to take it as a personal affront to her integrity.

          For some reason, she just despises me and seems to think I’m in the league with axe murderers and pedophile priests.

          Like I told her…let her keep assuming…

          I’m like you, M_a_r_k. I like a woman who is unassuming, graceful, humble, and who knows when the appropriate and proper time to make corrective statements.

          BTW, I think it’s her bed…probably made of nails or broken glass 😉

          P.S.- better get the weapons…cause…I won’t be kissin anyone with that much venom coming out of their mouth.

        • #3072978

          Mark,

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Is that why

          now do you see why? And you will remember his other post when he said he just wanted to watch Jesse and I attack him. He wants to feel better about himself by being stupid and blames us for it. I remember no such argument about him wanting to be with an 18 year old, that’s legal and his business. it was about the meaning of a true parent that he went astray and started his attacks against us. You can make up your own mind about him, though he’s already told you how to make up your mind about us.

        • #3072957

          ITgirli doesn’t remember a lot, M_a_r_k

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Here’s a really brief recap for you, M_a_r_k:

          ITgirli originally made the post about most of the world listening to Howard Stern being “swill” after I’d defended him…she was the first to imply I was swill…(4/20/05)

          Jessie agreed later in other posts and called me swill too.

          then in another thread, I’d joked with sleepindawg about thinking about askin if his 18 year old daughter was single after he’d started a friday yuk about daughters…

          then…jdclyde said I was swill.

          then, ITgirli jumped on to bash…and bash…and bash…

          it hasn’t stopped since then.

        • #3072941

          “Can’t we all just get along”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Is that why

          He says as the nightstick wacks him upside the head….

          jkc – Do you really think I was sucking up? We both know that Girli isn’t someone that would be going for someone like me, so you know that wouldn’t be a motive. How many people OUR age do you know that have read half as much as she has? I was not sucking up, and was only stating what I see as facts. Was it a compliment? In my own sick and twisted way it was a very high compliment. Did she take it that way? Who knows…

          Swill, as need as I can track it down the first reference was in “the Best Song of all time” discussion where jck prasied Howard Stern and girli commented [i]”The fact that people continue to listen to such refuse leads me to continue in my beliefs that the majority of our society is absolute ignorant swill.”[/i]
          The reply from jck was [i]”fact is tho, he’s stayed in radio for 30 years now. Quite successfully, I might add
          Well, I’m swill and an a**hole now.
          I’ll have to put that on the resume.”[/i]

          The exchange about the 18 year olds and such were not until after this title was self-proclaimed. (4/20/05)

          It was refered to a few more times, many again self-proclaimed. From there is stuck as kind of a running joke I guess. Few took or take it seriously. Girli does.

          Can’t please everyone. I KNOW there are those that think much worse of me out here, but what can you do? Talk to the ones you agree with, argue with the ones you don’t and ignore the ones that there is no chance of a middle ground.

          I have been accused by you jck of sucking up a few times? Why when someone attacks you, I am your target? When I disagree with you, I address you directly, not as a sideways comment to someone else? And no matter how wrong I THINK you are at times, I still don’t get personal and attack you? (calling you a liberal nut is not an attack! 🙂 )

          I won’t get in the middle of whatever it is that is between the two of you or Max and you.

          They both say a lot that I agree with and respect. Telling them this is not sucking up.

        • #3072926

          oh man…it’s that time of the month or something

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Listen…jdclyde…

          that was meant jokingly… it’s why I put the little 😀 thing after it…a smile…a laugh…joke…earth humour…ar ar…get it?

          I’ll just stop talkin to you if you can’t take a poke. I thought we’d hashed out this serious crap months ago and got to actually understanding we had a playful banter going.

          She did make the first allusion (not direct reference) on 4/20 in the Howard Stern thing that I was among the Stern listeners she thought swill.

          Anyways…think what you want…I wish you luck too. But, I wasn’t shoving crap in your face or trying to cut you down…

          enjoy

        • #3071519

          Okay, that’s enough

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Y’all need to start playing nice. Cut it out, right now or you’ll have to stand in the corner and hold hands.

          Besides, none of this means ANYTHING anyway. Chill. Have a drink. Go cure cancer. Just stop taking this so seriously.

          Of course, you realize this isn’t true if I get my panties in a bunch about something. THEN it’s important..

        • #3071510

          yes ma’am, maecuff

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          I’m gonna suck up to you now, since you told me up yonder I wasn’t in any danger 😉 haha

          I wanna be teacher’s pet! WAH!!! 😀 hahaha

        • #3071509

          You are all OK with me

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Thanks for enlightening me on the origins of this feud. Sounds like it snowballed. Kinda like the origins of World War I, if you wanna know the truth. I suppose I should dump the usual philosophical crap on you, like “live and let live”, but you guys would try to turn it into “live and let [i]die[/i]”. So I’ll find a safe place, sit back and watch the mud get slung, daggers get flung and fists get swung.

        • #3071447

          I Never thought

          by surflover ·

          In reply to Is that why

          that this thread could get so ugly… Mark, I’m with you … I’ve been staying on the sidelines waiting for this to settle… Swill, you, JD and Girli need to come to some level of peace… you don’t have to like each other, but personal attacks are not very pretty… nor interesting… let’s go back to flaming each other when we say something stupid… and leave it at that… 🙁 (i’m sure I’ll post something stupid soon so y’all can jump me big time :-))

        • #3071316

          peace

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          I tried clamming up before…and just not talking to her and Jessie. Jessie actually has been on socialable terms in the few times we’ve exchanged since then.

          However, ITgirli piped up again and made little slights against me and inferences in relation to me. So, I’m not feeling guilty in one bit of minutia thinking what I do about her and expressing that. I stopped firing and she kept taking cheap shots. She broke the peace.

          So, let her think what she wants about me. Just because I make little sarcastic quips or try in earnest to enlighten her to different points of view, she always takes it as a personal affront and that I’m just attacking her for no reason. But after all the personal indignations she’s said about me that she has, I don’t feel at all bad about the occassional banter I throw back at her. Humble pie is hard to eat, and she evidently has a really bad “gag reflex” in relation to her ego.

          Anyways…I’ve spent enough time talking about her. I’d rather get back into talking to Maxwell about climatology or neilb about beer or gadgetgirl about Britain. I came here to enjoy myself, not have to fend off typographical suicide bombers.

        • #3071277

          Gee Surf

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Is that why

          I was an innocent by stander!

          I did see a need to speak up about the “sucking up” post that was thrown my way. Some “jokes” sometimes have a barb and as that wasn’t the first time jck has said this directly to me as a way to make a slam back at someone else, I had to speak my mind.

          The same happened when he got his panties in a bind at MAX. I agreed with Max on a few things so I am a suckup.

          Just didn’t see the humo(u)r in this joke, emoicon or not.

          Maybe a peer mail would have been better, maybe ignoring it would have been even better. I just feel that people that suckup are people with no integrity and some things like that I take very seriously.
          [b]
          Joke about my (lack of) hair, weight, age, wife or whatever. All in good fun, right? But my work ethics, personal believes and standards, boys and dog are all out of bounds for it to be a “joke” to me.[/b]

          I get along with jck just fine, even if he is a liberal in conseratives clothings. Most of his political beliefs are very different from mine as I AM NOT “liberal” nor “progressive” in anyway.

          The war between jck and girli is theirs alone and I want nothing to do with it. I tried before to broker a peace but it didn’t fly. I am out of it.

        • #3071238

          I’d rather be left alone

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to Is that why

          I’d rather have him stop trying to bait me by responding to posts I have directed towards other individuals. I’d like to talk to the people here that aren’t hate mongers without having people attack me because they responded to a post not directed towards them. But this is the Internet and it’s free for all and open to everyone, so he’ll do what he will and I will try to ignore him, though it would be easier if he would stop directing attacks on me just out of spite.

        • #3071228

          girli, maybe he’s not really attacking you

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Is that why

          maybe he’s really trying to flirt with you. 😀

          girli, all kidding aside, you do seem to have a love-hate relationship with several people here. I’ve noticed that some guys jump all over you no matter what you say. You know, the ol’ “sky is blue; sky is orange” thing. I guess that’s the price you gotta pay for being such a controversial little lightning rod. 😉 That’s OK. You can’t please all the people all the time, and all people can’t please you all the time. And I have no business giving anybody any kind of advice about that sort of thing because I can be as prejudiced and bigotted (?) and hate-mongering as anyone. But I digress…I think you’re cool. Keep up your controversial lightning roddedness. 😀

        • #3071226

          then consider it done

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          I won’t address you in any way from now on…until the point you make roundabout comments involving me or my comments.

          Then, I’ll start again and after that I won’t hold back words and will probably get removed as a user.

          Again, I’m clamming up. We’ll see how long it takes you this time.

          Enjoy the peace while you let it last.

        • #3071222

          M_a_r_k

          by jck ·

          In reply to Is that why

          Trust me. Your hypothesis is wrong about me and my intentions.

          I know you’re jesting, but I don’t want to leave any doubt.

        • #3135913

          vulcan is…

          by person125545 ·

          In reply to Vulcan women

          traditionally the tenth planet that we have just discovered, assigned to virgo. Virgo males perhaps aren’t quite as mysoginist.

        • #3072830

          No emotions?

          by denise.vrantsidis ·

          In reply to uh oh!

          If you are human, you have emotions. If you don’t, you are abnormal. Don’t speak for any other women in IT, please.

        • #3073243

          I wasn’t

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to No emotions?

          Get off your high horse and get a clue.

        • #3073044

          Cat fight!

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I wasn’t

          😀

        • #3073023

          i’m waiting to see if she replys to girli

          by surflover ·

          In reply to Cat fight!

          :^O

        • #3072979

          hey M_a_r_k

          by jck ·

          In reply to Cat fight!

          you make the popcorn…I’ll buy the beer! 😀

        • #3072933

          MARK

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Cat fight!

          (posted here as last thread was too long to deal with)

          I can’t believe none of the IT Babes didn’t come down on you HARD for calling them “chicks”! 😀 That has always been fight’en words whenever I hear them is seems! ;\

          But yes, a dumb person is just annoying and I could never go out with a woman I thought was dumb. everytime they say something stupid, it is like another mental scar appears and after a while you can’t stand to look at them!

          And yes, a good catfight is always cool! go for the top! It’s a rip’away! woo woo! ]:)

        • #3072916

          call em birds

          by jck ·

          In reply to MARK

          or something…hens…hehehe

        • #3071494

          chicks

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to MARK

          Nah…I think “chick” is an affectionate albeit sarcastic term for the stronger gender. And I think everyone knows by know that I’m one sarcastic kind of guy. I would never call a woman a “babe” though, as you just did! HAHA I would never call a babe a “broad”, either. That’s a disrespectful term. You know, a good thing about writing stuff as opposed to saying it is that we can get away with so much more offensive crap. Poetic license, or whatever.

        • #3115801

          JD

          by surflover ·

          In reply to MARK

          I had a girl who worked for me at my last job that could lower your IQ just by talking to her… Mt director of development wouldn’t allow her in his office at all :^O, she once had the audacity to brag to me (I was 5 steps up the food chain from her) that she had everyone else doing her work (she was very attractive)… When I asked her why then I should have her on the payroll, she didn’t even understand what I was referring to…

      • #3061726

        Ugh

        by maecuff ·

        In reply to Blame the Brain

        This drives me nuts. My female staff can focus on a single problem just FINE. And they are NOT the exception. That is ludicrous. Men act from logic??? Women from emotion?? How many times have you seen women ranting and raving at work?? I don’t see it often, but the men sure have a tendancy toward that behavior. I would put that in the ‘acting from emotion’ bucket. I am not going to deny that men are logical, but no more or no less than women. It’s a HUMAN thing, not a gender thing. As far as your example goes, I would say a nurse damn well better be able to focus and act logically in the course of his or her job.

        • #3072129

          The key word is “tend”

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to Ugh

          The ability to focus on a single problem and the tendancy to do so are two completely different things. My comments did not not state that one gender is better at something than the other. Only that they have a tendancy to behave in a certain way.

          For that matter if you compare 100 female engineers to 100 male nurses, you will probably find that the males nurses will tend to act from emotion while the female engineers will tend to act from logic.

        • #3073817

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to The key word is “tend”

          Nope. You can’t hide behind the word ‘TEND’. I’d have to say that this ‘study’ is bullsh*t. There are differences between men and women, but I don’t think they are as black and white as you say. It’s insulting and wrong to imply in ANY way that men are more logical than women. Some PEOPLE are more logical than other PEOPLE, it isn’t based on gender.

        • #3072894

          Tend makes all the difference in the world

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to

          I never claimed that men are more logical than women.

          It is entirely in the realm of possibility that a women who tends to act out of emotion can still be more logical than a man who tends to act out of logic.

        • #3072827

          Still an idiot

          by denise.vrantsidis ·

          In reply to Tend makes all the difference in the world

          You are still an idiot and still the boss, which means you will have a logical tendency to hire more idiots like you, which in turn, will replicate even more idiots within IT. Sorry for that emotional outburst of frustration with idiots.

        • #3073001

          Did you notice?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Still an idiot

          Denise’s profile indicates she is from Canada. Maybe that explains her arrogant attitude, like some (not all) of the Canadians who post here?
          🙂

        • #3072954

          Actullay

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to Still an idiot

          You are correct, though emotional.

        • #3114632

          No offense….

          by acp2g ·

          In reply to Still an idiot

          but your reply just sealed his statement.

          Are you under the age of 30, Denise?

        • #3072847

          Are you serious?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to

          Look at it this way:

          If you picked out 100 women at random and 100 men at random, and of them 30% of women were vegan or vegetarian and 10% of men were vegan or vegetarian, wouldn’t you say that the women in the study “tend” toward vegetarianism more than the men?

          Now extend that. Let’s say it’s 1000 of each, so that you’ve got a more statistically significant sampling.

          Let’s make it 10000 of each, actually. Let’s assume about the same percentages. Don’t you think it would be fair to say that women “tend” to be vegetarians or vegans more often than men?

          If a study suggest that women tend to act from emotion more often than men, that’s the results of the study. Period. It only measures one metric, ignoring things like why women might tend to act more from emotion (such as the possibility that it is derived from being raised on Barbie and infant dolls rather than GI Joe and skateboards), or whether the smaller “logical” percentage of women might tend to act more logically than the larger “logical” percentage of men on average, but that doesn’t change the fact that, according to the study’s results, women tend to act from emotion more often than men.

          I haven’t checked out the study. I don’t know how rigorously it was controlled, what definitions of terms they used, what the sampling was, or anything like that. For all I know, the study might actually be “bogus”, due to a lack of good application of scientific principles and statistical analysis. You don’t seem to be disagreeing with it on those grounds, though. You seem to be disagreeing with it because you [b]don’t want it to be true[/b].

          Political correctness should never stand in the way of legitimate research. Period.

        • #3073025

          Exactly

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to Are you serious?

          I got this information from a Science Channel program. (Or one of those types of channels.) One example they used was a Baseball scout who focused so much on games on TV he shout out everything else. There was no way that his wife or even the researcher could get his attention while the game was on. Thus demonstrating the male tendancy to focus intently on a single thing.

        • #3073024

          Yes

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Exactly

          I can see how that one example WOULD prove your point. Of course, if I’m reading a book, it takes a couple of trys to get my attention. And if my son is playing a video game, it takes a few trys to get his attention. And if my mother is talking on the phone, you can’t distract her all that easily. What is the point here? All I can say is, male or female, if you are focused on something, you are focused. This is not just a male trait.

        • #3072942

          tendency vs. possibility

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Exactly

          Yes, it’s not “just a male trait” to focus. That’s not even close to what jdmercha was saying, though, as far as I can tell. He was talking about statistical, comparative, gender-based tendencies. That’s another bag of weasels entirely.

        • #3072939

          Whatever you want to call it..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Exactly

          It still makes no sense to me. We can just mark this down as one more thing that I just don’t want to be true.

        • #3137267

          Logic verses Emotion is meaningless

          by merrua ·

          In reply to Are you serious?

          Emotion is a requirement of intelligence
          you cant make an intelligent being with logic alone.It took the people in AI 50 years to figure that out.

          So all this logic verses emotion is meaningless. You cant do technical work without emotion, so being more logical doesnt give anyone an advantage.

          Logic being proritised over emotion
          has been a tendancy for the last couple of
          hundred years. Now that we know its pointless.
          why dont we drop it?

      • #3061723

        This brain study

        by neil higgins ·

        In reply to Blame the Brain

        is interesting.I tried to understand Freud,but got lost in the translation.Where I work,both male,and female IT workers tend to be different in the way the company “uses us”.The guys go out and do the field work,at whatever company needs our help,whilst the girls answer calls at the main office,sort out the “hardware” and “software” IT stuff we may need,issue the contract documents,and log our schedules.I’m not saying this is the “norm”,but such is life.Just for the record,many of my female collegues know as much about IT as the guys.My boss is female,or God as we call her.What she does’nt know about IT,would’nt fill a postcard.She’s one cool lady and respected by everyone.

        • #3115332

          Uses

          by afigment ·

          In reply to This brain study

          In the last company I worked for about 1/3 or the IT staff were women. We worked in all positions – programers, system analysts, IT mgmt & field services. The CIO is a woman. I worked in field services and for some reason, all of the women that worked in my department had the busiest zones that we were responsible for. Whenever a man had those zones, they could not handle the pressure. LOL

          My zone was one of the busiest zones that consisted of 25 medical clinics & hospitals scattered around NE Florida that I was soley responsible for their computers & printers. Plus, if one of my coworkers was out or needed assistance, I would help in their zones also. Just call me Wonder Woman!!!!

      • #3072120

        Females have a tendency to act from emotion?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Blame the Brain

        Which females? Which emotion? The only emotion I’ve seen women express more than men is grief — they cry. Men scream until they’re blue in the face. Have you ever seen a woman do that? Exclude screaming at their own children or family, and the answer is of course, no. Men are much more prone to outbursts of anger.

        The average female scientist is a better science student than the average male scientist. I suspect that a lot of the women who are not scientists are equally or more capable of doing the work than the excess males who do study science. The difference is not ability, but honest recognition of the limits of their ability.

        • #3073022

          Yes

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to Females have a tendency to act from emotion?

          “Men scream until they’re blue in the face. Have you ever seen a woman do that?”

          You’ve obviously never watched Cops.

          BTY – The emotion vs. logic theory has nothing to do with abilities. It has more to do with gut reactions. A women is every bit as capable as a man at acting out of logic. It’s the gut reaction, the first instint of a woman that tend to be more emotional.

        • #3073002

          You get

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Yes

          more off track with every post. Just from having children, I can say you are off base. My son hit his head when he was 7 months old and it started to bleed. His dad freaked out and I had to send him from the room so that I could tend to my child. Of course I was frightened, but I didn’t let that take over UNTIL I determined that the injury wasn’t as bad as it looked. I’ve had this conversation with MANY women. We’ve talked about falling to pieces AFTER a crises is tended to. If we acted, in the first instant, emotionally, we wouldn’t be able to assess the problem as clearly. And, please, don’t say this only applies to mothers and babies. I’ve had issues, as have female collegues, that required an immediate, non-emotional response. We usually handle it just fine. Without the yelling, screaming, spit flying from the mouth reaction that I’ve seen from men.

          I’d have to say, that from your post, it is YOUR personal opinion that women are emotional at the ‘first instant’. What support do you have for that claim?

        • #3057663

          I’m with you Mae

          by surflover ·

          In reply to You get

          anyone who has seen an ER nurse deal with a guy who planted a motorcycle on the pavement at better than a safe xway speed can attest that they can be cool as cucumbers in a crisis… I don’t think women “act” from emotions as much as their frame of reference is founded in the emotional realm… when I speak to female colleagues about a situation, I’m much more likely to get information about the participant’s feelings and reasons for actions than I would from a guy… and I’ve seen many more incidents where a guy will blow up at a situation, where a female does not (although I’ve also seen them fall apart in private after the fact)… perhaps it’s because they consider the feelings of the person they’d like to blow up at before they do (I don’t think we (guys) think about the feelings of those around us very often, certainly not often enough)…

        • #3069355

          As I stated in another post

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to You get

          I got this information off a show on the Science Channel. And there are many examples to disprove it. I can relate to your child example. I too would freak out, while my wife took care of the injury. But I would definately classify my wife as having more of a tendancy to act from emotions. Still it is only a tendancy and she will act 90% of the time from logic.

        • #3071215

          I don’t agree..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Yes

          in emergency situations 90% of people, both male and female, have an automatic emotional response, called panic.
          of the 10% remaining, 9.8% are trained to the point of overriding that automatic response.
          the other 0.2% are freaks that do not react normally.

          any sudden realisation of a problem causes this reaction, it’s the ancient fight or flight reflex kicking in.

        • #3071204

          Thanks

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to I don’t agree..

          That was a bit more succinct than my reply. 🙂

        • #3069387

          Everybody on Cops is nuts

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Yes

          There are no rational reactions from either gender, so I’ll rephrase: do you see women (in real life, not TV) lose their tempers as often and as badly as men? Males and females may have tendencies to express different emotions, but there is nothing rational about your premise that thinking logically and expressing emotion are mutually exclusive. Logical people still have emotions. Mr. Spock was [b]fictional[/b].

        • #3069345

          Eample

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to Everybody on Cops is nuts

          I’ve studied the martial arts for over 15 years. I’ve noted that women are much more likely than men to get angry when sparring.

          I would agree that there is no rationality to it. It is only the result of a statisitcal analysis. And only an interpretation of the analysis at that.

        • #3069309

          okay

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Eample

          And when a male and female get into a fender bender situation, who gets more emotional? It seems that more often than not, men come out with their hands in a fist. I would say that is emotional. The only thing you are proving, is that humans react emotionally in given situations. Men and women.

        • #3066229

          I wouldn’t know.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to okay

          I don’t get into fender benders.

        • #3066177

          Apotheon..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to okay

          Okay, you don’t have fender benders. But I’d be willing to bet that you still get my point.

        • #3066090

          kinda

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to okay

          . . . but men getting angry when people run into them isn’t any indicator that they’re more emotional than women. I imagine that women, thanks to their unequal upbringing, often burst into tears. I know they tend to exhibit strong emotional reactions more often when pulled over for speeding, at least from what I’ve seen.

          Anger isn’t the only emotion.

        • #3066084

          Of course

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to okay

          Neither is crying the only outcome of an emotion. Fear, surprise, loathing, hatred, love, disgust… all emotions. All humans are capable of feeling and reacting to any of these and many more.

          The whole bursting in to tears thing..sheesh. Bursting into tears isn’t the only outcome to any emotional feeling. Okay, it’s not to say that it doesn’t happen, but I don’t know many women who burst in to tears easily. There are some, but I’ve known men who were prone to tears also.

          The point is not so much HOW people react to emotions, but rather women reacting EMOTIONALLY versus LOGICALLY.

        • #3065997

          Why that reaction?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to okay

          I never said bursting into tears was the only emotional reaction. I just pointed out that your reference to men being angry in fender benders was hardly an indicator that men are more emotional, since anger isn’t the only possible reaction.

          The truth of the matter is that men are “trained” by social pressures to tend more toward anger than women, and women are “trained” by social pressures to tend more toward tears than men. Thus, if you see a bunch of men shaking their fists at traffic accidents, I suspect there are as many women sitting in their cars crying under the same circumstances. Everyone’s going to have an emotional reaction to a car accident: everyone. It’s a scary, adrenaline-starting event.

          What makes the difference is not whether someone is having an emotional reaction, but whether that emotional reaction is affecting the person’s ability to make a sound decision under pressure. I don’t care much if you’re shaking your fist or have tears streaming down your face: if you jump in your car and drive away, leaving the scene of the accident without at least talking to the other person, you screwed up.

        • #3065975

          Well,

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to okay

          I guess it was to point out that ‘tears’ aren’t the only reaction to emotions, just as you pointed out that anger isn’t the only emotion. And again, I’m trying to get away from the ‘why women cry and why men don’t’ thing, that’s a different discussion. What I’m trying to get back to, is no matter what has been said thus far, I don’t see a compelling argument that proves women usually act on emotion instead of logic.

          I guess if we go by sit-coms, romantic comedies and romance novels, we have all the proof we need. I just don’t believe that an entire gender falls into that role. I don’t think it is gender based.

        • #3070172

          fair ’nuff

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to okay

          There are studies whose “professional” interpretations seem to contradict your opinion, but such interpretations have been wrong before, and such professionals sometimes overlook some important detail that would be obvious to just about anyone else. The only reason I really even got involved in the discussion of the studies in question, for the most part, is the fact that I tend to be put off by people making accusations of chauvinism just because someone dared to quote research.

          The whole deal is clearly more complex, it seems to me, than a mere case of emotion vs. logic.

        • #3070060

          Close as we’re going to get..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to okay

          I wouldn’t presume to understand or even claim to have read such ‘studies’, I can only go by my own personal day to day experiences, including my own and the people around me.

          My stepdaughter and I were walking last night and we discussed this issue. She asked why someone couldn’t be emotional and logical? Which kind of gets back to the point that it’s hard to compare these two things.

      • #3072832

        Blame the Boss

        by denise.vrantsidis ·

        In reply to Blame the Brain

        It is having men like you in positions of power that keep women out of IT positions. You justify your chauvanistic attitude with scientific studies, but you are still a chauvanist and so is most of the world.

        • #3072999

          Maybe it is..

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Blame the Boss

          Women with atitudes like yours that have trouble getting jobs. Men with the same attitude would also have trouble getting a job.

        • #3071367

          WTF?

          by ldyosng ·

          In reply to Blame the Boss

          “but I’m not bitter, or anything like that . . . .”

      • #3116725

        Wrong Opposites

        by stomfi9 ·

        In reply to Blame the Brain

        The opposing part of the brain to the logic quadrant is creativity, emotion is in the rear quadrant and corresponds to list processing, another “normal” male attribute.

        This is why so many accountants are also male, a similar occupation.

        Any intelligent “normal” male will realise that if they want to use a whole brain approach to solve higher level problems, then having a one to one “normal” female partner is a mandatory requisite.

        There are a very few of us of either sex who have equal abilities in both sides of the brain. These are the socially aware geniuses.

        So you can glean from this that creativity by the majority of IT workers is not a requirement of the job.

      • #3116985

        Focusing

        by ladyreader ·

        In reply to Blame the Brain

        Interesting you say that. Men have often accused women of being “scatter-brained”, when in reality perhaps we’re just better at multi-tasking, and the poor males can’t keep up.

      • #3081704

        I’d like to see

        by itmomma ·

        In reply to Blame the Brain

        that study conducted today.. You always hear about ‘studies show’… from what decade.. ?

        I think the stats would show a different picture if done more recently.

      • #3146115

        I agree

        by it_hottie ·

        In reply to Blame the Brain

        jdmercha has a point! But not all women, I am emotional but I don’t use it in the workplace. I tend to manage multiple task, think logically and focus on what I do. The work place is not a place for emotions, just for the brains. I come to work to think and not to feel.

        If women wants to be in the world of men, then she should think like a man but still have the beauty and body of a woman.

        I went to an interview with 5 men knowing I would be joining their team of 6 when hired. I know I project the image of a woman and I know I am beautiful, but I took all that out of consideration and just focus on thinking like one of them.

    • #3061688

      Because we are all

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      propeller heads with no social skills, incapable of holding a conversation about none IT topics.

      Where can I get help with this self esteem problem, I seem to have.

      • #3061655

        As Eliza

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Because we are all

        (If you don’t know what Eliza is then shame on you!)

        http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~humphrys/eliza.html

      • #3071365

        Hey, now!

        by ldyosng ·

        In reply to Because we are all

        I learned a L-O-N-G time ago that the very best guys to date were the nerds – they ALWAYS kept at the task at hand until they got it right (and they were so grateful to have a girlfriend that they treated me like gold), AND they didn’t mind if I liked doing nerd stuff, too! Geek girls rock!

        • #3071253

          re: geek girls

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Hey, now!

          No argument here. Geek girls rock.

          Of course, it’s difficult to [b]not[/b] rock, when your competition is so slim. Genuine geek girls are one in a million, or fewer, it seems.

        • #3057715

          So what is the definition

          by ldyosng ·

          In reply to re: geek girls

          of a genuine geek girl? I’m really more tech than geek – an aircraft mechanic by training, a data wonk by necessity (and because it’s FUN.) I’d much rather play with computers than airplanes, though. But women like ITGrli make me look like a moron by comparison. I’m pretty good at what I do, but I still feel like a rank amateur so often.

        • #3057639

          “genuine geek”

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to So what is the definition

          A genuine geek, as opposed to a wannabe or pseudo geek (to sorta coin phrases, perhaps), is someone that is absorbed by the technical aspects of a thing. To put it in the most common “geek” terms around here (computers), a computer geek is someone that habitually has the sides off his system case, extra cables and parts lying around his bedroom, learns a scripting language, reads system administrator manuals for fun, and is easily led into lengthy discussions of the comparative advantages of various operating system architectures. A faux geek is someone that knows what the best benchmarking 3d graphics card on the market is at a given time, buys Alienware systems without ever opening them up, and spends all his time playing Diablo.

          There can certainly be some crossover between the two, but the salient point is that a “genuine” computer geek doesn’t just use a computer as a tool for entertainment: to a geek, the computer [b]is the entertainment[/b].

          You can apply much the same principles of identification to other areas of geek interest, of course: a band geek loves learning and playing music while a mere band member loves the fact that the sax gets the girl; a literature geek can get lost in books for hours and will spend inordinate amounts of time thinking about the characteristics of various writers’ styles rather than simply aiming to be well-read so he can impress others with his skillful application of deconstructionism to the task of criticism and analysis; an autoshop geek will fix others’ cars for free, while a mere autoshop student thinks it might get him a job some day and help him spiff up his car so it’ll look cool and make loud noises.

          That’s my take, anyway.

        • #3057557

          Hmmmm. Well maybe

          by ldyosng ·

          In reply to “genuine geek”

          Thanks, apotheon. Maybe I am a real geek. Just not an uber-geek. Either way, playing with this electronic lego is fun.

    • #3061633

      I agree somewhat

      by av . ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      Places I have worked at in corporate America always had women in the IT department in a support or administrative role, but mostly all of the managers were male. IT is a male dominated field, as far as management goes.

      I would even say that in some places there is a “boys club” where the male support or administrative workers bond with male management. Female IT workers are not part of that bonding.

      I don’t think most women are interested in the nuts and bolts of computing. There are more today than 10 years ago, but its far from balanced.

      • #3072034

        Not necessarily

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to I agree somewhat

        I worked in corporate Canada, in a firm with tens of thousands of US employees. My first boss was female. In fact she rose up from being an admin assistant to a project manager, to a departmental manager. When I left she was a director. My other female boss in the same company was a former programmer – she was my remote boss, in North Carolina.

        I’ve worked with lots of female techs, programmers and project managers, as well as female managers.

        I haven’t experienced the boys club, except with one outsourcer I worked with, with a bunch of junior PC techs who were sexist pigs with one of their collegues, and a supervisor who ingnored it. I sent off a lightening bolt and that situation changed…..

        James

        • #3073913

          How did you feel about having a female boss?

          by av . ·

          In reply to Not necessarily

          I think alot of men have a problem with women bosses. You are an exception. Of course, maybe its more acceptable in Canada.

          I have a friend that works for a large financial corporation in the US. She is in charge of the all-male network guys. They absolutely hate her and try to do everything they can to give her a hard time. She was promoted into that job from another area of the company and I guess some of the network guys thought they were more qualified to do the job.

          I just think if a guy was promoted into that job from another area of the company he would have been accepted into the “club”. I’m sure there would have been power games, but the male bonding would still happen.

          I’ve been a woman in IT for over 20 years and I was hoping to see more of a shift away from a “boys club” mentality, but it still exists today, too much.

          What did you do to stop it? I’m not sure if you’re talking about a sexual harassment type situation or just plain head games.

        • #3073849

          If you’d read my post

          by neil higgins ·

          In reply to How did you feel about having a female boss?

          you will have noticed that I too have a female boss.She has a first in computer science and maths,worked for her masters,and now is THE senior manager of the company.She worked her way up from making the tea,running errands,programming,junior office manager,senior line-manager,and finally God.She aint a director yet,but no doubt she will be. 🙂

        • #3073582

          It sounds like your boss is well qualified

          by av . ·

          In reply to If you’d read my post

          I think you’re referring to the “this brain study” post.

          It sounds like you are the kind of guy that will look beyond gender and respect your boss, male or female, if they know their stuff. But you still did say “My boss is female,or God as we call her.” You can take that 2 ways. Either you’re in awe of her capabilities or you think she’s too controlling.

          It sounds like women are cast in a more supportive, administrative position at your company. Don’t they have women and men doing field work? I just don’t understand why not.

          Maybe you can accept that hardware/software as the norm because you are a man, but for a woman in IT, thats a real kick in the skirt. I would like to think that if you know IT as well as the guys, there would be an equal opportunity.

        • #3073557

          As a male

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It sounds like your boss is well qualified

          it’s bad for my self-esteem to constantly wonder if I would have gotten my job if some women hadn’t been eliminated from consideration because of their gender. Or it would be, if I believed that. What I actually believe is that studies showing that women make $0.70/$1 that men make are themselves biased. They ignore time taken off for maternity leave, which has two effects. First, it is time they are not doing work (for their employer), and not being paid. Second, they are not acquiring new skills or even maintaining the ones they have. They return to the workplace less qualified than they left it. Finally, those studies compare “similar”, not identical, jobs. If there were a true pay discrepancy for equal results, no men would ever be hired. Businesses pursue profit, not gender bias.

        • #3072686

          Companies will always comply with gender bias laws

          by av . ·

          In reply to As a male

          But, they also consider what they think will work the best for them. Usually, a position of responsibility in the IT world goes to a man.

          I’m sure it has alot to do with maternity leave and raising young children, but employers can’t say that. Women do lose their focus, temporarily. It can’t be helped. Companies have to accommodate that. Unfortunately, if you are a woman with no children that has the same focus as a man, you are short-changed anyway because you could have children.

          What if you are a man with a sick wife or parent that you have to take care of. What if you get sick? Doesn’t that put you in the same category as a woman with kids? Maybe you should be paid at the woman’s rate of pay because of that? $.70 on a $1. You are not as good as you were before your triple bypass, or your wife got sick or one of your parents has a long illness. You’ve lost your focus. You haven’t kept up your skills. You are not as qualified as before.

          Women have always been paid less to do the same job. Its better than it was 20 years ago, but it still happens. Companies can call a job any title they want, but its still the same job description.

          We all have our limitations as human beings. Businesses pursue profit, always, but they need to figure in the human condition.

        • #3072843

          Firstly I understand

          by neil higgins ·

          In reply to It sounds like your boss is well qualified

          your frustration.Secondly,my “female” boss has a plaque in her office which says “I am God” :)Yes she is a female who’s got to the top by working hard,and not accepting any crap.There are oppertunities for ANY female to “get out there” and get there hands dirty,and I agree,they would be as good as the guys,but life aint that kind.Besides my IT line manager would have a fit letting a guy answer the phone,and make the tea…Only joking!!!

        • #3072669

          She must be a tough boss

          by av . ·

          In reply to Firstly I understand

          I think I would be wary of any boss that had a plaque that said “I am God.” Even if I thought it was done in jest.

          I guess theres an equal opportunity but no woman would really want the job even if she could do it. Thats ok.

          Someone always has to answer the phone and make the tea, for sure, but I wouldn’t choose a guy to do it either. Its not their thing in life and they stinketh at it.

        • #3073450

          Didn’t matter either way.

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to How did you feel about having a female boss?

          I didn’t see my female bosses in any different light – I tend to think that it always has to be case by case and generalizations based on sex or race or religion are dangerous.

          I don’t doubt that in the first situation that I and my co-workers were more qualified to be desktop techs than she was. But the point was she was more qualified to manage, deal with difficult customers, work with senior management etc. She was a good boss. Thats all that mattered.

          The sexual harassment situation was not an overt touching or propositioning, but it doesn’t have to be that to be harassment. It was more lewd comments designed to make her feel uncomfortable. What did I do to stop it? I spoke to my boss to make sure my management was onside, then I spoke to management at the outsourcing company. They replaced the supervisor with an older no nonsense type and voila, it went away.

          James

          James

      • #3115461

        shouldn’t speak for everyone

        by itamazon ·

        In reply to I agree somewhat

        While there is a higher percentage of males in the IT world, I have worked in the IT industry for over 15 years. I have worked with many women, myself included that are very interested in the nuts and bolts of computing and have held engineering and management positions. Many may not think that women are interested; however, that wouldn’t be true.

    • #3072171

      Because they’re too smart

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      IT is for anally retentives who think technology is more important than people. They develop this attitude after failing to achieve success with the opposite sex. Women realize people are more important than technology, and they have a much better success rate when trying to score. Hence they have better things to do.

      Ain’t nobody here but us pasty-face, basement-dwelling, sci-fi reading geeks.

      • #3072068

        Of course they have a better

        by surflover ·

        In reply to Because they’re too smart

        success rate when trying to score… to quote Rita Rudner, A guy goes on a date wondering if he’ll score, the woman KNOWS” 🙂

        • #3071962

          My wife lives by Rudner

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Of course they have a better

          “While you’re up…”

        • #3073858

          My Deepest Sympathy

          by bfilmfan ·

          In reply to My wife lives by Rudner

          I saw Rita at New York, New York in Vegas about 3 years ago. I hope your wife’s jokes aren’t as stale.

          And the next time she channels rudner, you should try channeling Ralph Kramden, Fred Flintstone and Gilligan. She will either run screaming from the house in total panic or be in hysterical giggles.

      • #3071363

        Not quite

        by ldyosng ·

        In reply to Because they’re too smart

        Technology isn’t more important than people – just WAY easier to get along with. I step on my own tongue in public, I get along better with machines. They don’t criticize. They don’t mind my social ineptitude. They don’t mind that I don’t wear makeup. They accept me even if I stink at office politics. With machines, I’m successful. With people . . . not so much.

    • #3073550

      another question, same answer

      by apotheon ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      When you can tell me why there aren’t more women at LUG meetings, maybe you’ll have an answer to why there aren’t more women in IT.

    • #3073512

      cos we’re better at it

      by jez ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      sorry luv we’re just better at it.

      this is not a serious answer because it is not a serious quesiton. Why are more women nurses? Why are most soldiers men ?

      This is to do with women and what they want. There is no reason why women should not do it in the same way men do, its just down to personal choice, honey.

      • #3073344

        A stupid question with a sad answer.

        by dc guy ·

        In reply to cos we’re better at it

        More women are nurses because–for whatever reason–they care more about other people than we do.

        More men are soldiers because we care LESS about other people than women do. We’re actually willing to go out and KILL STRANGERS because some other testosterone-crazed madman tells us to!

        This illuminating little exchange doesn’t speak very well for our gender.

      • #3072889

        Serious response to a silly answer

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to cos we’re better at it

        I seriously doubt there is anything innate in men that makes them better in IT. I did read about how math is taught in primary and secondary schools which said that the prevelent teaching methodology in math favoured the way boys learn, and that when the methodology was changed girls were ahead of boys.

        As for nurses and women – role stereotyping. I am sure we all know women who would make lousy nurses and men who would make lousy soldiers. But typically women were encouraged to take up nursing or teaching as a “respectable” profession decades ago, and its still stuck. There are some physical apsects to nursing that would favour men – the requirements to lift patients for example.

        Similarly I think more men are soliders due to part physiology(ability to carry large burdens), part history (women confined to certain roles, career limitations). In the hand to hand sphere men still have an advantage, but with good training the gap is narrowed.

        I don’t have any problem with women in the military at all levels and roles.

        James

    • #3072867

      Wow, so many posts, so little said

      by smallfred ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      I have read all 99 posts on this thread and do not know what I want to reply to first.

      I am one of two females in my group of about fifteen, but my boss and her boss are both female. In all of the other IT departments at my company there are females. Yes, there are more men, but I don’t mind. 🙂

      In what I have seen in IT a lot of the grunt work has been handed to men, while the management type positions have been given to women. I am sure that in other companies the reverse is true, which tells me it has little to with gender as a whole, but rather the climate of the company you work for.

      Ok, next issue – women vs men and logic vs emotion. Again I would have to say that it is not a gender thing. I am a women, and I am an airhead (this is something I have learned to accept about myself) but I am not prone to answering problems with emotion. I am not overly emotion, nor am I extremely logical, I am middle of the road. Interestingly enough I do a VERY good job and am told that although I am not the most technical in my group I do a better job because I can relate to the client better. Is this because I am a girl, I think not. I believe it is because I am an airhead and people feel more comfortable admiting that they do not know how to do something or that they spilled coffee on their laptop to me than to a technophile who talks above their understanding. So neither more logic, nor more emotion help or hinder my job. It is a completely individual thing.

      • #3072825

        speaking of little said…

        by surflover ·

        In reply to Wow, so many posts, so little said

        other than calling yourself an airhead, what were you getting at ? ?:|

        • #3072654

          Ha ha

          by smallfred ·

          In reply to speaking of little said…

          Yeah, well…
          Ok the short and sweet is that I think it is individual qualities rather than sex that pushes people into IT.

        • #3073219

          as do I, but . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Ha ha

          It seems that there is a distinct, statistically significant tendency for men to have those individual qualities more often than women. Individual qualities are, I’m sure, a combination of factors of both “nature” and “nurture” — both intrinsic and largely unalterable qualities of the individual, in part related to gender, and qualities trained into an individual by environmental influences.

          I’m of the opinion that the qualities that lead one to enter the IT field are mostly given rise to by developmental influence from our environment, however. While there are distinctly different basic neurochemical mechanisms between “normal” male and female brains, and that would indeed lend itself to differing attitudes toward various career fields, I believe that the environmental factors are much more of an influence in this regard. Social pressures train us from a very young age to think in particular manners and to enjoy certain types of endeavor. Women are taught and expected from a very young age to like and dislike certain things, and to believe themselves good or bad at certain things, and those activities that dovetail nicely with the IT industry usually fall on the “dislike” and “bad at” side of that.

          On the other hand, there is some evidence from my personal experience to suggest that there’s a more basic tendency at play here, as well. I don’t know what intrinsic qualities might actually lend themselves to this, but my experience is that women have a tendency in romantic relationships to exhibit unwarranted jealousies toward the foci of their mates’ attentions. In particular, I’ve noticed that for some reason women become jealous of the time computer geek men spend with their computers, whereas when situations are reversed men who aren’t computer geeks don’t get jealous of the time women who are spend withe their own computers: they just think it’s weird and go back to watching football, or whatever it is that non computer geek men do. In fact, the women computer geeks I’ve met, rare as can be, don’t even spend time with the computers themselves so much as they spend time doing things that happen to involve computers. There seems to be no specific focus on computers themselves so much as on associations with computers (wanting to bear the title of computer geek, et cetera) or specific activities that just happen to require computers (playing Diablo II, for instance).

          I have only met a grand total of one, true, dyed in the wool female computer geek in my entire life. Any other woman claiming to be, or acting like, a computer geek ultimately is engaging in affectation or is simply misapplying the term without realizing it. Among men, however, I’ve met as many real computer geeks as those who aren’t, really, and just play computer games or are wannabes — about a 50:50 split.

          I suspect that it’s in part that significant variation in the level of absorption with the subject matter that accounts for the difference in comparatie quantities of the genders in the IT field. There might be as many women as men pursuing the IT industry as a career field, but there are far more men working in IT because they [b]truly enjoy the subject matter[/b] and simply couldn’t see themselves doing much else.

          There are about four different career fields, probably, that I could easily find myself in because I truly love, and am absorbed by, the subject matter. The IT industry provides one of those four. I’m a “real” computer geek. When outside of work, I continue to play with computers. I like to learn about programming languages, networking technologies, operating system architecture, system security, and so on, simply because the subjects fascinate me. I’d be learning about these things whether I had a job that depended on them or not, whether anyone was watching or not, et cetera. There are a small handful of other fields of endeavor that also appeal to me in that manner, but they tend to be related by way of some underlying principles. I’m in IT because I’m a computer geek. From what I’ve seen, women in the IT industry have a tendency to be computer geeks, if they become computer geeks at all, only after they get into the IT industry.

          So . . . I don’t know how much of that is nurture and how much nature. I prefer to think it’s more “nurture” than “nature”, because I’d rather like to see more women in IT.

      • #3072754

        re: so many posts and so little said

        by m_a_r_k ·

        In reply to Wow, so many posts, so little said

        Hey Fred the Female, lotsa posts and nuthin said is typical of most the crap posted in the Miscellaneous discussions. 🙂

    • #3072765

      More women needed

      by kneighbour ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      I hole heartedly agree. In both Uni courses i have been the only female, and in both IT positions since then i have been the only female. I find it hard to men to take notice of a women in IT which means you have to shout a lot louder!

      • #3072757

        Not universally . . .

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to More women needed

        I’d absolutely love to see more women in IT. For one thing, it would probably mean more women willing to date a computer geek without getting jealous of the time I spend with my computer.

        • #3072739

          emotions vs logic

          by carbynel ·

          In reply to Not universally . . .

          The problem with this emotions vs logic theory is that the two don’t compare. They are not mutually exclusive, and they aren’t opposites of each other. It is like saying men are better at reading and women are better at skiing, they aren’t related!! So its an impossible conclusion! Not very logical if you ask me ;o)

          It would be more accurate to suggest that women are generally more lateral in their thinking, and men are generally more logical. This isn’t sexist, its just what a gender is predisposed to. It doesn’t mean you don’t get lateral thinking men, nor does it mean that you don’t get logical women. How logical someone is has nothing to do with how emotional they are. Emotions aren’t illogical reactions; people don’t cry for no reason, nor do they yell for no reason. They are logical reactions to a situation… most often they are justified, and the severity of the reaction simply varies in each individual depending on how sensitive that person is (male or female).

        • #3072691

          Uh, what?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to emotions vs logic

          Sorry, but that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I said in the previous post. Did you post that in the wrong place?

          And what do you mean by “lateral”? Women think sideways?

        • #3073203

          Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          by carbynel ·

          In reply to Uh, what?

          Perhaps I did post in the wrong place, but it was difficult to trace back to where this emotions vs logic argument began. I thought you were responding along with others to this argument, and meant no offence by posting after you! I’m new to these boards, so cut me some slack! If you want this post moved, perhaps you can tell me how to do this?

          Have you never heard of lateral thinking? Have you never done any lateral puzzles? It’s a fairly common terminology so I’m slightly confused by which bit you don’t understand. (Perhaps this is because I’m from the UK and you use a different word?) Maybe this link will help you to understand the word, or you could always try a dictionary!

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking

          As far as I was aware, defining men as having more logical thought processes, and women as having more lateral thought processes, was universally acknowledged.

          As far as I understand it, lateral thinking is when the mind reverts from the normal verbal and symbolic mode and goes to the right side of the brain, where thinking is holistic and can take much more into account. This is thinking in parallel mode, where many factors are taken into account. Many example puzzles/exercises can be found online by simply searching for ‘lateral puzzles’ in google.

          “women operate differently from men – the implication being that they operate more effectively: there is no hint of low self-esteem here. Women think laterally, rather than in a linear fashion, she says. Because they bear and nurture children, they understand process; they are not as goal-oriented, as men are.” Liz McGregor writing for The Guardian Newspaper (UK)

        • #3073127

          Hi Carb,

          by surflover ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          Welcome since you’re new… be careful about challenges (cut me some slack!)… unless you don’t mind getting flamed :^O… You should also fill out your profile when you have a minute…

        • #3072958

          Hi

          by carbynel ·

          In reply to Hi Carb,

          Hi, thanks for the welcome! I didn’t mean to challenge anyone by that remark. Thanks for the advice on filling out my profile. I’ll get right onto it :o)

        • #3073077

          don’t be so defensive

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          I just asked if you posted it in the wrong place. I didn’t flame you for posting in the wrong place. I was trying to figure out whether there was some point of intersection with what I had said, or if you were responding to something I had said in a different thread of the discussion but (for some reason) responding here instead, or whether some other error had taken place. In discussions like this, it helps if there’s some context for a comment like yours. In short, though: I wasn’t offended, just unsure of your intent.

          Hint, re: discussions –
          Try to make your statements an actual response to something. Randomly dropping some in-depth argument somewhere that it doesn’t exactly fit in context tends to confuse people as to what exactly you mean to challenge, debate, or otherwise address, and how you intend your statements to be read. Because we don’t have nonliteral cues like tone of voice, body language, and so on, in online discussions like this, context for your statements becomes much more important than it is even in a face-to-face discussion, and context is of significant importance even face-to-face: if, in the midst of discussing your laundry, someone suddenly said “Yeah, but I think you should really get your oil changed,” as a continuation of a discussion from last week, you’d probably be somewhat confused, at least at first. Keep that in mind, as well as the increased importance of context in text-only discussions, when deciding where to post a comment.

          As for lateral thinking: I admit I’ve not run across the term in that usage at least in the last few years, and if I’d seen it before that I have since forgotten. I’m not sure if this is because the term is the creation of a British psychologist and I’m across the Pond from him, or if it’s simply a matter of me being (un)lucky, but the fact of the matter is that I don’t recall the term “lateral” used in that manner.

          I have heard reference to terms like “right-brained”, “holistic”, “parallel”, and similarly associated concepts as related to thinking patterns, however.

          re: your statements about emotion and logic being unrelated/unopposed –
          I don’t entirely agree with you. While it’s possible, as you suggest, for someone to be both logical and emotional, or to be neither, it is not possible for the primary factor in a decision-making process to be both logic and emotion. That’s the point of the emotion vs. logic dichotomy that many have brought up: there is a primary motivator, or basis, for the decision making process (or so people suggest), and amongst men it tends to be more often logic, and in women more often emotion (or so people suggest). Whether or not I agree with that analysis, I can at least address the contrasting of emotion and logic as a reasonable perspective from which to make an analysis. The first really useful answer to that must be one from the options of “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t think that’s measurable (at this time).” To say it’s a wholly irrelevant question seems unreasonable to me, and would require a far more well-supported counterargument to render it inapplicable than what you’ve offered, which is merely a statement of opinion without real supporting evidence or reasoning.

          As for the suggestion that women are typically “more lateral thinkers” and men are typically “more logical thinkers”, I haven’t seen sufficient supporting statements to that effect to consider taking it as any kind of assumption. From the summary and overview of the ideas in the Wikipedia article, it looks more like the notion is built on social expectations than on rigorous testing and solid evidence. I’m especially skeptical of that division since I seem to excel at both logical and “lateral” thinking, in at least some circumstances, and from my own experience “lateral” thinking seems to consist of applying logical thinking in a parallel, rather than serial, manner. Logic produces valid results, and those valid results are true if sufficient true input is fed into the logical process. “Lateral”, or parallel, thinking largely consists of multiple lines of logic applied to a single, complex circumstance, where arriving at a true result largely depends upon reaching a “critical mass” (if you will) of true input. Therefore, the division between “lateral” and logical seems to be largely artificial and incompatible with the realities of thinking processes.

          Perhaps if “lateral”, or a better word (such as “nonlinear”), had been contrasted with “linear” instead of “logical” there’d be some point to this exercise.

        • #3072960

          don’t be so dismissive

          by carbynel ·

          In reply to don’t be so defensive

          Okay, first off, I never said you flamed me for posting in the wrong place.

          Re: your hint:-
          As I said in my previous post, I WAS making a statement in response to something, and it was in context, it was just posted in the wrong place. I now realise I should have posted elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean I needed a lesson in how to use tones when posting on a forum. I realise now the location of my posting made it unclear, and obviously wouldn’t have posted here if I had realised this initially.

          I’m sorry you have been ?(un)lucky? enough not to have heard of the term “lateral thinking”. I only wish that in future you would do some research when you come across something you haven’t heard of or don’t understand, instead of simply dismissing it in jest. I never claimed to be an expert in lateral thinking, or anything of this nature, and was simply posting in response to something that was mentioned on this forum. However, after a brief search online I am now sure the US does use this terminology in the same way that we do. In addition to this, I would like to think that others are not so ignorant as to assume that because a scientific study did not come from their country, that it was automatically worthless, as you seem to have done.

          In response to your other points:

          Why do you say “it is not possible for the primary factor in a decision-making process to be both logic and emotion”? You also say there must be “a primary motivator, or basis, for the decision making process”, but why is this the case? You’re telling me it’s not possible for a person to have multiple reasons for making a decision? Very often an emotional reaction to a situation is ALSO the most logical, and it seems ridiculous to me to suggest they must ALWAYS contradict each other.

          Saying someone is logical and another is emotional, as if they are opposites, is completely unfair, and shows an alarming and potentially damaging misuse of the English language.

          Also, to make a statement that generally women think more with their emotions than with logic suggests they would make stupid and foolhardy actions while following their emotions regardless of what the logical consequences may be (rather than combining the use of both effectively). The original poster is undermining women by suggesting they are less capable of acting as sensibly as men.

          You then go on to say my argument is invalid as it is nothing more than an “opinion”, however, you seem to fail to realise that this is exactly what yours is! What makes yours more valid? You have no proof that people make decisions based on “a primary motivator”!! And have proposed nothing to argue against a terminology that you yourself admitted to having no knowledge of prior to reading my original post!!!

          However, since you’re saying my argument has no merit as I fail to backup my claims with facts, I’ve found some information you might appreciate. As originally stated in your previous post, your understanding of lateral thinking is ?applying logical thinking in a parallel, rather than serial, manner.” This article backs up this definition, and regards it as a more female trait, thereby concurring with the theory that women are more lateral thinkers.

          “Men are able to focus on narrow issues and block out unrelated information and distractions. Women naturally see everyday things from a broader, ?big-picture? vantage point.” Also, “”The male brain is highly specialized, using specific parts of one hemisphere or the other to accomplish specific tasks. The female brain is more diffused and utilizes significant portions of both hemispheres for a variety of tasks.””
          (http://www.contentwatch.com/learn_center/article.php?id=165)

          The point is, that even if we follow this flawed theory that women are all emotional wrecks and that men are all logically superior, all studies have shown that both genders use THEIR individual strengths to get to the same conclusion. At the end of the day, surely that is what is most important – The result. It doesn’t matter how it is reached. For example:

          “tests show that women generally can recall lists of words or paragraphs of text better than men. On the other hand, men usually perform better on tests that require the ability to mentally rotate an image in order to solve a problem. Mental rotation is thought to help people find their way, according to researchers. Does that leave the majority of women lost? Obviously not. Scientists believe that women may rely on their memory advantage and recall landmarks to find a destination.” (http://web.sfn.org/)

          I don?t have the time to research this for you in any more depth, but even if none of these quotes state exactly that women tend to be more lateral, and men tend to be more logical these quotes/articles do suggest that. This argument seems more to do with differences between American and British English than an actual disagreement in the validity of the theory.

          “If I had to pick a brain, I think I’d take a female brain,” says Jacobs. “It’s symmetrical, multitasking and more resistant to stroke because language ability is stored in both hemispheres. The female brain is like a Swiss army knife – whereas males get stuck with one big blade.”

          I?m afraid, that apart from quoting the above studies and articles, there is nothing more that I can do to prove this ?opinion? as these are all still theories to the experts themselves. However, what I can say is that you will equally be unable to disprove it.

          On a final note:- ?technology is the great equalizer: Even Arnold Schwarzenegger is an ant compared with a woman in the cockpit of an F-16.?

        • #3071523

          look at the conclusion before you leap

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to don’t be so defensive

          “[i]I never said you flamed me for posting in the wrong place.[/i]”
          I never said you did say that. You reacted defensively, though, so I thought I’d make it abundantly clear that I never intended any flames.

          “[i]I WAS making a statement in response to something, and it was in context, it was just posted in the wrong place.[/i]”
          If it’s in the [b]wrong place[/b], it’s [b]out of context[/b], by definition. Thus, my offered hint.

          “[i]I only wish that in future you would do some research when you come across something you haven’t heard of or don’t understand, instead of simply dismissing it in jest.[/i]”
          Again, don’t be so defensive. I wasn’t being dismissive: I was asking about it because I actually wanted to know what you meant. I would likely have gotten around to looking it up myself if you hadn’t responded, but at the time I responded I was doing several things at once and something had to suffer. Since researching the term “lateral thinking” isn’t part of my job, that’s what I chose to put on the back burner.

          “[i]I never claimed to be an expert in lateral thinking[/i]”
          I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.

          “[i]I would like to think that others are not so ignorant as to assume that because a scientific study did not come from their country, that it was automatically worthless, as you seem to have done.[/i]”
          Are you trying to be combative and offensive, or does it just come naturally? You’re making a lot of unfounded assumptions about me, and seem to be looking for opportunities to read the worst possible interpretations into everything I say. Are you perhaps overcompensating for the fact that I caught you in a contextual error? Would you be my friend if I bowed and scraped and agreed with everything you said? I in absolutely no way indicated that I thought anything was worthless because of its country of origin. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

          “[i]You also say there must be ‘a primary motivator, or basis, for the decision making process’, but why is this the case?[/i]”
          I didn’t say there must be any such thing. What I said was that some people [b]suggest[/b] that there is such a thing. I didn’t indicate whether I agree or disagree with such a suggestion: I just pointed out the context of the argument. Why are you trying to assign to me everything with which you disagree?

          “[i]You’re telling me it’s not possible for a person to have multiple reasons for making a decision?[/i]”
          . . . and even if I [b]had[/b] said there must be a primary motivator or basis, that in no way makes it impossible for there to be more than one reason for acting in a certain manner. All it means is that one reason is more “primary” than others. Something is hardly worth calling “primary” if it’s also “only”, after all. The unspoken assumption would likely be that if there’s a primary motivator, there is also probably a secondary and maybe even tertiary motivator, thus allowing for two or three reasons. Maybe there are more, such as quaternary motivators. The list goes on.

          NOTE: I still haven’t said that I necessarily subscribe to the suggested claim that emotion or logic must be a primary motivator or basis for decision making. Get that? I haven’t said it must be so. I’ve repeated what others have said and made an attempt to explain how the reasoning works. Don’t call me dismissive for failing to dismiss that argument in favor of yours.

          “[i]Very often an emotional reaction to a situation is ALSO the most logical, and it seems ridiculous to me to suggest they must ALWAYS contradict each other.[/i]”
          In point of fact, I don’t remember anyone saying “they must ALWAYS contradict each other.” Maybe you saw someone say it, but I guarantee you it wasn’t me.

          “[i]You then go on to say my argument is invalid as it is nothing more than an “opinion”, however, you seem to fail to realise that this is exactly what yours is![/i]”
          Uh, what? What exactly do opinion and validity have to do with each other in this context? [b]You[/b] are the one making claims that terms are mutually exclusive when they are not, it seems.

          “[i]You have no proof that people make decisions based on ‘a primary motivator’![/i]
          When did I say that I do, or that people make decisions in that way? I explained an argument. I did not declare undying devotion to its underlying assumptions. I didn’t even support it particularly. I only pointed out how your “dismissal” of it wasn’t effective.

          “[i]And have proposed nothing to argue against a terminology that you yourself admitted to having no knowledge of prior to reading my original post!![/i]”
          Perhaps you didn’t notice, but I never said you were wrong. I just pointed out some problems with the terminology used and indicated that your own arguments lacked some necessary support. It’s entirely possible to make bad, unsupported, or invalid arguments and still be right.

          “[i]This article backs up this definition, and regards it as a more female trait, thereby concurring with the theory that women are more lateral thinkers.[/i]”
          What does that have to do with whether or not they’re logical thinkers? That makes them more adept at parallelizing thought processes, not more or less logical in any way. That was my point. Again, of the two of us, you seem to be the one claiming things are mutually exclusive when, in fact, they are not.

          “[i]this flawed theory that women are all emotional wrecks and that men are all logically superior[/i]”
          I don’t think that’s what the study you spit on so freely was saying at all. I suppose you’ve never heard the term “emotional intelligence”, for instance. I don’t recall anything claiming that logically informed behavior is specifically superior to emotionally informed behavior, at least as far as researchers go.

          “[i]tests show that women generally can recall lists of words or paragraphs of text better than men. On the other hand, men usually perform better on tests that require the ability to mentally rotate an image in order to solve a problem[/i]”
          Yes, of course. I’ve been aware of studies suggesting that men are better at visualizing spatial relations and women at textual memorization for about two decades now. I’m not sure how that relates to the debate over whether I’m an evil person who disagrees with you, though.

          “[i]even if none of these quotes state exactly that women tend to be more lateral, and men tend to be more logical these quotes/articles do suggest that[/i]”
          The textual memorization vs. visualizing spatial relations bit actually seem to me to indicate, if anything related to “lateral” vs. non-“lateral” (“logical” is a very, very poor choice of term for contrasting with that use of “lateral”, as I’ve already indicated), that in at least this one comparison men are better at massively parallel thinking than women. It’s a very straightforward, linear process to memorize a block of text, while visualizing spatial relations requires the ability to track shape, volume, and attitude of an object on three axes, generally requiring the ability to hold several views of something in one’s head simultaneously. Maybe there’s some other interpretation of the applicability of this example that I’m not recognizing, though. I’m not arguing one way or another regarding the parallelizing capabilities of women vs. men at this point: it’s you who is attempting to assign a stance on the issue to me.

          “[i]you will equally be unable to disprove it.[/i]”
          Fine. I never intended to disprove it. Why do you think I did intend any such thing?

          You’ll get along much better in online discussions if you look for signs someone is not disagreeing rather than assuming everyone’s your enemy.

        • #3071463

          Semantics!!!

          by carbynel ·

          In reply to don’t be so defensive

          This is all just semantics!! This feels like a war of the words, can?t we have a proper debate?

          “I just asked if you posted it in the wrong place. I didn’t flame you for posting in the wrong place?
          I never brought up the idea of being flamed. I didn?t consider you telling me that I had posted in the wrong place to be flaming, and the fact that you mentioned it lead me to believe you thought that I had considered your response to be flaming, so I simply replied saying that I hadn?t thought you had been flaming me! ?Okay, first off, I never said you flamed me for posting in the wrong place? I didn?t think this would be something we would still be debating!!

          “If it’s in the wrong place, it’s out of context, by definition. Thus, my offered hint.”
          No, I read your original response to mean that it was out of context regardless of where it was posted. You knew that I posted in the wrong place, as I had already admitted this, and had apologised, so why go on about it being out of context, as that was self-evident?!? Your hint was unnecessary, and purposely patronising. Its not like I had queried why you didn?t understand my post, and why you had a problem with me posting there!

          “Are you trying to be combative and offensive, or does it just come naturally?”
          Oh, the irony!! It?s certainly difficult to maintain your composure with someone making aggressive/hypocritical remarks like that!

          “Are you perhaps overcompensating for the fact that I caught you in a contextual error?”
          You haven?t stated what contextual error I?ve been caught in, unless you simply mean I posted in the wrong place. (honestly, I have never met someone that made such a big deal over a thread!)

          “Would you be my friend if I bowed and scraped and agreed with everything you said? I in absolutely no way indicated that I thought anything was worthless because of its country of origin. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.”
          Apparently I am the one being combative and offensive? I have never suggested I wanted you to bow down and agree with what I?ve said, and I really don?t see how this is relevant to this discussion.

          “I didn’t say there must be any such thing. What I said was that some people suggest that there is such a thing.”
          I apologise then, as I made the assumption that if you were arguing in support of these people?s opinions, you also agreed with them. I simply don?t understand why you are arguing their corner if you don?t actually agree with this suggestion.

          “Don’t call me dismissive for failing to dismiss that argument in favor of yours.”
          The reason I was calling you dismissive was not because you agree with them; or rather, fail to agree with me. So who?s making the assumptions now then? I found you dismissive because you originally posted ?Women think sideways??, which appeared to me to be dismissive of the term ?lateral thinking? to which you previously had no knowledge.

          “Uh, what? What exactly do opinion and validity have to do with each other in this context?”
          I?m afraid I simply don?t understand what you find confusing about this. I originally said ?You then go on to say my argument is invalid as it is nothing more than an “opinion”, however, you seem to fail to realise that this is exactly what yours is!? Which means, why do you think your opinion is more valid (correct, worthy etc) than mine? Both are opinions, (neither can be proven or disproved) I?ve at least quoted sources, but your argument has not been backed up at all!

          “I just pointed out some problems with the terminology used”
          I?m sorry, but this seems to be the entire problem here. You?re too busy over analysing the semantics. I didn?t realise this was an English exam, I was posting on a forum! (which I now largely regret!!)

          “That was my point. Again, of the two of us, you seem to be the one claiming things are mutually exclusive when, in fact, they are not.”
          Yes, that?s correct, I am claiming them to be mutually exclusive. When did I argue that I wasn?t? That had been my entire point. Logic vs Lateral in my opinion and from the research I?ve seen are mutually exclusive. (that?s not to say that the genders don?t cross over) I however, never said emotions vs logic was mutually exclusive. And it was THAT which I was arguing against.

          “I suppose you’ve never heard the term “emotional intelligence”, for instance.”
          Again, apparently I am the one assuming things about you, when throughout this whole post it really seems to be other way round. Of course I?ve heard of emotional intelligence, but I don?t see what that has to do with the emotions vs logic argument.

          “relates to the debate over whether I’m an evil person who disagrees with you, though.”
          LOL, I never realised we were debating that. Is that another attempt to be aggressive?

          “if anything related to “lateral” vs. non-“lateral” (“logical” is a very, very poor choice of term for contrasting with that use of “lateral”, as I’ve already indicated)”
          I just simply disagree with you on this. In everything that I have read on the subject (unfortunately this has been only in books, so I can?t reference it online) The psychologists always talk about them as being direct contrasts/opposites of each other. I can only assume that this is something that isn?t discussed in the US, because I?ve been talking to others in the UK today and they don?t understand your avid disagreement at this use of the terminology. I don?t know what else to say to you about it. It?s just what I?ve read, and I?m surprised you haven?t heard of it used like this. Maybe someone from the UK that also reads these forums could post and let us know if they too have heard lateral being used at the opposite of logical.

          “Fine. I never intended to disprove it. Why do you think I did intend any such thing?”
          I never said that you did intend to do such a thing. Why would you think that? I merely stated it would be impossible to disprove, if you, or anyone for that matter, ever felt so inclined. :o)

          “You’ll get along much better in online discussions if you look for signs someone is not disagreeing rather than assuming everyone’s your enemy.”
          Oh, and there we go with the patronising comments disguised as helpful advice again! You really are unbelievable! I don?t normally have problems in online discussions. You my good sir, are a one of a kind. I?m surprised you work with computers at all, you should be a lawyer, you?d be great at twisting things to your benefit, as you seem to be all too keen to wilfully misunderstand everything I say!

        • #3071455

          here we go again

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to don’t be so defensive

          “[i]I didn?t think this would be something we would still be debating![/i]”
          (re: flaming)
          Neither did I. I made a simple statement that I didn’t flame you, the intent being that you not act as though I attacked anything you had to say maliciously. In response, you acted as though I’d attacked you for saying you flamed me (which didn’t happen), thus indicating that the statement was indeed needed, but perhaps should have been phrased with more caution so that it would be [b]blindingly obvious[/b] that no offense was intended. And yet, after trying to explain that, you’re now acting like I’m attacking you again. I guess the moral of the story is that if you really want to be offended, I can’t stop you.

          “[i]I read your original response to mean that it was out of context regardless of where it was posted.[/i]”
          That’s your mistake, not mine. The way you read it doesn’t match the way I said it.

          “[i]I had already admitted this, and had apologised, so why go on about it being out of context, as that was self-evident?!?[/i]”
          Clearly, in your rush to feel attacked, you have again missed my actual intent. I in no way meant to attack you over any lack of context, but to point out that when you say your statement is not out of context as a response to my previous post, you’re mistaken, because where you posted it was within the wrong context. How can I know you got my point about context if you keep insisting you didn’t post out of context? I wasn’t specifically disagreeing with you so much as attempting to explain where the misunderstanding happened to arise so that you’d be able to see my perspective on the matter.

          “[i]Your hint was unnecessary, and purposely patronising.[/i]”
          Bulls**t. If you really believe that, you need a few lessons in reading comprehension. I suspect that what it really boils down to is that you want to be a victim so you can make me the bad guy.

          “[i]You haven?t stated what contextual error I?ve been caught in, unless you simply mean I posted in the wrong place.[/i]”
          Yes, that’s [b]exactly[/b] what I mean. Within the context of a branch of discussion completely unrelated to the arguments you launched, you posted a bunch of ranting that would have been in context somewhere else in the discussion. The mere fact that I dared point out that I had no idea why you were posting it there has caused you to come unglued, though. Congratulations on a job well done: you’ve made a brilliant first impression.

          By the way, [b]that[/b] was patronizing. Nothing else I’ve said thus far was.

          “[i]I have never met someone that made such a big deal over a thread![/i]”
          I haven’t. I said the equivalent of “Why did you post that here?” and you turned it into some kind of uproar of wounded pride.

          “[i]I really don?t see how this is relevant to this discussion.[/i]”
          (re: statements about value by country of origin)
          Perhaps you missed the point where you accused me of being a nationalist bigot.

          “[i]I apologise then, as I made the assumption that if you were arguing in support of these people?s opinions, you also agreed with them. I simply don?t understand why you are arguing their corner if you don?t actually agree with this suggestion.[/i]”
          You’re still not getting much of what I was trying to say: I wasn’t arguing in support of anyone’s opinion in particular. I was just pointing out that you hadn’t satisfactorily argued against those opinions. I’d do the same to someone arguing ineffectively against your stance if they misposted it after some wholly unrelated comment of mine.

          “[i]I found you dismissive because you originally posted ‘Women think sideways?’, which appeared to me to be dismissive of the term ‘lateral thinking’ to which you previously had no knowledge.[/i]”
          Clearly, you have a problem with assumptions. Assuming ulterior intent is dangerous with most people, and doubly so with me. Take what I say at face value in debate: I say what I mean, because if I’m to “win” any debates, I’d prefer it be for rigorous logic and strong evidence, not underhanded tricks like appeals to ridicule. Note, for instance, that the one and only time I’ve used an intentionally patronizing tone with you, I ensured it bore a clear label as such.

          “[i]Which means, why do you think your opinion is more valid (correct, worthy etc) than mine?[/i]”
          Ah, I see the problem. The term “valid” doesn’t apply there. Correct or worthy (depending on exactly what you meant) would have been more appropriate. That’s where the confusion arose. In any case, since I wasn’t supporting the opinion you thought I was, it’s a moot point: it’s not your opinion vs. mine at all. I didn’t express one on that matter in particular. You said “[i]I?ve at least quoted sources, but your argument has not been backed up at all![/i]” when, in point of fact, I hadn’t argued in favor of an opposing viewpoint at all. All I did, in fact, was point out that your argument wasn’t sufficient to discount the opposing viewpoint, without stating whether the opposing viewpoint’s arguments had any validity at all.

          “[i]I?m sorry, but this seems to be the entire problem here. You?re too busy over analysing the semantics.[/i]”
          I find it ironic that this lack of attention to correctness in terminology came from the same person that said “[i]Saying someone is logical and another is emotional, as if they are opposites, is completely unfair, and shows an alarming and potentially damaging misuse of the English language.[/i]” Perhaps you should take your own warnings about the inherent dangers of misusing terms to heart.

          “[i]Yes, that?s correct, I am claiming them to be mutually exclusive. When did I argue that I wasn?t? That had been my entire point. Logic vs Lateral in my opinion and from the research I?ve seen are mutually exclusive.[/i]”
          You didn’t claim that you weren’t saying that. Again, you’ve missed my intent. I wasn’t pointing out some imagined false claim about your own actions, but rather an actual false claim about the mutual exclusivity of “lateral” application of logic with just plain ol’ logic. I phrased that the way I did to contrast your incorrect assumption of mutual exclusivity with your similarly incorrect assumption that I had ever said emotion and logic were mutually exclusive.

          I realize that was a rather labyrinthine sentence, but I haven’t yet come up with a better way to phrase it. I hope it’s clear enough.

          “[i]Of course I?ve heard of emotional intelligence, but I don?t see what that has to do with the emotions vs logic argument.[/i]”
          It has nothing to do with “the emotions vs. logic argument.” I’m beginning to get the impression you simply aren’t paying attention. I brought up emotional intelligence as part of my demonstration of the fact that it is [b]you[/b] making the emotion vs. logic argument into an argument that women are ineffectual, and not the people who conducted the emotion vs. logic studies in the first place. Nobody in that study was claiming that a tendency toward emotionally based decision making was in any way undesirable in general, but you very clearly were when you started talking about assertions that women were emotional wrecks and men were logically superior. You’re the one that applied “wreck” and “superior” to the study results, not the people conducting the studies in question.

          “[i]The psychologists always talk about them as being direct contrasts/opposites of each other.[/i]”
          Mass agreement doesn’t add up to truth. That’s especially the case where a theory still under debate is concerned, when the agreeing mass is opposed by a disagreeing mass.

          “[i]’You’ll get along much better in online discussions if you look for signs someone is not disagreeing rather than assuming everyone’s your enemy.’
          Oh, and there we go with the patronising comments disguised as helpful advice again![/i]”
          No . . .
          But there you go assuming opposition and attack where it doesn’t exist, again. As I said, I’ve been patronizing exactly once, and I marked it clearly for you. This was not that time.

          “[i]you seem to be all too keen to wilfully misunderstand everything I say![/i]”
          That must be why I’ve spent this entire discussion trying to explain three things:

          1. You’re wrong about my intent.

          2. You’re wrong in your assumptions that I necessarily disagree with the substance of Edward de Bono’s theories of gender-based thinking, or that I necessarily agree with the emotion vs. logic theory of gender-based thinking.

          3. There’s a (yes, semantic) problem with contrasting “lateral” with “logical”.

          Somehow, you keep misunderstanding these three explanatory goals of mine for attacks against you, your opinions, and the value of British psychologists on the basis of their nationality. If anyone is willfully misunderstanding another, it’s you, willfully misunderstanding me. I’ve done nothing but ask a couple of questions here and there and [b]try to explain where your assumptions of my malevolence are wrong[/b].

        • #3071442

          Insults

          by carbynel ·

          In reply to don’t be so defensive

          ?Neither did I. I made a simple statement that I didn’t flame you?
          Right, neither you nor I thought you were flaming me, okay? Since we are agreed, do you think we might drop this in favour of more important elements of the discussion?

          ?you’re now acting like I’m attacking you again. I guess the moral of the story is that if you really want to be offended, I can’t stop you.?
          Look, please don?t tell me how I?m acting, I didn?t think you were attacking me, and I haven?t been offended. I really don?t get offended as easily as you seem to presume. I can assure you that if I really found you that ghastly I wouldn?t be communicating with you in any shape or form!

          ?Bulls**t. If you really believe that, you need a few lessons in reading comprehension. I suspect that what it really boils down to is that you want to be a victim so you can make me the bad guy.?
          Nice! I had the impression that you weren?t one to sink to the use of such unnecessary foul language. I did believe you made a patronising remark, and that is how I read it. Perhaps it?s a misinterpretation of the tone of your post? I don?t know. However I?m not exactly sure what the point would be in me trying to make you out to be a ?bad guy?. As far as I know it might only be us two reading these posts anyway. Is that what you?re worried about then? How you will appear to others on this forum?

          ?Congratulations on a job well done: you’ve made a brilliant first impression.
          By the way, that was patronizing. Nothing else I’ve said thus far was.?
          Right, this seems to be where the problem lies. I deem ?patronising? as being condescending, or talking down to someone. Therefore, I wouldn?t have considered what you just said to have been patronising. Rude? Yes, argmentative? Maybe, but did I feel like you were talking to me as if I was inferior to you? No. On a separate note, I actually don?t give one iota whether I?ve made a good impression on you. Strangely enough, that wasn?t my objective when I started posting on these forums. But I must concur that this notion is entirely mutual!!

          ?Perhaps you missed the point where you accused me of being a nationalist bigot.?
          Oh golly, I never meant to accuse you of that, and I fear you have read far too much into this. Look, I don?t know you from Adam, but my initial correspondence with you did lead me to believe that you were somewhat dismissive of the theory of lateral thinking on the basis that you said you probably haven?t heard of it because it was a British concept.

          ?Clearly, you have a problem with assumptions. Assuming ulterior intent is dangerous with most people, and doubly so with me.?
          No, personally I don?t feel I have a problem with assumptions. I just think that everything that is read online has to be read with some amount of assumption for it to be understood. Its not like you?re sitting next to me and I can ask you to fully explain what is meant by every point, and ask you to clarify the tone, or read any body language. Therefore, we do have to make minor assumptions. I was attempting to be polite and say the mistake may have been down to my assumptions, but really, I believe anyone would have made the same assumptions based on what you were saying, in order to have made sense on the post. I believe it was due to a lack of lucidity on your part to leave any of the post up to my interpretation. But then again, it is difficult to communicate online, and impossible for anyone to do so and NEVER cause offence.

          ?Ah, I see the problem. The term “valid” doesn’t apply there. Correct or worthy (depending on exactly what you meant) would have been more appropriate.?
          Right, once again, if you?re going to be blatant enough to base your whole argument on something that can be verified then please check your facts first. I don?t know if this is again a case of ?Two nations divided by a common language? but in my dictionary valid does mean correct or worthy. Referencing http://www.dictionary.com ?Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.? ?Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.? Or from the Oxford English dictionary? adjective 1 (of a reason, argument, etc.) well based or logical. 2 legally binding or acceptable.?

          ?I find it ironic that this lack of attention to correctness in terminology came from the same person?
          The problem is not caused by being careful with your use of the English language, and its good to want clarity in an expression; however, the problem exists when you are twisting and over analysing words until their meaning is completely lost or distorted, or you are simply unaware of the meaning of words (such as my point above).

          ?Mass agreement doesn’t add up to truth. That’s especially the case where a theory still under debate is concerned, when the agreeing mass is opposed by a disagreeing mass.?
          No, mass agreement doesn?t add up to truth, you?re right; but it?s as close to the truth as we are going to get for now, and since my intention was to simply give an opposition to the emotions vs logic theory, it stands up enough for that purpose.

          ?As I said, I’ve been patronizing exactly once, and I marked it clearly for you. This was not that time.?
          And as I stated above, I believe you need to re-think your definition of what is patronising.

          I believe you have completely misunderstood me, and this discussion seems to have been reduced to a slanging match instead. I don?t have any problems with you. I don?t even know you. I?m sorry if I have misunderstood your intentions, but I?ve read what you?ve said and I (either wrongly or rightly) interpreted as best I could the text on my screen. I enjoy a debate, and was enjoying our discussion, but you seem to want this to be nothing related to the original post and instead seem to be trying to make this about insults. I wonder why are you so touchy? I thought debating was fair sport.

          I must apologise if any of this is hard to understand, but its gone midnight here, and I?m not feeling quite as awake as I was earlier on in the day!!!

        • #3071381

          parting shots

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to don’t be so defensive

          1. I never said anything intending any insult, offense, attack, or other unpleasantness before the indicated intended patronizing remark. Despite this, you’ve found some way to describe or react to pretty much everything I’ve said as though it were an attack.

          2. Every time I point out a specific instance of you reacting as though attacked, insulted, et cetera, you then directly contradicted yourself by claiming some other injury I’ve caused you was the actual point of contention.

          3. You’ve implied my malicious intent on numerous occasions, and had the audacity to in one short paragraph both claim that you didn’t suggest I was a nationalist bigot and paraphrase your own suggestion that I’m a nationalist bigot.

          4. This all started because I asked two innocent questions, in answer to which you launched into a lengthy tirade about how awful a person I am for having dared to be patronizing.

          5. You’ve quoted at me correct definitions of the word “valid” that are distinctly devoid of any connection to “worthiness” while claiming that they support your notion of “worthy” as a proper synonym of “valid”, and that’s only one example of how you have utterly failed to get the point when I try to indicate clearly where you’re using terms carelessly.

          6. I used the self-censored string of characters “bulls**t” because it summed up in one word what it would otherwise have taken three paragraphs to express fully. Sometimes, succinctness is a positive, even if your delicate sensibilities are bruised by it.

          7. I was, indeed, intending a condescending tone in the one instance where I said I was being patronizing. I was not at any other time intending anything of the kind. Get it?

          8. I’m not offended by you. That would require me to care about your opinion and, frankly, I don’t know you that well.

          9. Who is the greater fool, the fool, or the fool who gets sucked into an unending argument with him or her? On that note, I’m done here. You may respond with lengthy rants about how uncouth I am if you like, but this is all I have to say on the matter. Offended or not, I’m a bit worn out by all this bickering from you.

        • #3071331

          Surely Not

          by carbynel ·

          In reply to don’t be so defensive

          Entitling your post as “parting shots” does tend to cause one to think that something agressive (“due to the terminology “shots”) is going to take place; so if you’re trying to prove you’re not insulting me, it’s probably best if you avoid such antagonistic language from the offset.

          I will respond to point 3, where you say I simply para-phrased you as a ?nationalist bigot?. This just goes to show you how important it is you don?t over analyse everything (as you seem to be accustomed) and at least try to take people at face value. You seem to think that my only mission is to insult you, and are offended by anything no matter how reasonable or polite I might be. I originally said you seemed dismissive of a concept you had not heard of, this could be due to arrogance on your part; just as much (if not more so) as it could be due to any nationalist views. I don?t see why you keep suggesting I?m making you out as a ?nationalist bigot?, except for the fact that you read on wikipedia that the psychologist was British!! However, I must say that in my experience, people that act as if they?re being attacked when its obvious they?re not; often do have something to hide!

          Point 5 ? ?worthy?. For starters. The initial point was that you didn?t understand what a ?valid opinion? was. Now I?ve proven that it?s correct to use this term in the context I used it, and if you had bothered to consult a dictionary sooner, you would have been able to understand me earlier. You are now continuing this baiting by telling me my definition of ?worthy? is wrong! Look that one up too!! You might get a surprise!! http://Www.thesaurus.com comes back with ?true? as a possible synonym, which obviously is a synonym of ?correct? which is a synonym of ?valid?. Got it now? I?ve never known someone so arrogant as to constantly correct people on things they don?t even know enough about in the first place!!

          ?I was, indeed, intending a condescending tone in the one instance where I said I was being patronizing. I was not at any other time intending anything of the kind. Get it??
          Its not that I don?t ?Get it,? as you so charmingly put it. It?s that I don?t agree with it. I found nothing patronising about the sentence. Most others wouldn?t either. I also ?Get? that you don?t believe other sentences in your posts were patronising; even if they were.

          ?On that note, I’m done here. You may respond with lengthy rants about how uncouth I am if you like, but this is all I have to say on the matter?
          Thank you for permission to respond to you!!! LOL.

          From what I?ve seen of other posts that you make on this forum, I must conclude that you just enjoy bickering; and will try not to take your words too seriously.

        • #3071200

          you know, if nothing else

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to don’t be so defensive

          you two use an impressive amount of words to bicker.

        • #3057661

          boy, you’re not kidding

          by surflover ·

          In reply to don’t be so defensive

          I’m glad this wasn’t done on paper, the rain forests would have suffered a significat loss :^O

    • #3072997

      The main problem at my work…

      by montgomery gator ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      ..is not the lack of females in IT, it is the lack of single, good looking women without children. All the women in IT where I work are married and/or have children. 🙁

    • #3072955

      Still Waiting for a good answer…

      by carole-y ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      I’m an IT girl myself, and have often wondered this. In fact, I am currently pursuing my Master’s degree in MIS and have even done some research.

      I’m a little sad that for all these responses so few of them are serious.

      Professionally, (all private sector work) I have encountered 2 other woman in an IT dept. (a telecom woman, and a DBA) I’ve been doing IT about 6 years. The other women I met were great at what they did. (not that the men weren’t)

      However I think there are a couple of serious issues for women in IT.
      1. It is not well marketed to young women. How many young women hear success stories or are encouraged to study the computer sciences? Only because I am a “geek” do I even have female friends who encourage me or were once in the field. I know women who have left IT to pursue other careers instead.
      2. More importantly, it is a difficult lifestyle for women in general. I don’t plan to have children, and I like the work so it suits me. However, technology is ever-changing. If you stopped to take care of children, even for a year or two, you are out of date and have fun interviewing and getting back into the field.
      The downsizing and instability can be rough too.
      Let’s face it, I’m a network admin and that means 9-5 in the office for supporting people during business hours, off-hours work on servers and the network, and being on call 24/7. This kind of lifestyle does not scream family-oriented. Add onto that the constant study and certs, the keeping up with tech, and believe me I understand why women (more than men) would have a hard time balancing work, family, life, and potentially education issues.

      I would really like to hear some other ideas why. I’d also like to ask if people think we could/should do anything to change this. How do we get more women involved in IT — without resorting to an inequal scenario (i.e. hiring women over men because they are rare, etc.) ???

      Thanks!

      • #3072948

        The real answer

        by jdmercha ·

        In reply to Still Waiting for a good answer…

        Societal pressure.

        Most parents will raise there daugters to be mothers and care givers. They will raise there sons to be aggressive and constructive.

        Girls are still mostly raised playing with dolls and and babysitting. Most boys are still being raised learning aggression through sports and building with legos. Although the gap is narrowing all the time this is still how the majority of children are raise in the US.

        This sterotype of what boys and girls should be is continued in the schools and supported through peer pressure. Thus boys are guided to technology while girls are guided to caregiving. Again it is not as bad as it used to be but it is still common.

        What can be done? Get your daughters involved in athletics at an early age. Parents need to be involved with their childrens lives to help guide them to the choices that fit them best.

        What is being done about it? Here is one thing, at least: http://wit.syr.edu/index.php

      • #3072945

        Regarding #2

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to Still Waiting for a good answer…

        I guess it depends on where you work. At my employment, we joke they must put something in the water, since many women get pregnant shortly after starting work here. Management has no problem with women taking up to 12 weeks maternity leave, and they can use their short term disability pay for it. However, men are not allowed to use short term disability pay for “paternity leave” if their wives give birth, to help them out, so it is not exactly fair.

        I think my company puts stuff in the water to make women fertile to keep the on-premises daycare full.

        • #3071486

          Come to Canada

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Regarding #2

          In Canada, you get something like 9 months(12 if you don’t mind getting paid for the last few months) AND you and hubby can split those weeks up. You can even use them if you adopt.

          James

      • #3071484

        a thought or two

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Still Waiting for a good answer…

        I think you’ve hit on a very good point relating to why there aren’t more (successful) women in IT, by making two statements that relate in a way you might not have noticed.

        First: “[i]Only because I am a “geek” do I even have female friends who encourage me or were once in the field. I know women who have left IT to pursue other careers instead.[/i]”

        Second: “[i]If you stopped to take care of children, even for a year or two, you are out of date and have fun interviewing and getting back into the field.[/i]”

        The people who are most successful in the field of IT, it seems (salesmen notwithstanding), are those who [b]really love the subject matter[/b]. These are people who don’t go into the IT industry because they think it’s a “lucrative career” or a “worthy field of employment”, and they aren’t people who stay on top of evolving technologies because it’s in their job description. They’re (or, rather, “we’re”) people who keep abreast of evolving technologies [b]because they enjoy it[/b]. We’re the people who would keep up with changing technologies instead of watching Survivor, or going to NFL exhibition games, or playing a weekly game of bridge, or getting schnockered at the local watering hole every Friday night.

        We’re people that, if we got pregnant (assuming the biological equipment to do so), would spend a lot of time on maternity leave reading O’Reilly texts [b]because that’s what we think of as fun[/b]. We’re the people that, if kept out of work on disability leave for several months, wouldn’t fall behind at all in our understanding of emerging technologies because we don’t just “do IT” when getting paid for it — we’re the people who “do IT” because we like it, and consider ourselves lucky to have found a way to get paid for it.

        You ask the kind of person who drops out of the IT industry to pursue a better career field why he or she was in IT to begin with, and he or she will tell you something about job security, the wave of teh future, the value of technical skills, and so on. You ask the kind of person who sticks with it through thick and thin and becomes a “Linux guru”, or the hoary old bearded programmer in the back room, or me, or whatever, why he or she got into IT to begin with, and you’ll get an answer like mine might be: “You mean someone wants to [b]pay me[/b] to play with computers?! Awesome!”

        When you can answer the question “Why aren’t more women real, true-blue computer geeks?” I think you’ll be able to answer the question “Why aren’t there more women in IT?”

        As long as you keep trying to stage career days for women, you’re missing the point: there’s a lot more money and job security to be had for a lot less work in a great many other fields. If you want more women in IT, you need to find the girls who are naturally inclined toward working with computers [b]and encourage them to enjoy it[/b]. If you succeed in that, without ever once mentioning that there are actual jobs that pay you for playing with computers, you’ll end up with more women in IT whether you like it or not.

        How’s that for “a good answer”? Was it worth the wait?

        • #3071462

          hmmm. that was pretty good…

          by carole-y ·

          In reply to a thought or two

          Yes, those are some good points! Thanks!

          Still we are left to wonder why women don’t think it’s fun the way men do. And I still think that one reason is that, in general women are more conscious of the work/family/life balance.

          But I think you hit on one of the underlying truths, for some reason and to a large degree, women just aren’t as interested.

          BTW… I also love video games – there aren’t too many women gamers either. And for some reason, no one really cries out that video games aren’t marketed to women/girls.
          Well, it does allow me to get along with my husband and all of his friends nicely. Tho sometimes I feel like a weirdo among my girl friends or my family.

          However, to some extent that is the nature of ANY technical profession. Those outside it do not understand. Just the “IT” label is a bit newer and more mystical to people. People know what a doctor is or a chemist, even if they don’t understand the specifics. Even “software developer” is a bit more understood than “sys admin” or “network admin”…

          I guess I just always wanted to look behind the curtain and see how things work from an infrastructure perspective. But admittedly, sis years ago I had no idea what “IT” was…. all I knew was that I liked computers but programming was NOT for me. Not the best way of discovering your future calling…maybe that is why there is a call to inform people better about our field and what we do.
          One college internship in system administration later and I just couldn’t shake IT!

          So I think that is a good idea, that we should get the message out to people who might enjoy the infrastructure/netowrking side of the house that it exists and is an option. Maybe also the misconception that IT is sitting at your desk all day (ha! ha!) is also a small stumbling block. Or that there is no interaction with other people (I find myself personally interfacing with everyone in the company)!

          maybe that is a new thread… debunking IT myths.

        • #3071231

          quite welcome

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to hmmm. that was pretty good…

          At first I thought your post simply spoke for itself and didn’t require a response, but after having been ambushed by someone trying to hijack another discussion in which I’m involved with bickering, I need some respite from acrimony. So, I’m responding to you.

          It sounds like you’re exactly the sort of girl that IT needs if it’s going to see a sustainable increase in the female to male ratio: someone who would “do IT” whether getting paid for it or not. Correct me if I’m wrong.

          Those who pick IT out of a hat as a “career” are “power users” of their own computers at home, configuring them to run computer games better and adding doohickeys like rotating screen savers and nifty new mouse pointers. Those of us who fall into IT as a “calling” are system administrators even with our own personal computers: we might do something like alter background images, change Windows themes, and so on, but often only after we’ve done things like hack the Registry to turn off the Desktop process, replaced Windows Explorer with an alternative file manager like Total Commander, and installed network monitoring software (and perhaps a Cygwin shell environment). The administrative functionality and system internals tend to be more important than the wiz-bang color schemes and browser toolbars (I shudder at the thought of browser toolbars, really).

          At least, that’s what I seem to see as a major difference between a natural and a careerist. And yes, I have indeed hacked the registry to turn off the Desktop process on Windows systems I’ve had to use.

          NOTE: It’s not about what changes you make to a system to configure it for personal use. It’s about how you regard the system you use. Is it a desktop system, or is it a human interface server? Are you “using a computer” or are you your own system administrator? I think these are differences between the few and the many in IT that most don’t even realize are there, even if they’re among those few. It also helps to notice that “sysadmin” isn’t the only IT natural that’s out there: hackers (people drawn to programming just as some are drawn to administrative tasks; not referring to the popular media’s misuse of the term) view their computers more as collections of source code and development platforms than as “computers” with little clicky things. If you think in code, you’re a hacker; if you think in mouse clicks, you’re an end user who may also be able to program. Ultimately, a “power user” is just an end user who knows enough to be dangerous, and has managed to turn that into a way to make money.

          I don’t disagree that, statistically, women do seem to tend more toward a “work/family/life balance” than men in professional career fields. You’re probably right about that. This seems to tie in well with what makes women more a rarity in IT than men, though. With a man, it’s more likely that computer system and network administration is a passion than with a woman, I think. For the woman, it’s more likely to be a job, and maybe an “interest”. There’s no heart and soul poured into it, most of the time, and even women who are dedicated IT professionals usually have trouble understanding the care and attention that some men lavish on their privately owned computers at home when they’re not at work.

          Here’s another, perhaps more superficial, means of differentiating between the natural and the mere careerist: Does your computer at home usually have the side panels attached? It’s not a universal characteristic, of course, but often someone really involved in computers for reasons of a natural love for the field of knowledge will not bother to reattach the side panels most of the time. I currently don’t have side panels off anything in my home, but I just moved into this apartment less than two months ago. Give me time, and I’ll be back to my old ways.

          I think my favorite way to get women into IT would probably start with getting them to attend LUG meetings. Never have I seen such a den of wonderful computer geekery as LUG meetings, and the male to female ratio at these things is unfortunately sky-high.

          Pardon the lengthy ramble. I just found myself nattering on about what came to mind after re-reading your post.

          By the way, I said a lot that I think applies at least tangentially to this subject in another thread, where I commented on the differences between introverts and extroverts. I’ve used tinyurl.com to shrink URL length so it’ll all fit on one line in this post:
          http://tinyurl.com/82qhp

        • #3057678

          Wow – so cute!

          by carole-y ·

          In reply to quite welcome

          TinyURL… I dig it. It’s so cute I just want to scoop it up and put it in my pocket.

          🙂

        • #3071458

          Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          by carbynel ·

          In reply to a thought or two

          I?m almost afraid to respond in case apotheon starts to think I?ve got something against him personally (which I can assure you is not the case)

          Generally I agree with what is being said, however, I get the impression that it is being suggested that a woman would naturally keep abreast of new technology if they really loved the subject, even if they are out of work for several years raising children. Whilst I agree that someone that finds technology as much a hobby as a career would spend leisure time keeping up to date, I find it slightly dismissive of the work involved when raising a child or children. This obviously is more than a full time job, which also encompasses weekends, and whilst I agree that a woman might be able to fit in some reading for pleasure; going by the women I have spoken to that have had children, they find it almost impossible to make time for any leisure activity, regardless of their passion. This would lead me to the conclusion that even if a woman did try hard to stay up to date, with technology changing so rapidly; and her priority now shifting towards the raising of her children, her knowledge of computing would decline, so that it was hard to get back into work.

          Also, I don?t know how the US is affected by this, but it is universally acknowledged in the UK that part time jobs within the computer industry are few and far between. A lot of working mums have a preference towards going part time when their children are at school, and the fact that this is not always possible, is sometimes a reason why the IT industry is not considered a possible career option for working mums.

        • #3071449

          another stab at explaining geekery

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          “[i]I?m almost afraid to respond in case apotheon starts to think I?ve got something against him personally (which I can assure you is not the case)[/i]”
          As long as you don’t take what I say as a personal affront, and don’t make personal attacks against me, there’s nothing to worry about. Starting your post with this comment wasn’t the best way to avoid confrontation, though: if I was the sort to take offense easily, I might see that as flamebait. I’m not saying it was, only that it might be misunderstood as such, depending on who’s reading it.

          “[i]I find it slightly dismissive of the work involved when raising a child or children.[/i]”
          Nonsense. I’m not nearly as dismissive of everything female as you seem to think I am (note the word “seem”, based on your reactions to me thus far). Keep in mind that men rear children as well, and that child raising is not the only obligation that might add up to an onerous tax on one’s leisure time. Being a full-time student and having a full-time job unrelated to IT might easily constitute as much of a tax on one’s time as raising a child and, unless you’ve done both that (as I have) and raised a child (which I admittedly have not), you don’t really have a basis for comparison from which to claim I’m being dismissive of one as compared with the other.

          The point I was making is that everybody, at some point, has some leisure time (actual slaves notwithstanding). If you really enjoy the subject matter of IT, you’ll pursue some knowledge of it in your leisure time. It’s that simple. People do what they enjoy. It’s natural.

          “[i]going by the women I have spoken to that have had children, they find it almost impossible to make time for any leisure activity[/i]”
          And yet, somehow I find the single mothers I know still finding a way to go to nightclubs, read books, watch television, and otherwise enjoy a little downtime while the tyke is in bed, in a playpen, or being babysat. It’s true, I’m sure, that leisure time is reduced, but anyone without any leisure time at all would shortly go nuts and start killing people, I think.

          Let me put it another way: I spend about ten hours a day in and around work. I spend an average of about three hours a day doing directly work-related things on the weekends. In the rest of my time, I watch movies, read fiction, sleep, shop for various necessities, and so on, but more than half of that non-work, non-sleep time is related to information technology skills. I do that for fun. I don’t confine my learning about IT-related skills to work. I create websites, set up servers, write content management systems, explore new operating system configurations, read trade journals, attend LUG meetings and hacking society gatherings, and generally geek out about 70% of my non-work waking hours. I love the stuff. If I had less leisure time, watching movies would suffer before the time spent on IT-related skills would be reduced. Hanging out in coffee shops would drop first (though I spend a fair amount of time on a laptop even when I am hanging out in coffee shops, truth be told). I’d bring computer-related texts with me to social events more often than I already do, and would turn down social engagements more often than I already do if they’d interfere substantially with my hunger for additional knowledge. The only thing that wouldn’t obviously suffer before the time I spend gaining IT-related skills is the time I spend engaged in hugrily absorbing knowledge about my other passions.

          If I had a child, I might even read to him or her from O’Reilly’s [u]Programming Perl[/u]. I think the first couple chapters of that are highly entertaining.

          Yes, having a child cuts down on leisure time. No, that doesn’t prevent you from learning. My point, ultimately, is that your statement “[i]even if a woman did try hard to stay up to date [. . .] her knowledge of computing would decline[/i]” entirely misses my point: that if you [b]try to stay up to date[/b] you are trying too hard, and probably just don’t enjoy it as much as some of us do. I don’t try to stay up to date at all. It’s like breathing for me: I know a lot of what’s going on each day in the IT industry because I open OSDir in my browser rather than the New York Times in the morning. It’s the very fact that the woman in question (or man, if we happen to be talking about a man) thinks of it as “trying to stay up to date” that indicates the lack of passion to be the same sort of dedicated IT professional I am. It requires more than dedication to your career: it requires absorption by the subject matter. If it was a matter of choosing to be an IT professional or choosing to be able to learn about computers in my off-time, I’d find another career. The career itself is just a bonus that allows me to make money off the knowledge I’d have anyway, and gives me more opportunity to pursue the knowledge.

          In other words, it’s not about caring whether you can keep up with the industry so you can stay current in your career: it’s about pursuing knowledge. The career is a side-effect.

        • #3071441

          Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          by carbynel ·

          In reply to another stab at explaining geekery

          ?Starting your post with this comment wasn’t the best way to avoid confrontation, though: if I was the sort to take offense easily, I might see that as flamebait.?
          What??!!? Give me strength!! Where I come from telling someone you don?t have a problem with them is a good thing. How is that flamebait?! I?m starting to think that whatever I say is going to be wrong according to you!!

          ?I’m not nearly as dismissive of everything female as you seem to think I am?
          Assumptions again!! I never said I thought you were dismissive of females. Nothing I have read could have given me that belief.

          ?Keep in mind that men rear children as well?
          Yes, but since we were talking about women I didn?t see the point in referring to men.

          ?And yet, somehow I find the single mothers I know still finding a way to go to nightclubs, read books, watch television, and otherwise enjoy a little downtime while the tyke is in bed, in a playpen, or being babysat.?
          Really? I don?t know any single mothers that find time to do all that. Or any of that unless their babysitter is round, which is usually a couple of times a month!! Even two parent families hardly have time for things like that, so I?m utterly amazed that you know so many single mothers that can fit all that in. Even if they are ?relaxing? at home their children often get out of bed and come and bother them, so the book they?re reading needs to be put down, or channel on the TV changed.

          ?try to stay up to date you are trying too hard, and probably just don’t enjoy it as much as some of us do. I don’t try to stay up to date at all. It’s like breathing for me:?
          Ok, let me rephrase this then, Even if a mother wished to relax in the evenings when her kiddies were in bed by dismantling her server/reading the latest IT magazine etc, it would often be filled with interruptions from the kiddies, or she would be so exhausted from the events of the day that she might fall asleep in the process. I don?t think that is through a lack of interest, or a lack of wanting to read. Regardless of whether the woman is reading for entertainment or not, it still would be difficult with a couple of sprogs interrupting her thought processes constantly. I?m amazed you have so much time to do stuff, I don?t seem to work half as much as you do, but hardly have time to read for pleasure at all, it doesn?t bear thinking about how it would be if I had a couple of kids to juggle also!

        • #3071380

          implications and perceptions

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          “[i]Where I come from telling someone you don?t have a problem with them is a good thing. How is that flamebait?[/i]”
          Implying that any time you say something a certain someone is going to pick on you is often perceived as flamebait, even if it’s couched in phrases like “I have nothing wrong with you, personally.” Learn to see things from other perspectives than your own.

          “[i]Yes, but since we were talking about women I didn?t see the point in referring to men.[/i]”
          Funny, I thought we were talking about women [b]as compared with men[/b].

          “[i]which is usually a couple of times a month![/i]”
          I never said I was talking about more than a couple times a month.

          “[i]interruptions from the kiddies[/i]”
          If you think [b]that’s[/b] bad, you should try having an ex-girlfriend as a roommate in a studio apartment.

          “[i]so exhausted from the events of the day that she might fall asleep in the process[/i]”
          Oh, yes, please forgive me. I’ve seen the light, now. [b]Every single day[/b] is absolute hell, filled every second with the squalling of infants, without a moment’s respite ever, because morning noon and night there is [b]nothing else[/b] going on but care for children, who [b]never sleep[/b], and babysitters are essentially [b]nonexistent[/b]. Yes, that must be it. No mother ever has free time. My own mother’s painting and (wonder of wonders) keeping up with the IT industry when I was an infant, lo these many decades ago, was just some sort of lucid dream I had a few weeks ago, and [b]never actually happened[/b]. It’s a wonder women ever get to breath, they’re so busy all the time. Surely, they never have the opportunity to read six pages a day. That would be [b]impossible[/b].

        • #3071330

          Here we go again

          by carbynel ·

          In reply to implications and perceptions

          Look, this was a simple comment that I made. It is one that I have established from talking with people that are actually experiencing the scenarios discussed. I can only tell you that. If you disagree for the simple reason of wanting to yet again have a ?war of words? with me; then I?m afraid I find it difficult to take any of your arguments seriously.

          ?Every single day is absolute hell, filled every second with the squalling of infants, without a moment’s respite ever, because morning noon and night there is nothing else going on but care for children, who never sleep, and babysitters are essentially nonexistent.?
          Such sarcasm is obviously just intended to continue the bickering, so I will try not to respond to it too seriously. However, I will say that babysitters for single parents that usually have a small income are essentially nonexistent, as most of my friends say they can?t justify the unnecessary expense for their own leisure time. I never said they would have NO time, I just said it would be DIFFICULT.

        • #3071248

          two items

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to implications and perceptions

          1. Anyone that uses a thesaurus as a substitute for a dictionary, trying to use word relations to “prove” definitions of terms, surely cannot be blamed for the inability to note causality correctly; that sort of ability to make precise relational connections between discrete objects seems to be beyond you. You disagreed with me, here. Don’t blame your own argumentative attitude’s results on me.

          2. I never said that finding leisure time was easy: I just said that everyone does find some leisure time, and that someone really interested in the subject matter of the IT industry will spend some of that leisure time learning and maintaining related skills.

        • #3066178

          close, but no cigar

          by mustang sally ·

          In reply to a thought or two

          “We’re people that, if we got pregnant (assuming the biological equipment to do so), would spend a lot of time on maternity leave reading O’Reilly texts because that’s what we think of as fun. We’re the people that, if kept out of work on disability leave for several months, wouldn’t fall behind at all in our understanding of emerging technologies because we don’t just “do IT” when getting paid for it”

          So while you’re taking all this hypothetical free time on maternity leave reading up on O’Reilly and keeping up with emerging technologies, who, pray tell is breastfeeding the small, helpless, screaming infant every 2-3 hours? Changing his/her poopy diapers? And in the precious hour or two you MAY get in between feedings, trying to you know… SLEEP let alone get some form of sustenance down your own throat (and that of your partner), dishes washed, groceries bought and clothes cleaned?

          Contrary to popular belief, maternity leave is not a vacation. New moms do not sit around eating bon-bons while the adorable child coos happily in their crib for extended periods of time. It’s more like a gruelling extended marathon. You come to understand why sleep deprivation is considered a form of torture.

          Design a line of diapers that has paragraphs of technical text on the butt instead of Elmo and you may get some of that reading done. The only technical manual I was interested in reading while on maternity leave, however was written by a pediatrician on the subject of how to coax a few more precious hours of sleep out of the screaming child so I could get 30 minutes to either shower or nap. And believe me it’s a complete tossup. I have never been so exhausted, so physically and emotionally drained as I was during the 5 weeks I took off. I was THRILLED to come back to work to get a break. And that was WITH my husband also being off work during that time and shouldering a huge load of the household chores. Most new parents don’t have that luxury.

          This comment, however I agree with: “If you want more women in IT, you need to find the girls who are naturally inclined toward working with computers and encourage them to enjoy it.”

          It’s about early socialization. Once puberty hits girls are taught that their self-esteem should be dependent upon not only being found physically attractive by boys, but being romantically involved with a boy. And “Boys don’t make passes at girls that wear glasses.” Next time you’re in a 7-11 take a look at the magazine rack. Do you see any glamorous pictures of geeky girls in front of a computer screen? Not unless they’ve got doubleD cleavage (pointy ears helps) and a come-hither look on their face. Even the geeky boys prefer the hot cheerleaders to the shy, mousy girl sitting in front of them.

          When I was in high school I was 1 of only 2 girls taking AP Physics. There were perhaps 6 taking Calculus. This needs to change.

          The #1 thing you could do to encourage girls to love computers? Market computer games to appeal to them. For most boys, computer games are the vehicle that drives this early love of computers you want to encourage. But most games are violent, gory shoot-em ups that don’t appeal to girls. Nevermind how women are portrayed in them. They’re proportioned even less realistically than Barbie, and that’s saying a lot.

        • #3066131

          Hey Mustang

          by surflover ·

          In reply to close, but no cigar

          Why’d you even give him close? (definately no cigar)… When my grandson was born, I took a couple weeks off to help my daughter out (I never had an infant of my own, all my kids were adopted)… and I never went without so much sleep in my life… I don’t know how women who have a succession of kids survive it… if she has another one her husband’s relative will have to pull floor duty, I don’t think I’ve got it in me 🙂

        • #3066112

          peacekeeping

          by mustang sally ·

          In reply to Hey Mustang

          is all part of that touchy-feely chromosome I’m suposed to have 2 of. So I try to read generously. And I do agree with most of what he says – just feel he’s being a bit obtuse on this one issue and too proud to concede the point. That’s supposed to be another male female thing, I think – women are more interested in developing consensus, men in winning the argument no matter who they alienate in the process. Some men, even when they atually agree with 90% of what everyone else is saying will continue to exaggerate the remaining 10% they don’t agree with (or just as common – start arguing with the WAY someone else said something) in order to see themselves as “winning”.

        • #3066081

          realistic, not too proud

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to peacekeeping

          I’m not too proud to concede a point when it’s warranted. I just know better than to believe that there’s no leisure time at all in raising a child. If that was the case, we’d all have been neglected, underfed waifs without parental guidance. Yes, you lose sleep. Yes, you have to (for instance) breastfeed every few hours. Yes, you have to change diapers. On the other hand, if you can spend fifteen minutes every three hours reading, maybe you should. I know I’ve seen women read while breastfeeding, have people over to visit while watching their children play, and watch television while their children sleep.

          If new parents really truly never had any time to do anything but take care of the kid, they’d commit suicide far more often. Stress levels of the sort that occur with child-rearing aren’t sustainable to the degree you’re suggesting. People break down if they go too long without any relaxation time.

          Yes, it’s hard work. It’s not 100% of your time, though, and sometimes you can do more than one thing at a time.

          If you really want to go on believing that it’s impossible to ever read anything at all while raising a child, though, you go with that. It looks to me like it’s [b]you[/b], of the two of us, that is looking for a way to “win”. You’re the one that created a point of contention here, by exaggerating the hard work of child-rearing to the point where one hasn’t the ability to do all the things people do with their time while child-rearing.

          If you have time to watch Oprah and daytime soaps while raising kids, you have time to read. You just need to give up some TV to do it. If computers aren’t more important to you than television, you’ve just proven my point.

        • #3066019

          thanks for proving MY point

          by mustang sally ·

          In reply to realistic, not too proud

          “If you really want to go on believing that it’s impossible to ever read anything at all while raising a child, though, you go with that.”

          Where did I say it was impossible? This would fall under “exaggerating points of contention to feel like a winner”. I was speaking of my experience during 6 weeks of maternity leave. Not a lifetime raising a child. The first 3 months are the hardest. After that your body somehow learns to cope with no more than 4-5 hours of sleep at a time. The funny thing about being a new parent though is you get kind of attached to the little bugger – makes committing suicide much harder. Otherwise you would see the rates go up. When older parents tell you “having a kid is the hardest thing you’ll ever do” it’s no exaggeration. I thought it was – afterall, any dumb idiot can have a kid (and they do)- what kind of special talent could be involved? Stamina, that’s what.

          Your initial point made *new* parenthood sound like an absolute cakewalk (though I see you’ve backpedaled from that elsewhere a bit). I could care less about winning – I care about understanding. My point was to correct your misunderstanding.

          If you choose to continue to perpetuate a negative stereotype of technically minded new moms though (watching Oprah & daytime soaps) go right ahead. Be part of the problem and not part of the solution.

          As much as I hate to prove you wrong, I’ve somehow managed to attain a successful career in IT without spending every conceivable free moment reading manuals. Same thing goes for the other women I know in IT. And amazingly enough – applies to quite a few of the men I know as well. Even more amazing, most of the time the last thing I want to do when I get home is dink around with my home PC. Kind of like the professional carpenter whose own house is falling apart. I do love to play with new software on the company’s dime/time though.

          When I do have time to watch daytime TV I much prefer the Discovery channel and PBS. But then I’m funny that way. I agree with you that instilling a great technical curiosity in young girls is necessary to get them into IT. I’m a perfect example of that. But that’s just the start – it’s nowhere near the total solution.

        • #3065994

          Reply To: Why is IT nearly all male?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to realistic, not too proud

          “[i]Where did I say it was impossible? This would fall under ‘exaggerating points of contention to feel like a winner’.[/i]”
          Actually, it falls under the heading of “this must be what she meant, because otherwise she hasn’t said anything that disagrees with me, and she was definitely disagreeing.” See, I wasn’t saying mothers have all the time in the world and that maternity leave is just a vacation. I was just saying that someone that really loves the subject matter as much as some of us serious computer geeks won’t go cold turkey.

          I’m still not sure why you’re digging so hard for a point of contention. Are you just looking for a reason to disagree so that I, being a male who suggests that there aren’t more women because women aren’t trying as often to make careers of IT, can be wrong?

          “[i]I was speaking of my experience during 6 weeks of maternity leave.[/i]”
          Six weeks isn’t enough to really fall behind, anyway, so I don’t see how that’s relevant.

          “[i]Your initial point made *new* parenthood sound like an absolute cakewalk[/i]”
          Only if you were looking for a reasons to disagree with me. Go back and read it again. I never suggested any such thing. Period.

          “[i]My point was to correct your misunderstanding.[/i]”
          The misunderstanding was yours. In fact, if you go look at some of that “backpedaling” you say I did a little more closely, you might find that some of it happened [b]before[/b] the comment in which you seem to think I said motherhood is a vacation.

          “[i]If you choose to continue to perpetuate a negative stereotype of technically minded new moms though[/i]”
          You’re a real piece of work. You just really, really want me to be a bad guy, I guess. If that’s what you want to believe, I can’t stop you.

          “[i]I’ve somehow managed to attain a successful career in IT without spending every conceivable free moment reading manuals.[/i]”
          Speaking of exaggeration to try to “win” . . .

          I was pointing out that part of the reason there aren’t [b]more[/b] women in IT is that there aren’t [b]more[/b] women who love it enough to do it in their free time. I never said everyone in IT has to spend 100% of their free time doing IT-related things. That’s your exaggeration talking.

          “[i]I agree with you that instilling a great technical curiosity in young girls is necessary to get them into IT. [. . .] it’s nowhere near the total solution.[/i]”
          I never said it was.

          You’re having an argument with someone that doesn’t exist. I never made the claims or suggestions you seem to think I did.

    • #3057845

      Why? It’s just not that sexy.

      by djhuff ·

      In reply to Why is IT nearly all male?

      I’m a woman who’s been in the IT field for about 20 years and I’ve seen women come and go. Here’s the thing – it’s just not that sexy of a job. It really isn’t. I’m a CCIE, MCSE, CNE and I’ve been the only woman in many of my organizations. As a matter of fact, I’m now a Global Director of Networks and I’m the ONLY woman in the organization in management. I’ve been to DeVry classrooms and technical colleges to speak, and seen many more women than men sitting in those chairs. However, I’ve seen so many women graduate with an associate or bachelor’s degree in IT, take their first IT job and INSTANTLY hate it. The thing is, this job is work. Constant, demanding work. It’s about keeping up with trends, new technologies, constantly studying to either gain or maintain a cert or keep up with those who have that cert. It’s a lot more time than most women have to devote to a career, because outside of our career, we usually have a family to take care of, much more so than a man. Not to be sexist, but in a traditional family role, the woman is usually the prime caregiver – chief cook and bottlewasher (that’s a whole other discussion, let’s just leave that one alone). It’s tough to spend your downtime from work reading the latest Cisco manual, if there are dishes to do, baths to give, etc. And above all else, the job is just not that sexy. Hardware upgrades? Router configurations? Intrusion detection? Just not that sexy. Marketing, Human Resources – now that’s sexy and fun! Check out those departments, guys. That’s where you’ll find the ladies. Am I being sexist? Maybe. I’m a woman, I can do that against my own kind, huh? But being a woman in a man’s world, I can tell you that although men don’t always make it easy for us, it’s usually our choice to bow out. You guys like those Cisco manuals, or the latest Red Hat guide. It’s light reading for you. I’d rather read a good book.

      • #3057765

        exactly

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Why? It’s just not that sexy.

        That’s the point I’ve been making elsewhere: you have to love IT for its own sake, else your sticktoitiveness is going to suffer significantly. If you’re not a computer geek at heart that finds the O’Reilly [u]Linux Network Administrator’s Guide[/u] and Asimov’s [u]Robots of Dawn[/u] equally fascinating, you’re going to discover that IT is a lot more work than you’d bargained on when you first got started. The reason long-time successful IT professionals come across as such high-octane experts in esoteric fields of knowledge is that they spend a [b]lot[/b] of time learning about their field and applying that knowledge. It’s about shell scripts, network topologies, and hardware compatibility lists, not pinstriped suits, client meetings, and your own parking space.

        You’re absolutely right: there’s nothing glamorous for the usual careerist inside the IT field. If you don’t love it, you’ll hate it. If you’re not a workaholic, you’ll be out of work. Companies demand more from their IT employees for less compensation than just about any other department’s employees, but the people that are really good at IT will do it anyway because, to them, it’s fascinating subject matter. The heyday of $80k starting salaries straight out of college are over: people are starting to notice that IT is Real Work.

        Women tend to notice that more than men, or at least are more willing to admit that realization to themselves.

        As I’ve said elsewhere, you’ll get a higher woman to man ratio in IT careers when you’ve got a higher woman to man ratio of people who just love computer systems administration enough that they’d do it whether they were paid or not. Until then, you’re SOL for your career field statistics.

      • #3057692

        You rock!

        by itgirli ·

        In reply to Why? It’s just not that sexy.

        🙂

      • #3057664

        DJ

        by surflover ·

        In reply to Why? It’s just not that sexy.

        Girli probably said it better, but I have to say that’s probably the most insightful post in this thread… although there were a lot of posts that claimed that the ratio was more balanced, my experience has always been one of a very male heavy environment… and as girli said, I concur, you rock! 🙂

        • #3057611

          Seen a handful

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to DJ

          and more than half were keeping their jobs because they were eye candy instead of anything that they actually did.

          The few that were left made me feel like I need to go take some more classes!

          To balance this out. Many men in IT are useless too and have their job because they are pretty boys, yes men, or son of the boss.

          It is so nice that MOST I talk to in here are not the bimbos of tech.

          The one woman I work with is NOT a tech. Petty and insecure are the two words that perfectly describe her. Too bad she isn’t at least eye candy. 🙁

      • #3069275

        What are you saying, djhuff?

        by m_a_r_k ·

        In reply to Why? It’s just not that sexy.

        Sounds to me like you’re perpetuating the old female stereotype. You say there aren’t many women in IT because the job is not sexy, it’s too demanding, working with hardware is only a man’s domain, etc. Are you saying that women run from unsexy, demanding jobs? I beg to differ. And yes, that does sound sexist. IT is not more demanding than many other jobs. I think it is LESS demanding and stressful than most jobs. Sure, there are more trends and technologies to keep up with than most jobs (and that keeps it interesting) but who says women in general find constantly changing jobs boring or too demanding? What about medical care? Nursing is dominated by women. It is an extremely demanding job that changes as fast or faster than IT. And nursing has loads of technical equipment that has to be mastered.

        • #3066209

          Nice horse, but oh so high.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to What are you saying, djhuff?

          Come down here on the ground with the rest of us who have to live in the real world. Whether or not something is considered “sexist” by the political correctness cops has no effect on whether it’s an existing social pressure. I don’t think djhuff was saying that women are intrinsically incapable of being interested in “unsexy” jobs, only that the tendency is for women to avoid them. Like it or not, we live in a world where women pigeonhole themselves according to gender stereotypes as much as they accuse men of doing so, and that may well include avoiding a job that isn’t “sexy”, or that is “too demanding” in some way.

          As for your claim that IT jobs are less demanding than other jobs, that all depends on what you consider to be a demanding characteristics. While IT jobs don’t usually involve hauling lumber all day, swinging hammers, grubbing around with drain snakes, or scrubbing floors, those jobs have a specified set of hours after which the workers typically just go home. On the other hand, as my employer’s network and systems administrator, I clock about fifty or more hours a week and spend probably an additional twenty hours or so doing things that improve my work-related skills. More than seventy hours a week is definitely “demanding” in some ways, even if I spend more time at a desk than away from it during the workday.

          You seem to have missed the fact that djhuff’s statements were about perceptions and social trends, not inherent capabilities. There’s nothing sexist about noting what people seem to be thinking. Hiding from the truth doesn’t make you a better person, just more ignorant.

        • #3066186

          Not riding a horse

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Nice horse, but oh so high.

          You misintrepred what I said. Go back and read djhuff’s post, then read mine. I basically repeated what she said and followed up with comments or questions. If my asking a logical question or offering my comment means to you that I’m on a high horse, then that’s not my problem. You’re attitude is typical of many people here. I have little patience or tolerance for people like you who do not allow someone to ask questions of another person. If that’s your cup of tea, then join the Taliban. Personal dialogue and objective debate is the greatest learning tool there is. Get your nose out of your Cisco manuals and ask questions of people and learn about the real world.

          djhuff herself brought up the point about being sexist. And do you think that IT jobs are the only ones where people work long hours? hah! Talk about riding that stupid horse of yours! Open your eyes, pal. I used to work for a public accounting firm. Most demanding job of my life. It was a 24×7 job. And we didn’t haul concrete or shovel sh!t. Tons and tons of paperwork, long hours, a lot of travel, demanding deadines, unbelievable pressure from our management and from clients, explain and document every single thing you do for the client and be ready to back up every stinking decision with a thorough answer, zero tolerance for f-ing up. I don’t know about your IT