Ozgur Akgun wrote:

Nevertheless, I guess you're right. There are very few females in most of the CS topics, and haskell is no different.

This is my experience too. Although note that apparently the world's very first computer programmer was apparently a woman...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_HopperA heck of a lady. On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Coppin

wrote:

Ozgur Akgun wrote:

...

Nevertheless, I guess you're right. There are very few females in most of the CS topics, and haskell is no different.

This is my experience too. Although note that apparently the world's very first computer programmer was apparently a woman...

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:

So the first computer nerd was.... a women??!!! ;-) ;-) ;-)

Yeah, and she was so attractive that the entire male gender spent the next 50 years trying to impress her. Luke

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM, John Van Enk wrote:

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper A heck of a lady.

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:

...

Ozgur Akgun wrote:

...

Nevertheless, I guess you're right. There are very few females in most of the CS topics, and haskell is no different.

This is my experience too. Although note that apparently the world's very first computer programmer was apparently a woman...

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

If you are looking for a real first - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace - she is even credited with writing the first algorithm for machine execution. On 27 Mar 2010, at 20:06, John Van Enk wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper

A heck of a lady.

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Coppin

...

wrote: Ozgur Akgun wrote: Nevertheless, I guess you're right. There are very few females in most of the CS topics, and haskell is no different.

This is my experience too. Although note that apparently the world's very first computer programmer was apparently a woman...

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Daniel Fischer wrote:

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Günther Schmidt" Gesendet: 27.03.2010 16:14:57 An: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Betreff: [Haskell-cafe] Are there any female Haskellers?

...

Hi all,

from the names of people on the list it seems that all users here are males.

Just out of curiosity are there any female users here, or are we guys only at the moment?

Günther

I'm pretty sure that Phil(l?)ip(p?)a Cowderoy is female, I've also seen a couple of other female names here and on the beginners list. (Since Ashley Yakeley seems to be located in the USA, I dare not guess whether Ashley is a man's name or a woman's in this case.)

Ashley Yakeley is a man. I work with several female Haskellers. And I've met several others who are at universities or use Haskell on the side. In general, I'd say women in computer science are a minority. I would say mathematics has a higher percentage of women than computer science from my own anecdotal experience. Why are there so few women in computer science? I don't know but it's an interesting question. One professor I was talking to about this subject said he felt that at his university when CS was a part of math there were more women and when it became part of engineering the percentage of women dropped. It's possible that there are gender differences that cause men to be attracted to this field more frequently than women. I'm hesitant to say that's the underlying reason though. I suspect the following, based on conversations I've had with women in the field. For some reason it started out as a male dominated field. Let's assume for cultural reasons. Once it became a male dominated field, us males unknowingly made the work and learning environments somewhat hostile or unattractive to women. I bet I would feel out of place if I were the only male in a class of 100 women. Anyway, those are just observations I've made. Don't take any of it too seriously and I certainly don't mean to offend anyone. I know gender differences can be quite controversial at times. Jason

Alberto G. Corona writes:

Hope that this cold answer don't end this funny thread ;(

Those concerned with Haskellers to Haskellinas ration can always employ this technique: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99128.htm Any volunteers? :) -- Gracjan

2010/3/27 Jason Dusek

2010/03/27 Alberto G. Corona :

...

To say this in scientific headline jargon, it's a matter of division of work, time, and dimorphic fixation of abilities in the brain by natural selection trough dimorphic development of the brain of men and women by different genetic sequences. I don't know any kind of tool more flexible and powerful than a computer language. Men are good at making tools and using them. They invested more in engineering because this activity were more critical for their success than in the case of women. Sociological or cultural explanations don't explain the universal tendencies and habilities across cultures and time.

In this passage, you seem to attribute to men a relatively great adaptation for making & using tools, relative to women. You suggest this applies to computer languages -- excellent tools -- and this explains the relative absence of women in computing.

It's hard to take your remarks seriously; consider:

. There is no single adaptation for "tool using". Men differ greatly in their aptitude for working with different kinds of tools.

The adaptation consist in the plasure for using such tools, to harness his power to play with them that is, to invest in them. The mean male play an appreciate new tools more than women. that is universal. Additionally it is clear that some mathematical abilities in which men are better are related with the use of tools. The fact that men and woman have different abilities and tendencies that match these abilities is beyond doubt. Cerebral scanners shows that even there are large differences in which are of the brain is used for each purpose in men and women. That does not ban anyone to do whatever they please.

are few cultures that have not allocated some essential domain of work -- fabric arts, tanning, cooking, picking certain plants -- to women. It's hard to see any support for the notion that tools are more (or less) critical for the evolutionary success of men.

yes. but these tools are not the object of their pleasure. they just use

support for it. When offering a theory as to the relative success of one movie over another, I suppose there is not a great burden of proof; but carelessness in the matter of which kind of person can do which kind of work has hurt too many people for too long.

This is off topic. and i can not write extensively about that here but is just a consequence of the application of evolution to the human speciehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology. Here you can find some answer to your objections. I strongly disagree with your point. Science is made of theories. If we can even discuss them then we are in the middle age of the politically correct empire, in a civilization

. The relevance of tools in women's lives is well known; there them for a purpose. Though this may be your "honest theory", you don't offer much that has decide to stop thinking, that regret his achievements and that only look back to find excuses to ate deeper himself.

-- Jason Dusek

wren ng thornton wrote:

Alberto G. Corona wrote:

...

because math abilities are not a -primary- reason for survival. Tools engineering and mastering is.

I don't see the difference.

(That is, the difference between CS and mathematics. Conversely, I don't see the similarity between physical tools and intellectual tools.)

Being able to use a lever, wheel, pulley, fire,... is obviously helpful for survival. But "intellectual tools" like mathematics, logic, and computer science don't bear any particular relation to physical tools. If someone's adept at using hammers, pliers,... there's no reason to suspect that they'd be adept with reasoning puzzles. And just because someone's good at category theory is no reason to suspect they'd be able to repair a car.

Do not be misled by the fact that CS departments are often lumped in with engineering. For that matter, do not be misled by modern engineering which bears little resemblance to any tool-using evolutionary advantage that may have molded homo sapiens.

-- Live well, ~wren

2010/03/29 Alberto G. Corona :

[...] What we evolved with is a general hability: to play with things to achieve what we need from them, (besides other abilities). The pleasure to acheve ends by using available means. [...]  A tool is someting used to solve a class of problems. It does not matter if it is something phisical or conceptual. [...] The more general is a tool, the more we feel pleasure playing with it

So the adaptation you are saying men have in greater degree than women is pleasure in "tool using", broadly defined to include taming animals, debate, programming, sword play, carpentry and more? What are you attributing to men is not so much superiority of ability but greater motivation? -- Jason Dusek

This is still alive? Haskell is clearly no longer the topic here, it should be moved elsewhere imo. JC Petkovich On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Jason Dusek wrote:

2010/03/29 Jason Dusek :

...

What are you attributing to men...

  s/are you/you are/

-- Jason Dusek _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On 30/03/2010, at 9:01 AM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:

There is some evidence that arrows may go back 60,000 years, which is time enough for some evolutionary effect.

IIRC, Hughes defined arrows last millenium, which makes them no more than 1000 years old. I certainly find that I have no innate ability to use them. Tom

Alberto G. Corona wrote:

The reasons for the sexual differences in mathematical abilities are different, because math abilities are not a -primary- reason for survival. Tools engineering and mastering is. If this is politically incorrect I beg you pardon, but this is my honest theory about that. My other hobby is evolution and evolutionary psichology. I really recommend to learn about it.

Could you point us to any evidence that supports your assumption that there are "sexual differences in mathematical abilities"? Thanks, Jochem -- Jochem Berndsen | jochem@functor.nl

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Jason Dagit wrote:

 For some reason it started out as a male dominated field.  Let's assume for cultural reasons.  Once it became a male dominated field, us males  unknowingly made the work and learning environments somewhat hostile or unattractive to women.  I bet I would feel out of place if I were the only male in a class of 100 women.

Is this really true? I've heard rumors that in the early days of programming, that women were in the majority, or at least they represented a much greater proportion of programmers than they do now. I seem to recall that this started to change sometime in the 60s. Of course, I can't recall when or where I heard these stories, and I'm not sure that my source was reliable, so I might be completely off on this count. Best, Leon

2010/03/27 Leon Smith :

I've heard rumors that in the early days of programming, that women were in the majority, or at least they represented a much greater proportion of programmers than they do now. I seem to recall that this started to change sometime in the 60s. Of course, I can't recall when or where I heard these stories, and I'm not sure that my source was reliable, so I might be completely off on this count.

Women have been "computers" for a long time but they were not generally the majority or even very well represented. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-age-of-female-computers In the Second World War, however, this changed; many, many women were brought into the "computer corps" and the first six programmers of the ENIAC, all women, were drawn from that corps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer So it may have happened that women started out as the majority of programmers and maintained that role for awhile; but as computing evolved more men came to desire the position. Of course, all the bosses were still men; they might prefer to hire other men. Coupled with conservative attitudes about women at work, programming would've become more and more hostile for women and maybe they were motivated to leave. A friend of mine, an engineer now in San Francisco, used to work in defense in Australia. The defense industry there is apparently as conservative as it is in the United States. There were alot of people around who felt that women needn't be in the work place or have jobs like mechatronic engineer. She was greatly motivated to leave. In the forties, where would she have gone? -- Jason Dusek

Leon Smith writes:

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Jason Dagit wrote:

...

 For some reason it started out as a male dominated field.  Let's assume for cultural reasons.  Once it became a male dominated field, us males  unknowingly made the work and learning environments somewhat hostile or unattractive to women.  I bet I would feel out of place if I were the only male in a class of 100 women.

Is this really true? I've heard rumors that in the early days of programming, that women were in the majority, or at least they represented a much greater proportion of programmers than they do now. I seem to recall that this started to change sometime in the 60s.

One thing I observed of the Computer Science Tripos in Cambridge was that the absolute number of women doing the course didn't change much, but the size of the course increased over the years. This suggests that men went into it because it was trendy, but for the most part women went into it because they found it interesting (and the proportion of women in the general population who find it interesting was roughly constant). This was twenty years ago, and I don't know if the subsequent data supports the hypothesis. Another (provocative) observation is that most of the women programmers I've known were good at it and thought they might not be, but most of the men claimed to be good at it but were not. -- Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2009-01-31)

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:

Jon Fairbairn wrote:

...

Another (provocative) observation is that most of the women programmers I've known were good at it and thought they might not be, but most of the men claimed to be good at it but were not.

I've observed this too, but it's a bit droll. Let:

p = proportion of people who think they're good but aren't q = proportion who think they're not good but are M = number of men in CS W = number of women in CS

Given that M >> W, we'll naturally find that p*M > q*W if p and q are even remotely comparable, regardless of whether p and q are independent of gender or not.

I recall going to a PhD defense several years ago about gender differences in computer science. The dissertation is here: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/dspace/bitstream/1957/4954/1/FinalVersion.... A few take-away points I recall from the defense: * The difference between genders is smaller than the difference between individuals * In spreadsheet debugging tasks, women would rate their confidence lower than men * In spreadsheet debugging tasks, women would do at least as well as men (often better) * Men were more likely to jump right in without reading the instructions * Women were more likely to read the instructions and try to understand the task before starting it It's entirely possible that the cases where the women performed significantly better than the men it was largely because they took the time to read the instructions. Otherwise, it seemed like the difference in self-assessed confidence was bigger than any gender difference in measurable performance. In other words, approaches and confidence varied by gender more than results. Also, I might be completely misquoting the results. Best to read the dissertation for yourself if you find the topic interesting. Jason

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:38:49 -0700, you wrote:

* The difference between genders is smaller than the difference between individuals

If only people would understand and accept the near-universality of this: "The difference between <any group you want to discriminate against> and <any group you want to discriminate in favor of> is smaller than the difference between individuals." -Steve Schafer

Fran Allen talked about this in Coders at Work (I typed this up quickly so forgive typos): Allen: Recently I realized what was probably the root cause of this: computer science had emerged between 1960 and 1970. And it mostly came out of the engineering schools; some of it came from mathematics. And the engineering schools were mostly all men in that period. And the people IBM was hiring had to meet certain requirements: have certain degrees and have taken certain courses in computer science. And so they were almost all men because they were the ones that satisfied the requirements-because it was a discipline now. The other thing that seemed to have happened is that it was a profession-there were a lot of processes in place and chains of management that implemented the processes and kept everything running smoothly. So it was a very different place. Seibel: I'm pretty sure sexism in society at large was prety rampant in the '50s and '60s. Yet in that period you were working in groups that had lots of women in them. Why was it so open to women then? Allen: Software was the newest-of-the-new stuff that was going on. And it's also probably still to this day considered a soft part of the science. And that's where women gravitated. Early on they were programmers on ENIAC and at Bletchley Park. Women were the computers-that was their name. But in engineering and physics and the harder, older sciences there weren't as many women. It was just divided that way, early on. On 27 March 2010 18:56, Jason Dagit wrote:

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Daniel Fischer wrote:

...

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Günther Schmidt" Gesendet: 27.03.2010 16:14:57 An: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Betreff: [Haskell-cafe] Are there any female Haskellers?

...

Hi all,

from the names of people on the list it seems that all users here are males.

Just out of curiosity are there any female users here, or are we guys only at the moment?

Günther

I'm pretty sure that Phil(l?)ip(p?)a Cowderoy is female, I've also seen a couple of other female names here and on the beginners list. (Since Ashley Yakeley seems to be located in the USA, I dare not guess whether Ashley is a man's name or a woman's in this case.)

Ashley Yakeley is a man.

I work with several female Haskellers. And I've met several others who are at universities or use Haskell on the side.

In general, I'd say women in computer science are a minority. I would say mathematics has a higher percentage of women than computer science from my own anecdotal experience. Why are there so few women in computer science? I don't know but it's an interesting question. One professor I was talking to about this subject said he felt that at his university when CS was a part of math there were more women and when it became part of engineering the percentage of women dropped.

It's possible that there are gender differences that cause men to be attracted to this field more frequently than women. I'm hesitant to say that's the underlying reason though. I suspect the following, based on conversations I've had with women in the field. For some reason it started out as a male dominated field. Let's assume for cultural reasons. Once it became a male dominated field, us males unknowingly made the work and learning environments somewhat hostile or unattractive to women. I bet I would feel out of place if I were the only male in a class of 100 women.

Anyway, those are just observations I've made. Don't take any of it too seriously and I certainly don't mean to offend anyone. I know gender differences can be quite controversial at times.

Jason

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Dear Philippa, "display themselves on demand" is putting it rather harshly don't you think? I pretty much injected my previous email back into the thread because I felt I asked a simple question and find that people are getting a bit carried away. I am for instance quite certain that Lady Ada Lovelace is not subscribed to this list. To me the question was non-controversial or so I thought but it seems to have stirred quite a bit of passionate responses. (For which I merely do not wish to be blamed). I agree though that concluding "there are no female haskellers on this list" was premature and promise to exercise more patience. Best regards Günther Am 28.03.10 15:10, schrieb Philippa Cowderoy:

On 27/03/2010 21:27, Günther Schmidt wrote:

...

Hi guys (and I mean it),

so, in short, no female haskellers ...

Bare one which sent me an email directly, but it looks like she's not ready to come out of the closet yet.

And those of us already named for you. And there're a few others around - my girlfriend dabbles, though she's not on the list.

You might want to wait until after the weekend too. Assuming anyone else can be bothered to reply, that is. Not everyone wants to come display themselves on demand.

Am 28. März 2010 07:15 schrieb Jan-Willem Maessen :

A relatively recent article in CACM made much the same point for CS; particularly noteworthy to me is the rather different proportion of undergrad CS majors in different countries (the US is particularly low): http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1461928.1461947&coll=portal&dl=ACM&idx=J79&part=magazine&WantType=Magazines&title=Communications

I believe this is the same article, available free of charge: http://www.cs.umass.edu/~lfriedl/tmp/cacm-2009-02-womenInCS.pdf The relative rates of graduation are on the first and second pages. -- Jason Dusek

Dear Christopher, Am 28.03.10 18:11, schrieb Christopher Lane Hinson:

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, G?nther Schmidt wrote

...

"display themselves on demand" is putting it rather harshly don't you think?

No. The women in our community are not required to come forth as witnesses on what it's like to be women in our community. They most likely do not want to be under a magnifying glass, do not want to be exposed to harrasment, and would not actually be qualified to personally represent all other women in the community. They do not want to be held up as community ornaments.

I wish to clarify here: I don't recall writing in my initial email "Female Haskellers I demand you identify yourselves". So I took offense on the suggestion I did so.

If you're wondering how I know what women in our community want -- I don't. I'm just paraphrasing things that women in this situation have repeatedly said, and yet, somehow, gone unheard.

Do not worry, I wasn't.

It was probably also uncool to call out a specific woman by name, who did not volunteer for this.

Do suggest I did so? I don't recall mentioning anyone by name.

#

I think we have some work to do to make the haskell community inclusive.

One thing that I keep hearing is "I'm not trying to be offensive." I think it's easy to get caught up on "not being offensive" so that we don't make any progress. It's impossible not to offend people -- but it is possible to take the time to listen and correct problematic behavior and communicate what you've learned to others. One thing I do notice, one starts with a harmless question and it out of

Possibly so, but until now I have no indication that it's not, could you elaborate where you see a problem? Also I personally don't do "community" thingies, I'm just not that kind of person. I'm not sure about "haskell-community". I mean I like haskell, am interested in it, appreciate being in contact with people who do likewise but "community"? I don't remember signing up or pledging allegiance. the blue it suddenly becomes political. In both ways. Is there really a need for this? Best regards Günther

Am 28.03.10 18:51, schrieb Christopher Lane Hinson:

...

...

It was probably also uncool to call out a specific woman by name, who did not volunteer for this.

Do suggest I did so? I don't recall mentioning anyone by name.

No, you didn't. That was someone else.

...

"I like haskell, am interested in it, appreciate being in contact with people who do"

That's the haskell community pledge of allegiance, right there. Congratulations, you wrote it!

Oh dear .... what was I getting myself into when I subscribed :)

...

One thing I do notice, one starts with a harmless question and it out of the blue it suddenly becomes political. In both ways. Is there really a need for this?

Yes, because what may be a harmless abstract question to you may directly affect someone else's day-to-day life. Try to learn from people in these situations, even if you are frustrated by them.

This is definately a point where we will continue to disagree. I found myself assuming that there are no female haskellers and wanted to verify it by asking for data. At such a point, while the facts where not even yet established I had not even thought about interpretations, cause or implications, I started from scratch. I am not a scientist but believe that this approach broadly qualified as a scientific one. Well yes I know that science is not popular with everyone. So I continue to think that some responses where "disproportionate", a point to think about in itself. Best regards Günther

2010/3/28 Pekka Enberg :

2010/3/28 Günther Schmidt :

...

This is definately a point where we will continue to disagree. I found myself assuming that there are no female haskellers and wanted to verify it by asking for data.

So what exactly is off-topic for this list?  Is unsubscribing from the list the only option to get rid of this kind of utter nonsense posts that contain absolutely zero valuable discussion on _Haskell_?

It sounds like you are complaining because people are not talking about what you want them to be talking about. This will happen in large groups. Use a decent mail reader so that such nonsense posts are only one keypress away from the garbage. Luke

2010/3/28 Pekka Enberg

2010/3/28 Günther Schmidt :

...

This is definately a point where we will continue to disagree. I found myself assuming that there are no female haskellers and wanted to verify it by asking for data.

So what exactly is off-topic for this list? Is unsubscribing from the list the only option to get rid of this kind of utter nonsense posts that contain absolutely zero valuable discussion on _Haskell_?

My personal interpretation of this list is that it is for discussions that are potentially interesting to haskell programmers for one of several reasons, including but not limited to a) it's about haskell; Or, b) it's about the haskell community. I would say that this discussion is quite beneficial to the latter category. One of the things that makes Haskell special to me is how thoughtful and inclusive the community was when I discovered it. I would love it see it become more gender inclusive also. And as Luke Palmer suggests, perhaps you can ignore/filter these discussions that you do not enjoy :) Thanks, Jason

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:35:04PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 01:14:44PM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:

...

And as Luke Palmer suggests, perhaps you can ignore/filter these discussions that you do not enjoy :)

Or just unsubscribe, like I did.

Tell the truth. You only unsubscribed when you saw me post. ;-) -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG dwchandler@stilyagin.com | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation

Well said.