I really don't understand why so many people are going along with the diversity for diversity's sake bandwagon.

If I read the article correctly, employers are deliberately recruiting from overseas in order just to get more women into roles because of a lack of domestic supply of people with the right chromosomes for the box-tickers.

I don't think it's a bandwagon.

There's a circular pattern of dominated jobs, eg nurses were predominantly female. It's taken time for male nurses to come into the profession in any numbers. It's all about breaking the circle and the only easy place to break that circle is to set a diversity goal (whether sex/race/whatever) and once things level up in the sector, the overall image of the profession should change so that the career seems like an open choice for everyone, and not seen as the purview of a particular sex/race/whatever... at which point the goals become mute.

But this takes time, and along the way there are people who actively try and get in the way of the process because they simply like things the way they are and don't want to see things change.

There are also those who believe in equality and the law, and think that discriminating against one demographic to artificially boost diversity is ethically wrong, even where it can be legally justified.

I guess going by your logic we should be aiming to get more white people into the NHS, because it's around 40% non-white, which is nowhere near close to the demographic of this country? Perhaps that's what the remit of these new "diversity managers"?

Also, dare I suggest that it's possible that women are often more suited to certain jobs, like nursing or nursery nursing, because they tend to prefer doing that? On average. Do you think that men and women are completely the same, and therefore we should not rest until we have close to 50/50 nursery nurses being men/women? It might be desirable to get more men as nursery nurses, but does it have to be 50/50?

I was about to post this as myself, but then I remembered about "that memo" from a Google employee, who dared to suggest a similar thing, as was promptly sacked for saying so.

I'm not even saying this is definitely the case. Just suggesting it might be, and should be looked into a bit more. In my experience women and men aren't the same, and on average women tend to prefer people over things.

So, how about we just carry on encouraging school girls to get into STEM subjects (and let's boost that massively) but let's drop these damaging diversity targets.

Heresey?

Also, dare I suggest that it's possible that women are often more suited to certain jobs, like nursing or nursery nursing, because they tend to prefer doing that?

That kind of viewpoint is exactly the kind of attitude that must be torn into shreds and consigned to the history books or else we will never achieve the point where any individual, regardless, can achieve their best in the field which they have natural skills and temperament.

You seem very certain that it's not even possible. You aren't offering any evidence that it's wrong, except "because I said so". I'm not even suggesting it's definitely the case, just that it's a possibility. It's possible that because of evolution, it's been beneficial for women to tend towards certain traits, and men towards different traits. That's not to say that all women are this or that, just a tendency.

I feel like this idea warrants further research. However, I can't imagine any university in this country would touch it with a ten mile barge pole, because it's simply verboten to even suggest such a thing.

Being married to a very strong woman, who is an extremely talented manager (better than I could ever dream of) and also picked up coding pretty quickly, I can state that this tendency isn't always the case. In my experience women have often made better managers. I don't think men and women are completely the same. Taking the comment out of context kind of misses the point, you need to look at the whole thing.

I really don't know if women make better coders or if men do. I've worked with some very decent women coders, who are much better than I am. I've also worked with very few women coders, but I simply don't know if that's because they often don't like it, or because of the patriarchy.

You've jumped straight to "it's the inherent bias in the system", without offering any evidence.

It's not a "viewpoint" or an "attitude", it's just an idea. We should better understand what drives certain behaviors with an open mind, so that people can be better off and more happy.

Or are you actually suggesting we should aim for 50/50 in nursery nursing? To me that seems obviously wrong, because there just aren't that many men who are interested in working with little children. Of course there are some, but it's not many.

If you think the argument should be "torn to shreds" then go ahead.

There is proof, research and evidence.

Professor Daphna Joel..

Since 2003, Joel has served as the head of the psychobiology department at Tel Aviv University, and in 2013 was appointed chair of the PhD committee of the School of Psychological Sciences.

The whole thing does get a little mushy in the middle, but there you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYpDU040yzc

We are each individuals. Remove the social pressures and then see where people go.

If you want more, then I wrote something here - http://msknight.com/loas/?p=1551 - go down to the point about a third of the way down, "So where did the black/white (or pink/blue) binary come from?"

It's an interesting video.

It does start by describing the differences between male brains and female brains, and then ends by saying there aren't any differences. And this seems to be because the spines on the dendrites of rats brains show characteristics of the opposite sex when exposed to stress.

This hardly destroys the argument.

Also, I was never suggesting that women are less capable. Just that it's possible that some women just aren't as interested in coding.

If I was in a position of deciding who gets a job, would I pick someone more like myself instead of someone more capable? I'd really really hope not, but it's hard to know your own biases. I guess men might be more aggressive in self promotion and confidence, which might help them with interviews? (but not so much at the actual job).

It's a minefield.

It does start by describing the differences between male brains and female brains, and then ends by saying there aren't any differences.

What is shows is that while there are physical differences, they have no practical meaning; because some of the most critical differences are not even, in themselves, static... they are open to change during the persons life... and that stress applied at various points during gestation, have an effect on the individual brain; so that each of us is a unique person... and that further drives the nail into the argument of brain sex.... sex has nothing to do with the brain.

What about dyslexia and autism? The consensus is that males are affected more which would hint at there being some underlying difference.

A lot of effort is put into the 'there is no difference' view by the groups who like to use the word 'assigned'.

"because I said so"

Unfortunately this is often the sole basis of some group's thinking.

Any suggestion that real life is different to their firmly held ideas is dismissed as 'anecdotal evidence'.

As for equality, certain jobs are preferred by certain groups. In the UK a lot of girls study sciences at school but as they get older for whatever reason they seem to shy away from them.

I work in a field that is quite heavily research based and we have a slightly less awful ratio in R&D. Its maybe 5:1 but better than my last job which was easily 20:1.

Also certain jobs (usually involving sitting in front of computers all day) tend to be suited to those on the spectrum.

Your original post, as I understood it @msknight, asserted that the primary driver for people ending up in careers is the 'image' of the job accorded by the ("current") population distribution of the people doing said job. Thus by artificially adjusting the population you can create a self sustaining population within the job, so in theory would therefore no longer need to exclude applicants from the over represented subset.

There are a number of problems with that, both with the premise and the conclusion - but its possible I misunderstood and I am not attempting to straw-man.

The problem with what @anon posted, is trying to use statistics as a predictor for a population subset. We could very well use 'height' to demonstrate: lets say the average height of 'nurses' is below the population average. Does that mean that 'short people' are 'better suited' to being nurses? No. It means the variable you're examining has some relationship with the current population, but you can't look at a short person and assume they'd be a good nurse based on that attribute.

I agree that men and women are different. I agree that *individuals* should have equal opportunities. I don't agree that any of us are served by 'ripping opinions to shreds'. We should he trying to change each other's minds, while making every attempt to understand each other's varying opinions and what underpins them - otherwise we're just fighting.

I agree that men and women are different.

Men and women may be different, but not in the aspect of mental capability and performance in the field of I.T. I posted a few posts above a video from a respected neuroscientist that there is no such thing as a male or female brain.

I also posted to a piece of writing that I did which, while primarily dealing with the subject of transsexuality, went into the social pressures that we all face.

I could easily start listing the women who made a large contribution to our own field of work and how many were airbrushed out of I.T. history, but that is now easier to search for than ever before; because this is starting to be undone and people's contributions are coming forward.

But as long as people continue to perpetuate biases, such as giving the job to the person who they think is most likely to think as they do (reinforcement) rather than challenge them, (the much harder road) in whatever field it is... then the goal of giving the job to the person most suitable for the job itself, will not be achieved.

Changing people's minds has been difficult; there are people who don't want their minds changed. There is no other way to deal with those people other than to make laws and enforce them... because they don't want change and won't listen to evidence.

It is interesting though, the "push" for more women in IT. I've been in the business about 25 years. I've never seen a barrier at the companies I worked for, even an invisible barrier, that says "no women". Maybe it's different at your companies (in which case, why didn't you do something about it?).

So why aren't more women coming forward? In the small companies where I worked there were about 15% to 20% or so women in the IT departments (figures from memory, remembering who was who). At the larger companies that figure dropped off a little bit (again from memory, not actual statistics).

If 80% or more candidates are men, are we supposed to automatically reject most of their applications and choose only women? Why aren't more women applying in the first place?

IT is seen as a "clean" job in an office (mostly) with (sometimes) long hours. Why have I never seen a demand from the "more women in $workplace brigade" that more women be employed cleaning sewers (about 99% are men, apparently)? It's not a job I would want, so I give these people credit for doing it and don't look down on them. How about ordinary but respectable sometimes-get-your-hands-dirty jobs like telephone cable laying? How about more women steeplejacks? How about more women mechanics in backstreet garages? It does sometimes seem like this "equality" thing is not quite that equal.

Many years ago I lived in a constituency with a woman MP. The same sort of subject cropped up - why are there more women in xyz. It was pointed out that we had a woman MP, a woman prime minister, and a queen. What was stopping this complainant? Answer: not me.

You wrote: "I've never seen a barrier at the companies I worked for, even an invisible barrier, that says "no women".

OK, so read some of these comments, and remember that these guys work with us.

There's your barrier.

Research as long ago as 2016 (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35559439) shows software coding changes suggested by women had higher approval ratings than those from men - but only if their gender was not identifiable. Sigh.

I've seen a number of things in my years. It's not only the individual, it's those around them.

I had a woman from one supplier actually break down on my shoulder because one man at her office was very vocal about how women shouldn't be in I.T. and he made her life a misery; and he did this in full view of every one else in their office. No one stood up for her.

I left my last job because my new colleague (at the same level as me) with only five years basic experience in I.T. wouldn't listen to anything I told him; even down to the fact that the MAC address of the physical interface on a laptop being different to the physical interface on the docking station. (When I offered to prove it to him, he tried to prevent me showing him) He always had to have things explained to him by a man before he'd listen. The leader above us bullied me out of my job; I left a report with the HR department with evidence, but I don't think they've done anything since then. Why he hated me so much, I don't know. But he was also able to change everyone's opinions about me which lead to the manager above him accusing me of, "not getting it." ... you tell me how I'm supposed to make a change when faced with that sort of environment.

You want to see more women in male dominated fields? Then stop driving them out. You can't drive women out of these jobs and then turn around and ask, "Where are they?"

@msknight

"I had a woman from one supplier actually break down on my shoulder because one man at her office was very vocal about how women shouldn't be in I.T. and he made her life a misery; and he did this in full view of every one else in their office. No one stood up for her."

So one man in an entire office upsets a woman because he is a dick? I can believe that. I am a guy and I have worked with some dicks too. And others around dont tend to stand in the way either.

"I left my last job because my new colleague (at the same level as me) with only five years basic experience in I.T. wouldn't listen to anything I told him"

Lucky you. You got someone with some experience and no listening skills. And they wernt the same level they got put ahead of me. So I left.

"Why he hated me so much, I don't know."

Some people are just that way. Not worth the effort trying to understand what is wrong with them. Not even necessarily hatred, some people are just wired wrong.

"You want to see more women in male dominated fields? Then stop driving them out. You can't drive women out of these jobs and then turn around and ask, "Where are they?""

In my opinion for the first question I dont care. Just as I dont care about males entering female dominated fields. I dont drive anyone out, nor push anyone in.

Men and women may be different, but not in the aspect of mental capability and performance in the field of I.T.

But men and women (as a whole) have different preferences and interests.

Because this is not Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge or the Soviet Union under Lenin or Stalin then people have a choice as to what career they wish to pursue.

I remember a friend telling me about how he was surprised that a fellow university applicant wanted to become a merchant banker. Well, if your family and their friends include merchant bankers then merchant banking could become an interest for someone, but anybody else who had never seen a merchant banker, does not know of one through family or their friends, and had never seen or heard anything about merchant bankers through the media would not even know that merchant banking was an option, let alone how attractive an option it might be for them.

If you want to attract anyone into a profession then you need to people to be aware of that profession and provide a realistic view of it. You should then get people who are attracted to it, rather than people who are hunted down and lured in by box-tickers who are more concerned with social engineering than with finding a good match between candidates and roles.

I would like to see more women coal miners and deep see fisherwomen. I'm not interested in the very rare cases, I want to see parity in numbers.

It's not enough to want to "like to see more". You are basically propping up the patriarchy. It has to be very close to 50/50, or we don't have true equality, right? I mean, it works both ways doesn't it? It should also be for the tough undesirable jobs, if we're talking about quotas?

Technically 50/50 would mean inequality, as there are more men in employment than women, and more men in unemployment than women, and men are more likely to work full time.

Source: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06838/SN06838.pdf

So you'd expect to employ more men than women if you were reflecting the demographics and working patterns of the workforce (rather than the general population, which includes stay-at-home parents, children and retirees).

I would think we would like to remove barriers to entry. I think it very hard to make the case that white people feel uncomfortable about entering the health care workplace due to ethnic imbalances (it's not that pronounced - you'll have to think of a better example!).

However, I could see (as with male nurses in (hopefully) times gone past) that women would feel uncomfortable to enter the tech sector. They would they become part of a tiny minority. Of course, they *could* enter it anyway but a good number would be put off.

Your claim that it's possible that women just don't like coding is possible, but I would think most people accept that existing extreme imbalances in gender are self-sustaining. As such, there would need to be strong evidence of the former to prevent dealing with the latter.

@Freddie

"However, I could see (as with male nurses in (hopefully) times gone past) that women would feel uncomfortable to enter the tech sector. They would they become part of a tiny minority. Of course, they *could* enter it anyway but a good number would be put off."

Except they wernt. Coding was womans work, it was predominantly women. Then it transitioned to being male dominated.

> In the UK, as in the rest of the world, the gender divide in the tech sector is still very pronounced

Oh [....] off will you.

Keep your poorly informed opinions to your blog.

Disagree - fine (and state why you disagree).

Telling people not to comment, who are you to make that judgement?

There's nothing worse in my book. El-reg comment pages used to better than this.

What is it for you? Hate week.

It's not a comment I'm replying to. It's the article.

El Reg is misleading its readers. Is this a new policy?

Well yeah, that's all very well, but...

In my office it's 100% men. Well it's just me. And I think I'm a man. Hard to tell these days.

But being serious for a minute, even when I used to go to an actual office it was 70% - 90%+ men

The gender divide is kind of pronounced, isn't it?

The question is, why?

It wasn't always this way. Women in IT were by no means a rarity 30+ years back and the first place I worked was close to parity; it wasn't until '90s management arrived with its obsession with hire-and-fire, artificial team-building exercises, presenteeism and workplace competitiveness all of which usurped the old order like job security, career progression, a friendly and collaborative atmosphere and so on. It was just unpleasant, all the back-biting, endless reorgs and continuous redundancy programmes and it was impossible to get anything done. And the last few places I worked were so stripped back that they didn't even have a cafeteria; an ante-room right outside the toilets where you could make coffee doesn't really count as well as having that that "ew" factor and it's a far cry from the professional catering, recreational areas, staff shop and so on when I started.

Shouldn't come as a surprise that a lot of women left and didn't come back; few want to replace them in that environment and jobs in IT aren't going to get many recommendations from women who endured the '90s and thereafter. Last time I wrote about the subject and described why women might not be keen on a career in IT because of this, a man replied "well my experience is that it's fine, there are women here and that proves it" and I was just left thinking "really?" Even if it is genuinely an okay place to work (and I'm far from convinced, all things considered) I'd guess that most still aren't otherwise we probably wouldn't have have this problem.

Though as far as the article goes, the suspicious part of me thinks it's just a ruse to justify hiring more people from abroad i.e. cheaper people who are less likely to kick up a fuss about poor employment practices.

Anybody remember F International?

"Though as far as the article goes, the suspicious part of me thinks it's just a ruse to justify hiring more people from abroad i.e. cheaper people who are less likely to kick up a fuss about poor employment practices."

Helps keep the wages down. In the last year I have seen some bonkers requests. An embedded programmer with 3 years of so-so experience wanting £75k outside of London.

I've worked in tech and engineering jobs for a couple of decades now, in many different fields, for companies large and small. Engineering is still 80% male, IT still more like 95% - or 100% in my current company. They're hardly imagining it. But nobody knows why. Self-perpetuating imbalance (women don't apply as they don't want a male-dominated environment) or some deeper reason?

I believe that part of the problem is the still appalling unbalance of interest in STEM subjects at school. I was a child of the sixties and I assumed my generation would be the last which knew serious gender discrimination as we were pretty much all committed to ending it.

But it seems to have got worse with some very old-fashioned groups gaining power in control of some schools, and all schools suffering from serious money shortages. In my view, we won't solve the problem until we can get schoolgirls interested in STEM careers in much larger numbers.

'Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells'

Well, I didn't vote for you!

Is Canada technically in the US? I thought they were considered a separate country?

RBC might have an office in the USA!

They might, but when I last looked RBC CM was in Toronto.

Ha! They fixed it.

They are a separate country, FOR NOW. All we have to do is move the border 10 miles north and BLAMO most of the population is American.

Move the border a few miles south. Vermont can become South Quebec and North Dakota can become South Manitoba.

Another victim of El Reg's new American house style.

Another victim of El Reg's bovine excrement new American house style.

That's a lot better. I for one regret how US-centric this site has become. It is almost as if the world outside the lower 48 does not exist. For most Americans, the world outside their state/city/town is a big bad place.