It's nice to be able to share things. Presumably it could also get too much (computer stuff all the time), but couples of the same profession seem to be quite common. Besides, computers are among the most interesting things, especially because most other things can be analyzed in terms of computers.
People aren't analyzable by computers, at least on an individual basis. Women tend to be more interested in individual relationships than men, and you can't have a relationship with a computer.
In my opinion, it is pretty obvious from the clearly differing motivations of the genders why there is such a gender divide in academics. Maybe it has to do with intelligence, but "intelligence" seems to largely be determined by what a person loves and focuses their time on, i.e. genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.
Today, we measure intelligence in quantitative/technical terms, and men are much more interested in technical subjects than women. Who memorizes thousands of intricate statistics about hundreds of people they'll never meet? Who gets bored stiff by that stuff and wants to share personal experiences instead? The difference here is quantitative vs qualitative.
So, again, I think it's pretty obvious why there are barely any women geeks. People only think it is a big issue because they think it is important for women to be self determined, and you have to be technically smart to succeed in what we consider success (career, wealth, material goods, etc). I think our modern worldview is way too narrow.
"Women tend to be more interested in individual relationships than men, and you can't have a relationship with a computer."
OK, firstly, my Mac started crying when he read that. Poor mac!
Secondly, the broad generalisations that you make about men and women is exactly the problem. Here's a hint: Women working in IT, and particularly programming, are there precisely because we too are interested in technical subjects and having very analytical minds. The problem is, as roadtripgeek has already alluded to, men see us in the workplace, and make the assumption that we are just like the hairdresser, or the secretary that they talk to on coffee breaks: into communications more than cold hard code.
I look at my situation. My entire floor at the ofice is taken up by programmers and their direct managers. I am the only woman on the floor. It's not the technical conversations that get me, it's all the other crap. Guys that want to talk about poker, or brewing beer, or the football results, or how they got lucky with a hot babe in the carpark of the Sheraton last weekend. Or it's when they decide to use a clip from a porno film as the test flow for a new product that we are working on. Or the fact that a few of the guys have decided that, seeing as I'm the only woman on the floor, that I shouldn't have a bathroom all to myself, and who won't even put the damned seat back down after they have finished pissing!
It's all that crap that makes IT unattractive for women, not the actual work itself.
Personally, like many of us here on HN, I'm working on my exit strategy - work for myself, where I can still code my little heart out, without having to put up with all the male bonding crap that I'm automatically excluded from in the workplace.
Voted up for the crying Mac, but other than that I have to say you dish out just as many stereotypes as you complain about receiving. I am male but I don't care about beer or football, and I would never spread porn in the workplace. If I got lucky with hot babes frequently, maybe I would brag about it - but I wonder, what exactly would you be interested in talking about with men? Seems to me that relationship issues are one of the common themes of human conversation.
Stereotypes? Where? I wasn't making generalisations, I was describing my daily work environment! The fact that you identify that environment as being stereotypically male rather proves my point, don't you think?
The whole point of my post is that it is a general observation. If the genders naturally have this qualitative vs quantitative distinction in their interests, then the lack of women in quantitative disciplines is a straightforward implication.
I can see the problem if women don't naturally have such interests and they're somehow forced to be this way through societal expectations. But is this really the case?
If the reason that there are less women in technical subjects is that their minds have been crippled by their upbringing (at a higher rate, for these particular subjects), then that is an important problem.
I think that is partially true based on anecdotal evidence from a friend who tutors students in math. But still, there seem to be intrinsic differences between the genders in the general nature of their interests.
I don't think this is bad. Women are obviously much smarter than men in certain areas of life and it has been said that behind every great man there is an even better woman. What needs to happen is for us to realize the mind's quantitative abilities are not the only important aspect of the mind.
Anyways, I don't think women should be purposefully kept from quantitative disciplines. I think the system should be entirely merit based and if women want to be technical then they should do the same work as men.
I deny that the theory of genetic male/female differences in what interests one has (or tends to have) is plausible. I think it is like astrology. One takes something, and says it causes something else, for no reason. One needs an explanation of how it causes it.
Of course there are observed gender differences. Culture can explain that. We can actually explain how culture could cause all of the observed effects. With genetics there isn't any explanation.
What about physiology, such as the differences between the brains? Also, until we completely separate procreation from reproduction, men and women will have different social roles, which underlies the cultural influences you mention.
