What went wrong, /g/?

Simple: in the 80's, Reagan and his conservatives were in charge. They were (and are) known misogynists, so they drove women away from STEM with their policies.

>>59052122
Go fuck yourself with your shit threads happened.

>>59052122
Good question.

How the fuck do people find the enthusiasm to make and participate in these shit circlejerk threads moaning about women 15 times every day? You spergs all agree with each other and no one ever posts anything new unless they're trolling .

You didn't check the catalog before posting this thread.

>>59052122
Computer jobs became "uncool" in popular culture.

That's it. I'm not joking.

Programming stopped being secretarial work when the microcomputer became small enough to put a whole computer at every desk.
At that point, there was no need for punch card feeders and vacuum tube replacers, the scientists upstairs writing programs could simply do it themselves.
Women simply weren't up for it, notice the steep dropoff as soon as the microcomputer became cheaper and cheaper.

>>59052122
Who fucking cares. Let people go to the fields they're attracted to.

Duplicate thread. Move along.

>>59052122
Hard work happened.

>>59052258
Haha no let me tell you about how hard computer programming was before the 80s, son...

easily explain.
modern women are a fucking joke.

>>59052122
Perhaps more women are interested in fields that are not computer related. Shocking, I know.

File: 1443937848956.gif (2MB, 187x155px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 187x155px

>>59052258

>>59052122
Not enough kute koding bootkamps to teach them how to
>cd..
>ls
>pwd
>cd kode
>cd..
They've been stuck on /home/Stacy for 40 years

File: WRONG.jpg (32KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x270px

>>59052211
No.

Holy shit, is this graph real?

This just proves that appealing to demographics doesn't work and all it does is alienate them.

I remember watching a very interesting video about female fighter pilots in WW2 and they loved the profession as they were treated no different and even this lack of being treated different wasn't even pointed out.

>>59052281
Things were much more understandable in yesteryear

You weren't as abstracted from fundamental concepts

The most likely scenario is that women were a huge part of the field in the early days, but CS' rise in prominence came with the idea that it was a "male" profession, so the number of women involved dropped over time.

>>59052357
>This just proves that appealing to demographics doesn't work and all it does is alienate them.

The drop started in the mid 80s.

>>59052373
You've never heard of punched cards, have you?

>>59052357
>Holy shit, is this graph real?

If you look at the Nordic countries of Europe where they are perhaps some of the most equal and egalitarian, the sexes fall back into their stereotypical career choices. Once inequality is removed in the environment, the only thing left is the genetic disposition. Shoe-horning people into professions is laughably stupid.

>>59052420
programming is hard. :(

>>59052449
It used to be even harder, darling. The minute the challenge dropped, womyn left. Inferior men stayed. I wonder why... ;)

>>59052443
Tedium is different from hard work.

>>59052472
What kind of argument is this?
Do you even understand what you're saying?

You're not even a convincing troll.

>>59052449

It isn't, literally any Pajeet can do it.

>>59052479
So you haven't?

>>59052122
What actually happened? A program spun off from pure maths, which has a lot of women BTW, got really popular with people who just wanted to do tech.

The fact that percentages may have gone down don't really mean much when the number and sizes of computer science programs have gone up rather drastically since the 80s.

>>59052445
Stop regurgitating Peterson, it's embarrassing.

What actually happened is Russian, Chinese and Indian hordes started mass invading computer science. Those are primitive, primarily patriarchal societies, where women aren't allowed off the kitchen. That's what happened.

>>59052543
>Stop regurgitating Peterson, it's embarrassing.

Problem?

>>59052443
Outside of legacy computing punch cards already went away in the 1970s. By the 1980s those who didn't use machines that actually sat on a desk with monitor and keyboard used remote terminals with a monitor and keyboard.

>>59052543
>Peterson
Who?

He's not wrong thou... Sexual dimorphism is a thing and it's not limited to genitalia.

>>59052569
My point precisely.

Computers are for people with no life. Who else would lock themselves up to code stuff.

If I had a life I would never had spend countless hours making stuff on my computer.

>>59052122
Neckbeard stereotypes, bad work conditions, big incoming of foreign workers.

File: ibm-women.jpg (113KB, 1280x861px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1280x861px

>>59052122
At first, programming was considered a profession for women, considering it was a job that was relegated to secretaries and the like. They were the ones doing the coding and the ones being in charge of the tech support department.
Then, at some point, they were relegated and it became a job for men. Then it became a job for pajeets and other disposable immigrants.

File: AAAAAAAAAAAA.gif (47KB, 250x194px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 250x194px

>>59052639
>they were the ones doing the coding

>>59052605
Punch cards were intended to emulate direct input from the keyboard and were thus used to write both high and low level languages. The main difference between them and video terminals was that you typed everything up in advance and then fed it all to the computer in one go.

>>59052639
They weren't coding, they were glorified calculators and keyboards.

>>59052673
I know that, I've used them. What's your point?

>>59052208

This. Simply put, women aren't interested in the nitty gritty of computer science (or anything, really), they're too hardwired to serve people.

>>59052639
>At first, programming was considered a profession for women
Not really... The typing up of hand written programs to paper tape was definitely considered to be a woman/secretary's job, but when Grace Hopper did most of her work, the people she worked with were just about all men.

The original idea of programming being a woman's job stems from WW2 when most of the men were away fighting and how badly they overhyped Ada Lovelace.

File: 1476330447455.png (2MB, 1500x2260px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x2260px

>>59052674
Wow, someone's ego has been hurt! Calm down, honey, it will hurt less if you just accept it, sweetheart.

>>59052683
Punch cards are basically a delayed action keyboard. They really don't abstract anything any more than a terminal+keyboard combo.

>>59052715
this image is 50% true, 50% exaggerations

File: 1476330394405.jpg (2MB, 4800x3750px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4800x3750px

>>59052702
Another insecure little male feeling threatened by womyn's accomplishments. I'm afraid you gotta work on that ego, dear.

>>59052742

But I just stated a fact?

File: 1476330478337.jpg (30KB, 362x328px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 362x328px

>>59052739
No need to feel threatened by a few females just because they are superior to you, darling.

>>59052742

Also, the types of women to go to stanford would be the types that go into fields like computer science. On the whole, what I said stands for the female gender. Nothing wrong with it, just our roles in society.

File: 1476330637969.png (87KB, 649x614px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 649x614px

>>59052760
If by "fact" you mean "deeply entrenched prejudiced notions that have been completely debunked by rational science", then of course, sweetheart.

In this ITT thread: misogynists BTFO

>>59052776
This was debunked the day it came out. Nice try.

>>59052799
MAXIMUM DAMAGE CONTROL

>>59052597
Ur muns pucci is a thing and it aint limited to your dad

>>59052776
>>59052761
>>59052742
>>59052715
>>59052639
Damn, how are the little-penised insecure /g/ woman-haters EVER gonna recover from this #REKKING?

>>59052170
Consider suicide.

>>59052822
>Posts obvious bait
>Contributes nothing to thread
>Posts obvious bait
>Uses a # on 4chan
>Posts obvious bait

Here's your (You)

>>59052715
>Ada Lovelace
Majorly hyped up and all the did was do a bit of theorizing when Babbage, her personal maths tutor, told her about the Analythical Engine when he was planning it

>Jean Sammet
Never heard of the formac language and the COBOL working group was a rather huge group of people. Would have been impressive had she been in a senior position in the project

>Hedy Lamarr
One of many engineers who worked on a rather important wireless data communication project. Can't recall what exactly it was, but she wasn't even a senior person in the project, just a rank and file engineer among many others.

>Grace Hopper
First serious groundbreaker on your list

>Katherine Johnson
Not really all that impressive when being a human calculator was considered a woman's job because of how tedious and boring it was.

>Edith Clarke
I guess there always needs to be a first one, but for the first female electrical engineer not to appear until the 1900s is a bit late and graphing calculators were still years away when she died in 1959.

>Kathleen Antonelli
Not all that impressive when most of the programmers of the ENIAC were women because most of the competent men were away taking part in WW2

All that picture proves is that women did take part in early computing history, but apart from Hopper they were mostly footnote material.

>>59052896
Show us your amazing contributions to technology then, oh great one.

>>59052905
>Show us your amazing contributions to technology then, oh great one.

Irrelevant to the facts stated.

this just proves the women are smarter! :D

computer science is garbage ... !

>>59052920
So none?

Why can't people just do what the fuck they want without some fucking sperg group crying sexism because it isn't 50/50 to their liking?

Fuck sake.

>>59052925
This, women are the real smart ones at dodging the jobs with long shifts and shitty paid. Only neckbeards are masochist enough to accept to work in those conditions.

>>59052954
Irrelevant to the facts stated. Even if were to list my achievements it would be inconsequential to the facts stated either for or against.

>>59052905
>Asspain: The post
It doesn't really matter... Apart from Hopper, I've personally achieved about as much as all the women in that picture.

Yes, you've proven that women in tech did exist way back when, but you could only present a single female groundbreaker. Listing rank and file engineers and programmers aren't all that impressive when nobody denied or even doubted their existence.

>>59052558
That's not the 80s. What you're referring to is called 2000 or as I like to call it the new millenium. etc etc

File: stereotypes.jpg (33KB, 587x310px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 587x310px

>>59052956
>Why can't people just do what the fuck they want
Gee, I don't know, anon! Why do you misogynists keep brainwashing girls with your "you can't into STEM lol" bullshit instead of letting them do whatever the fuck they want?

>The report launched today by the Institute of Physics (IOP) entitled "Closing Doors" shows that the majority of schools fail to encourage subject choices in a gender neutral way. Boys are less likely to take stereotypically girls' subjects such as psychology or English, whereas girls are opting not to take physics or economics A-level, stereotypically identified as "for boys". This is not good news. Our children should be free to choose to study what really excites them, not subtly steered away from certain subjects because teachers believe in and propagate the stereotypes. Last year the IOP published a report "It's Different for Girls" which demonstrated that essentially half of state coeducational schools did not see a single girl progress to A-level physics. By contrast, the likelihood of girls progressing from single sex schools were two and a half times greater.

>When discussing the launch of this report on the BBC Today programme I was challenged by a headteacher that "maybe girls just don't like physics".

https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/dec/09/gender-stereotypes-schools-children-choices

>>59052975
None then. Okay.

>>59052987
>Apart from Hopper, I've personally achieved about as much as all the women in that picture
I'm sure you have, random shitposter from an online Tibetan wet lithography imageboard.

>>59052715

You can tell that image was made by a woman because of the arbitrary placement of the names and description.

>>59052131
FPBP

>>59052896
Great rebuttal!

>>59053037
retard

>>59053121
Consider suicide.

>>59053133
I'm not the retarded one with nothing to give to society. Might as well end it fagit

>>59053053
>I'm sure you have, random shitposter from an online Tibetan wet lithography imageboard.
That would have been a decent rebuttal had we been talking about Hopper and that Apllo software lady, but everyone except Hopper (and Ada Lovelace who didn't actually do anything but theorize a bit) was a rank and file employee who worked on bigger projects mostly staffed by men.

>>59053019
Can you stop trying to destroy gender stereotypes for no reason other than they exist? Women and men ARE different, they tend to like different things. I agree with having equal opportunities for each gender in case they don't follow the norm (girls who are interested in engineering/math etc, guys who want to be nurses or help people) but if they don't want to then don't try to force the "equality".

What seems more likely, every female in the entire world is brainwashed into liking things they actually don't, or women just prefer different jobs. Also, in trying to push more women into science and engineering, isn't this even more direct brainwashing?

Look at this video (yes it's pretty long, but very insightful in my opinion) and tell me if you still have any arguments: https://vimeo.com/19707588

>>59052122
As a white male, a feminist, and a cuckold , I think we need a white male tax, a ban on white males from entering the country, obtaining employment, or owning land, and mandatory abortions for white male fetuses.

>>59053168
The problem with people like the one you're replying to is that they want to pretend people like you actually want programming to be an all boys club rather than a field anyone interested i it can work in. What they do is try to attack arguments you've never made thinking that this will prove that you're a misogynist asshole and they're the great feminist ally they think they are.

Nobody except a few morons actually believe that women should be prevented from going into STEM fields, it's just that a lot of people who consider themselves to be really progressive think that fewer women than men choosing not to out of their own free will means that this is somehow evidence of rampant misogyny in the field.

>>59052715
Him is right, big part just was computer(people make compute) in time comes electronic computer, women take care computer.

All women on imagen don't be computers, them were scientists or engineers.

>>59053168
If you unironically defend what >>59053019 described, then you're a piece of shit. How can you look to a kid with a straight face and tell her she can't do something because of her birth-assigned gender?

This is NOT about "forcing equality" (???), it's about stopping you turds from FORCING INEQUALITY. Stop trying to defend the undefendable, idiot.

>>59053168
If inequality is so "natural", then why force, dipshit? Stop limiting girls' freedom of choice to learn and do whatever they want!

>>59052742
Stanford major in CS is full of foreign, mostly women are asians,Indian,Eastern Europe or Russian, working on companies of Silicon Valley.

Simply American girl, don't want this kind of jobs.

Dongle jokes are actively keeping women out of tech fields

>>59053324
This.

File: eggplant emoji.png (288KB, 1639x1080px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1639x1080px

>>59053324
Women need to sort out their mental issues before pursuing stem degrees.

>>59053346
> nodejs

>>59053267
>How can you look to a kid with a straight face and tell her she can't do something because of her birth-assigned gender?
I don't. That's the point - they have the freedom to do whatever they want. I have absolutely no problem with women in science and engineering, there are several women in my third year EE class and they're very respectable.

My problem is with the statistics being sent out that result in people reacting like this. People see "oh no women aren't going into STEM" and then misinterpret this and demonize me and many others, like you are doing now.

>>59053288
Again, women have freedom of choice. I said nothing about forcing inequality.

File: gitlab-com-melts-down-after-wrong-directory-deleted-backups-fail-58918dbfaf1ea.jpg (21KB, 394x262px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 394x262px

>>59053400
Re-read >>59053019
Or are you wilfully ignoring the report?

>>59052742
>womyn's accomplishments
>implying women build civilization

the only reason women are accomplish anything in life is because they have the government. the government had to handicap men first so women can compete against men. they pass affirmative action laws and gender quota laws that benefit women. also the government wastes money on women for them to join stem fields. Women are a waste of resources and time because they later leave those fields to start a family. also sexual dimorphism makes males better not females this is why women are a dumber.weaker and more emotionally unstable version of men. lastly women are nothing but parasites who take more from the system then they put in. majority of tax payers are men and women benefit the most from those tax benefit.

Why do people care so much?

This topic is a guaranteed 300 replies every time it's made.
Why does this piss you off so much?
Do you hate women?

>>59053431
Most "women" in tech are not women

>>59053431
Feminist: few women on programming is bad.
Programmer: you want to be developer.
Feminist: meh job for looser and neckbeard.
Programmer: ...
Feminist: misogyny.

>>59053445
Most "tech" is not tech.

>>59053431
4chan generally hates feminist because feminists hate fun and encourage discrimination of males.

>>59053421
Honestly I didn't read the report the first time around. I read it now. Unfortunate that mixed schools have a lower rate of women in STEM classes. I'm still pretty unconvinced that this is something that can be fixed though. The way I see it:
>boys tend to be interested in STEM
>boys go into STEM
>girls want to avoid all-boys classes
>girls take something that's not STEM
This is in addition to their normal tendencies to prefer non-STEM classes. But then, how do we fix this?

>>59053431
because we are taking funding and education away from boys so women can have an opportunity. The problem with this is that women leave their careers to start a family and hurt our country in the development of science. also women can't never become great scientists like Tesla or Newton because they are bad at abstract though.

>>59053730
>opportunity taken away from boys

how

>>59053747
Funding programs with mostly boys, gets close, to open only girls programs.

>>59053779
why do boys need programs when they have no problem joining stem?
they don't need to be tricked into going into STEM degrees

>>59053730
This post is satire, right? It must be satire.

>>59053649
(continuing my post) As all of these arguments turn out, it seems like it's going to tend toward the ultimate point that feminists want - for men to be more feminine and weak so that women can succeed.

This school situation is going to end up with the point "men should be less energetic and spirited about their STEM classes because it's driving women away. women don't like the banter and general masculine environment".

It feels like the same situation as a gym: you have all the men deadlifting, benching, squatting heavy and having a generally great time, while women are intimidated of approaching the weights because of the environment. However telling men to lift lighter weights and be quieter isn't benefitting equality, it's just slowing everyone down. Women entirely have the freedom to go lift weights, there are women who are very strong (stronger than a lot of men) and succeed at it.

So I disagree with the concept of dancing on eggshells to make everyone feel welcome, however I agree with not directly driving women away.

If this isn't the retort you are going to make, then ignore this.

>>59053791
Women have no problem joining STEM either. How about scholarships? Women get free women scholarships simply because they're women in a STEM field.

1>>59053826
Is this a joke?
There's no enthusiasm or banter in stem, everyone's too autistic to take part in banter, that's why they're fucking STEM majors.

Women don't like being near autistic people because they barely people to begin with.

>>59053747
because they are taking the chairs of males in higher education. that chair could have been reserve for a male who was willing to contribute to society and not just leave because he got pregnant or because the material was to difficult. women drop like flies after they realize how difficult the course is or manipulate the men in to giving them the answers. gender is not a social construct but a biological thing. women right now have rights at the expense of men.

>>59053906
To be fair, both men and women drop like flies after the first few courses in most stem disciplines because they're simply not cut out for it.

Just measure how many people attend first day and how many people show up for the final test in any introductory course.

>>59052543
Who-ever he is, apparently he's not wrong. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

>>59053918
>To be fair, both men and women drop like flies after the first few courses in most stem disciplines because they're simply not cut out for it.

but women do it more because nature made them inferior to men. women are a waster of resources and time for everyone.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969295/

>>59052140
> cancer

>>59053860
Maybe energetic was the wrong term, but I've found with some of my friends that talking about homework can quickly devolve into "heated" debates about somewhat unimportant things. Also group work tends to favour people who are loud/confident in their points, which can turn women off.

>>59054283
>women don't like loud confident men

>>59053121
Dunning kruger

>>59054320
Sexually, sure, but they probably feel like they don't have much of a voice working with one. (Not that I think this is a bad thing, group projects are a power struggle and a lot of times men are just better at being powerful in an engineering setting)

>>59054434
the only right way to win in a group project is to do as little work as possible and shove all your work to the most autistic person in the group, who more thank likely has a superiority complex and will want to write everything himself anyway.

>>59054452
>do as little work as possible and shove all your work to the most autistic person in the group
It's called "delegating"

>>59054552
Or bully to women,

>>59052122
it got hard