girls and computers, was: Gendered Communication

[Steve Owens <uso01 -at- EAGLE -dot- UNIDATA -dot- COM>]

Karen (karenk -at- netcom -dot- com) said:
>>         I think the connection is inclusive, not exclusive.  Not that
>> the humanities weenies are less likely, but that math weenies are
>> *more* likely.

> How can one group be more likely without making the other group less
> likely?

        I'll make up some numbers off the top of my head to illustrate.
Let's say the likelihood to use computers among college students is
distributed thus:

        PolySci Weenies         10%
        Math Weenies            20%
        Humanities Weenies      10%
        Business Weenies        10%

        Now, would you say that humanities weenies are *less* likely,
or that math weenies are *more* likely?

        More to the point, the factors that result in this spread are
factors which affect the math weenies, (that computer science has its
roots in math), more than factors which affect the rest.

> I guess that I feel very strongly that computers are for
> everyone, though they may not know it yet. But they will find out.:)

        I quite agree, I'm simply explaining why math majors tend to
find out first :-)

>> Plus, the topic under discussion was (I think it's
>> strayed a bit) the predominance of males in the computer field (which
>> means a heavy emphasis on engineering, programming, etc) and it's
>> probably a valid point.

> Ummm....I thought the subject was styles of communication, which
> strayed into the topic of the preponderance of male engineers?

        Nope.  The topic under discussion roamed a bit, but it started
with Andreas talking about the preponderance of male vs. female
readers of computer docs, and claiming that this preponderance is
evidence of the need for different communicative strategies.
(something I disagree with, btw, at least until somebody presents some
evidence and some logic).

Steven J. Owens
uso01 -at- unidata -dot- com