Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

I'm a computing science undergraduate in Australia. At my university, the ratio of men to women in this science is approximately 10:1. You'll find this sort of figure repeated in most other universities worldwide.

The women in my lectures are just as capable as the men, so this absolute blitz of a differential is not down to a lack of ability.

No, instead it is due to this contemptuous post- baby-boom era attitude that men in science should work within more logical, rational sciences such as physics, engineering, mathematics and informatics, whereas women should involve themselves in more life-associated sciences such as biology, medicine and veterinary studies.

There is always a high demand for computing science undergraduates, which I know would be hugely alleviated by a balanced ratio of men to women. With computer software becoming so tremendously ubiquitous, how can we justify the modern trend of software, that of which lies at the core of every IT-enabled business, as being written by the fingertips of men? How are we to develop one of the most dynamic, prolific and omnipresent forms of technology today without any significant amount of female talent?

Not wishing to stir up a hornet's nest, but have you considered:

a) maybe girls are not as interested in computer science as boys? Other courses as you indicate may find the ratio reversed completely. This does not prove a misogynist hegemony as you seem to be driven to suggest. As a female within the field you are ideally placed to stimulate and encourage other girls to share your interest and perhaps you could use your energies more positively in that direction.

b) Whilst this might go against the grain, it is possible that there are fundamental differences in the skill sets of men and women and the type of work they are drawn toward. Many studies have been done into these differences and whilst they are generally regarded as tendencies, not absolutes, these could account for some of the imbalance you perceive. I have no doubt the women on your course are as equally capable as the men on your course, but the important phrase here is not men or women, it is "on your course". How many of either sex are willing or capable of the devotion required to what is undoubtedly an intellectually demanding subject?

c) To pick up on your somewhat disparaging inference about the lack of logic and rationality in the "life" sciences as you put it, perhaps computer science tends to attract those that lack the additional (for example, people) skills required to succeed in these sciences. Perhaps the relatively high level of women in these fields represents the fact that they are actually, in general, better rounded individuals?

As you are a self-professed logical and rational person, I hope you will take these points in the manner in which they are meant, namely to present alternative, equally valid deductions from your initial statement to contrast your potentially unfounded insistence that it is male chauvinism that is keeping women out of computer science. If not, please feel free to continue the rant! :-)

Ada Lovelace was indeed the first theorectical programmer of a sort.

However the first actual computer programmer was Tom Kilburn who penned the first stored program to actually run in 1948. He wrote on a steam train travelling from Dewsbury to Manchester and the progam ran on Freddie William's Baby machine at Manchester University.

@dr_fred, You're right, girls aren't as interested in this science as men. And, if you assume this is down to anything other than social conditioning, then you are surely mistaken.

I never insisted life sciences lack logic and mathematical reason, however the physical and mathematical sciences are traditionally more inclined towards it in the course of study. Furthermore, the life sciences do appeal to women moreso than men, as evidenced by the ratios against men in both medicine and certainly, veterinary science.

But all of that is a somewhat moot point here. The ratios between men and women in our Mathematics department is more or less equal - a slight predilection towards men, but it's a fairly good balance. What does this suggest, then?

All I am arguing here, is that, given the vast boom of computational technology within the last 15 years, with women playing such a fraction of a part within this field, how can we brush this aside as a triviality? Think of all the excellent technological innovations this industry has created, and how much greater it could be with equal input from women.

So, male chauvinism? No. Unconscious social conditioning? I'm quite sure.

Furthermore, in response to your first point, whoever said I was a woman?! :-)