Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Women Are Fleeing IT Jobs

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the different-priorities dept.

IT 578

Lucas123 writes "An alarming number of women are currently abandoning IT jobs that require workers to be on-call at all hours, according to a story in Computerworld. One study cited in the article states that by 2012, 40% of women now working in IT will leave for careers with more flexible hours. 'I think women in that regard are at a real disadvantage,' said Dot Brunette, network and storage manager at Meijer Inc., a Grand Rapids, Mich.-based retailer and a 30-year IT veteran. She noted that companies can fail to attract female workers, or see them leave key IT jobs, because they fail to provide day care at work, or work-at-home options for someone who leaves to have a child.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


GOOD! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18819933)

More jobs for me!!!

forsty piss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18819939)

Innumerable tentacles wriggled with glee, entering every single orifice (including pores) that the victim -- a beautiful woman -- had.
Thus violated, the woman writhed with unspeakable pleasure.
And then.
She died.
A man ran to try to help the woman, and then he died too.
Two brown bears abruptly started copulating next to the two corpses!
Their hips were violently crashing into each other!
With indescribable force!
Whoa! I never knew that brown bears having sex was an invincible force of nature!
Wait! The female brown bear's moans! OMGWTFBBQ!
"Ia! Ia! Hastur! Hastur cf'ayak'vulgtmm, vugtlagln, c'vulgtmm! Ai! Ai! Hastur!"
My god ... that's the beginning to the devil summoning ritual! How could a bear do that?!
This means the world ends today! Tomorrow will never come!
Ejaculation! A baby bear was born!
That bear cub was really cute, too, especially the way it was smiling, yes?
And then Gordon Freeman came along and beat the bear cub to death with a crowbar. Mission accomplished.

"Yo, dude, Kanagawa Bancho here. Anyway, yeah, I know, that was totally uncool. I don't have any imagination OR motivation, my good man! Gao-gao."
"Anyway! Just let me say one last thing! One last thing, I swear!"
"Y'know, they say that the only thing hatred gives birth to is hatred. That's wrong, don'tcha think? See, when you hate, you become hungry. When you cast that hatred onto vegetables, curry rice gets made in a flash, right? THEREFORE, HATRED GIVES BIRTH TO CURRY! QED."

Re:forsty piss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18819987)

I hope you live in a state with either extremely-strict, or completely-nonexistent, gun-control laws.

Re:forsty piss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820003)

WTF does gun control have to do with it? /b/ is down, and all is darkness.

Re:forsty piss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820117)

You WOULD hope that you statist!

Dot Brunette? (3, Funny)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 6 years ago | (#18819945)

'I think women in that regard are at a real disadvantage,' said Dot Brunette, network and storage manager at Meijer Inc., a Grand Rapids, Mich.-based retailer and a 30-year IT veteran.

What a stupid name. Too bad she didn't get married to Jeff Matrix instead.


I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (4, Insightful)

philpalm (952191) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820031)

What happened to all those jobs in which you can work at home with? The training that is supposed to support via phone/internet is supposedly right down this type of work. Its not like the boss has to look over your shoulder all the time. Furthermore all e-mails and other work is easily documented isn't it?

Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (3, Interesting)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820069)

In my experience management doesn't like people to work from home most of the time. They can't see how much time the employee is spending working. Most management I've had cares more about how much time you spend working than how much work you get done.

To be fair, there is some rationale to that... if it only takes you 3 hrs/day to do all of your work you can for the day and another guy in your department 4 hrs/day to do his work, then the company can get rid of one of you and still get the same amount of work done in an 8 hr day.

Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (3, Insightful)

KoshClassic (325934) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820167)

Yes, but if management calls after hours to handle some sort of emergency or unusual situation, should / can they really object if you do that work from home? And if they don't object, is the on call requirement even an issue?

Also, this whole topic is predicated on the belief that there are no single fathers out there trying to raise their kids. Fewer of them to be sure, but they are out there.

Women Belong In The Kitchen (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820297)

Women have the world by the balls.

In our sexist society (biased towards the female gender), they've never had it easier. They enjoy freedom of choice in the job market, or can opt to stay at home and raise children (or do both). They are perfectly free to use marriage and divorce as businesses, enriching their personal fortunes by doing nothing more than providing sex. They are allowed to manipulate men with sex and tears to get whatever they want. They have been granted permission to usurp traditional male jobs yet still -- with bold-faced hypocrisy -- expect men to finance their social lives. They can choose to serve in the military without fear of losing their lives in combat. They expect to be able to denigrate the male gender and treat men like emotional punching bags without protest. They force men to endure "sensitivity training" to pressure them into becoming more like women.

In short, they are pampered, coddled to, and told that they deserve everything without any implication or obligation of giving anything in return.
what women want
Modern women demand all the privileges afforded their sisters in bygone eras, yet still insist on the freedoms granted by a liberated society. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it, too; they want equal rights until the check comes.

At the heart of this mess is so-called "feminism." The post-war culture of the 1950s and '60s spawned an affluent, egocentric culture of "consciousness-raising" and liberation, spurred on by such seminal feminists as Betty Friedan (who saw the traditional wife and homemaker as a prisoner chained to the stove, hobbled by men from achieving success in the business world).

Almost overnight women wanted to work and go to college; they decided their husbands should help with cooking, cleaning and child care. Liberated women lobbied for gender equality: equal pay for equal work, equal educational and career opportunities and equal treatment under the law.

They no longer wanted to be seen by men as "sex objects," but instead as individuals independent of their gender; persons in their own right.

On the surface, this was all well and good. In a modern society, women should be treated with equality; they should be allowed to pursue whatever course they choose.

But feminism made one crucial mistake -- it failed to take into account the fundamentally self-serving nature of the female gender. For the average woman, "feminism" shortly became nothing more than a convenient excuse for getting what she wanted (usually from a man's hard work). Women began expecting to have things handed to them on a plate just because they were born female.

The battle cry of "feminism" abruptly changed from "equal pay for equal work" to "you go, girl -- you deserve it" (no matter how you get it). Suddenly it was all about "me, me, me" -- the self-indulgent bawl of a spoiled brat.

And this is exactly the problem. Modern women have demanded -- and won -- equal rights and equal pay. But they're too greedy, too materialistic, too self-absorbed, too immature, and too accustomed to using men to do anything with these rights but shoot themselves in the foot with them.

It's all come too easily for them, and, like children who have been handed everything on a plate, they've matured into abusing their privilege and demanding more and more and more.
from the mouth of a feminist
Feminist author Susan Maushart (What Women Want Next) writes: "Now that women have been more or less successfully mainstreamed, the achievement feels unexpectedly hollow. For one thing, we are tired. If doing what men do on top of what women have always done is Having It All, most of us have decided we'd prefer a smaller portion."

Feminism has fizzled; it's crumbled under the weight of its own shaky foundations. So does this mean that women should go back to the kitchen? Is this where they belong, forever chained to the stove and the bedpost?

The answer -- fundamentally -- is "no." But a very cautious "no."

If women want freedom and equal rights, then they have to grow up. Equality does not mean self-entitlement, and liberation cannot be just a convenient excuse for unbridled narcissism. Men and women should be equal partners in this world, but such a lofty goal can only be achieved if women start acting like equal partners -- that is, giving instead of constantly demanding and taking.

If women want equality, they should be prepared to willingly shoulder their share of the burden. In other words, they should be ponying up their half of dating expenses, dying on the front lines, enjoying career success because of merit and hard work (not gender), and not relying on men to mop up all of life's dirty work.

If women want equality, then they should be honest and expect true equality. No longer should they be allowed to get away with the hypocrisy of acting like a traditional woman when a tire needs changing or the dinner check arrives, then crying feminism when it's time for a promotion at work.
women can't have it all...
Here's what it boils down to: Women know what they want, and at the same time, have no clue what they want. They want everything both ways. But, for better or worse, they have changed the world, and if they want to profit from this change, then they need to start learning what equality really means.

If a woman chooses to stay in the kitchen, that's fine. But if she wants to hold her own in a "man's world," then she should make an honest woman out of herself. As Maushart observes, "Getting everything we wanted was the first miracle. Learning how to live with it may require a second."

Re:Women Belong In The Kitchen (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820437)

An entire continent of women were abandoned for the better part of a decade while their men went off to war, then came back shell shocked and broken to women who'd had their families providers ripped away long ago and weren't the tender nurturers they used to be. A unique cultural trauma in the world. For both genders.

Try to be philosophical about it. Other cultures will rise.

Re:Women Belong In The Kitchen (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820521)

Either do the job or go the fuck away. I don't care if you have kids. It's not my obligation. I need someone to work certain hours in certain places doing certain things. Period. If you can't do that, find another job. I'm not going to pay you to sit at home with your kid (I didn't force you to have a kid) and I shouldn't have to provide day care because you squirted one out. I'll give the job to someone who CAN do the job when, how and where I need to without the constant interrupts and excuses.

Re:Women Belong In The Kitchen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820523)

Oh fergodsake, don't feed the trolls.

Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (4, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820395)

Well, I'm not sure at home work on certain things can be done let alone safe in some situations.

Besides the cost of putting up the VPN stuff, Making sure there is high speed access to the Internet or a T1 directly to the building, you now have to worry about enforcing policies on a computer completly out of your site that could be used to compromise everything you spent the last ten year trying to stop from being on the Internet. Meijers does a lot of credit/debit transactions. Has quite a few employees spread across several states and then there is the problems of what needs fixed being part of what gives access to tele-commute.

It is somewhat scary as well as flaky/inefficient in some situations. I cut an accountant from remote access once because the IDS started wigging out on some ports being scanned. Turns out, she used her family computer for work at home and was logged into the VPN when she walked away letting her kid go online. He proceeded to download some movies and game cracks from IRC networks and got scanned repeatedly by at least 20 different IPs . And yes, I logged the commands being typed, I know this was happening. I just don't know if it was her or her kid. And I had to go on site (35 min away) to block everything and figure out what was going on because the IDS locked everything out once the scanning attempts got so bad. The IDS probably has some anal policies but it was doing it's job and this was an accounting firm.

Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (4, Insightful)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820247)

Most management folks overbook their "business" meetings on golf courses, and nobody can complain about it. Everytime there is an emergency, at least the managers should be on call with the technicians. It simply isn't fair on the IT workforce to have to do 24x7 because management doesn't want to hire a 2nd shift. Having One or two employees for the night is not going to ruin your finance.

Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (1, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820427)

Why should the management need to be there? They are paying you (the IT staff) to do the work. Not do the work themselves. If they had to be there, then there likely wouldn't be a need for you.

On a side note, If I was manager and had to go in to babysit the IT staff during an emergency, I would probably be riding their ass for the system breaking. This could even be my fault because I haven't replace aging hardware or something. But I would still be riding you about it breaking and having to go in on my off time. Is this something everyone really wants?

Re:I thought IT workers can telecommute to work? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820183)

What happened to all those jobs in which you can work at home with?

Companies realised that if people can work from home, it's cheaper if those homes happen to be located in India.

Re:Dot Brunette? (0, Offtopic)

djlowe (41723) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820139)

"Dot" is a nickname - it's short for "Dorothy".

As for her last name: Brunette is French for "brown", basically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunette [wikipedia.org]

And it doesn't appear to be that uncommon a last name in Michigan, which isn't all that surprising, considering its history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan [wikipedia.org]



Re:Dot Brunette? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820265)

He was making a joke...

And read your link, the entire population of the state in 1830(long after France lost control) was 80,000, and by 1900, the population was in excess of 2 million (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html). There is no historical reason to expect Michigan to have any higher portion of French lineage than any other state in the US.

Re:Dot Brunette? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820219)

...there's way too much information to decode a Mrs. Matrix. You get used to it, though. Your brain does the parsing. I don't even see the code. All I see is .blonde, .brunette, and .redhead. Hey uh, you want a drink?

I don't get it (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 6 years ago | (#18819951)

Why would companies want to attract people who aren't willing to accept the conditions of the job? If men in the same job are expected to be on call out of work hours, why should women get a free pass?

I thought we were supposed to have sexual equality, not special treatment for women.

Re:I don't get it (1, Insightful)

keraneuology (760918) | more than 6 years ago | (#18819989)

Special treatment for women IS equal treatment... after all, men always get special treatment, no?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820029)

Special treatment for women IS equal treatment... after all, men always get special treatment, no?


Re:I don't get it (1, Flamebait)

0123456 (636235) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820045)

The only 'special treatment' men get is in divorce courts where their wife is allowed to take the house, the kids, and most of their income for the rest of their life.

If a man and a woman both apply for the same job, but the woman refuses to be on call out of work hours, why would any sane company hire her?

Re:I don't get it (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820111)

If a man and a woman both apply for the same job, but the woman refuses to be on call out of work hours, why would any sane company hire her?

I think it's called affirmative action. Equal treatment would be allowing men to work the hours they need to be with their kids after divorce and vice versa.

Re:I don't get it (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820135)

"Equal treatment would be allowing men to work the hours they need to be with their kids after divorce and vice versa."

Why should any company let their servers go down for hours because people with kids refuse to be on call to fix them?

It's really that simple: someone has to be on-call to fix things that break if you're providing 24/7 coverage. It's a part of the job that people are hired for. If they can't do their job, they should find another one, not try to offload the work they're paid to do onto others.

I don't get why anyone thinks that people should be able to arbitrarily refuse to do the job they're hired to do, and then complain about it.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820185)

They don't. Thats why they're leaving those positions.

Of course, my wife stays at home with our kids and I'd still quit a job that had my hooked to a pager and carried the expectation that I would drop anything I was doing and rush off to a location. That kind of life just isn't for me.

Re:I don't get it (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820369)

You didn't catch the "affirmative action" bit that answered your question? Anyways, the job I work at now had me in the position of being interviewed for a job, agreeing to those terms and two weeks later watching every single one of those terms turned on its head. The guy that hired me quit that day, otherwise I completely agree with you.

Re:I don't get it (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820515)

No, affirmative action is going out and attempting to attract women or minorities to apply for the job. Maybe even creating positions that cater more to their needs. Hiring a woman over a man or a less qualified person over a qualified person (meeting the hour of the job requirements is a qualification)is called discrimination.

If the job requirements are to be on call 24 hours a day 2 days a week, and work late if necessary on other day, then anyone not willing to do so don't meet the job requirements. They are not qualified in the same ways even if they have the same degrees but aren't willing to work the hours. It isn't affirmative action in any way. If anything, unless it has to do with some disability, it is discrimination. And the disability might not even be enough to make it work.

As the parent said, Why would a sane company hire someone not willing to do the job. If the answer is specifically because they are a women or minority and the other candidates aren't, then it is discrimination plain and simple. This is why there is a push to eliminate quotas. It could effectively be discrimination in some situations.

Re:I don't get it (3, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820239)

men always get special treatment, no?

Yeah, whoever heard of men working long, inflexible hours? They get to go home early because they have penises, right?

Seriously, if women are quitting the IT industry because of discrimination, that's one thing. But leaving because they don't want long, inflexible hours? Tough. Men have to put up with it. Why shouldn't women?

Re:I don't get it (2, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820575)

> Men have to put up with it. Why shouldn't women?

Men are as free to leave as anyone else. Women are just doing it more.

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

yali (209015) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820033)

The question is, are women "required" as in required by company policy and/or the way the job is structured? Or required as in, it's a fundamental and inevitable aspect of the job?

Think of it this way... What if an IT department didn't have women's bathrooms, because it was designed back when only men held IT jobs. So the job "requires" women to go to a different building to use the bathroom. If a women quits because she finds that annoying, it is literally correct to say that she isn't willing to accept the conditions of the job. But obviously no one would defend that situation.

Back to reality... If it's the case that IT work schedules and conditions happen to have been designed by guys who didn't mind being on call, and the company could change its conditions to make it possible for women (or any employee who's a primary caregiver for kids) to have the job and be effective, then they should change. That's not special treatment for women. That's putting an end to arbitrary conditions that create, in effect, special treatment for young, single men. (Because I'd say that not having to compete with women for your job constitutes special treatment.)

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820071)

"If it's the case that IT work schedules and conditions happen to have been designed by guys who didn't mind being on call, and the company could change its conditions to make it possible for women (or any employee who's a primary caregiver for kids) to have the job and be effective, then they should change."

Why should people who don't have kids be expected to work extra hard to cover for the pampering of people who do have kids?

Look, you're hired to do a job. If you can't or won't do it, find a different job... there are plenty of people who are willing to do the job that they're hired for.

So I don't see what the problem is.

Re:I don't get it (1)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820217)

The problem is that the market is correcting itself. The consequence of the correction is that as a society we are valuing families less and causes women to switch to some other career. That other career might be less technical in nature and thus our nation is less competitive.

Re:I don't get it (3, Insightful)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820251)

Why should people who don't have kids be expected to work extra hard to cover for the pampering of people who do have kids?

Some parents don't admit to the value of their own kids. They act like their offspring are a handicap and not a blessing.

The reason childless folks earn more is because they pay the price in loneliness - in childlessness.

Unless you are going to invite coworkers to spend time with your kids and appreciate them, don't whine that others have it easy or "don't understand" your needs.

Re:I don't get it (1)

max cohen (163682) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820261)

Eh, the gist of the article was the work conditions for IT jobs were not appealing to many women and that women are leaving the field as a result, even though some companies and organizations WANT MORE women in those jobs and are trying to recruit more of them. It's not just women having kids, its the idea that you're never really away from the immediate, pressing needs of your employer and their demands, and that some women have said enough. So the female side of the IT work force might not grow, it could shrink even more. Hell, even some of us men think IT work conditions suck.

Re:I don't get it (3, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820471)

There you have it. The article could just as easily read, 'Women are at such and advantage, that they can afford to quite jobs because the hours are too long, or are too burdensome.' Nobody likes to be on call 24/7, and really, if it necessary for someone to be on call 24/7, your already screwed and don't know it. Now, I can understand why business wouldn't want women shunning them. After all, if I am an employer, I definitely don't want my pool of potential employees cut in half. What this really comes down to.. Is the cost incurred from cutting your potential employee pool in half, greater or less than the cost of implementing improved work conditions like telecommuting, flex hours, proper job coverage and or day care.

Personally, I hope they choose that they want women in the workforce, and implement better work conditions to do it. While I do telecommute, I have turned down several gigs that would have paid noticeably more, so that I can be at home with my child. I will not, though, agree that the reason women are leaving is because they are at a disadvantage. Saying women are leaving IT because they are at a disadvantage is like saying that billionaires are not working at McDonalds because they are at a disadvantage. Those poor, poor billionaires, loosing out to those McDonalds jobs because of the unfair work environment.

Because civilization depends on having children (3, Informative)

ahbi (796025) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820407)

Because civilization depends on having children. How many new workers entering the workforce will you have in 20 years? Well it depends on how many kids are born today. Workers, citizens, et al, have a 20 year pipeline. And yes we can import immigrants but how many? And can we assimilate them?
You bitch about offshoring and H1-B visas. Well the solution is to have more kids. The ideal solution would have been to have more kids 20 years ago.

Demographics is destiny. If you don't reproduce your world view won't be around when you are not.

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths--or, at any rate, virtues--and that's why they're proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

What's the better bet? A globalization that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalization that exports the fiercest aspects of its culture? When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

As fertility shrivels, societies get older--and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business--unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don't think so. If you look at European election results--most recently in Germany--it's hard not to conclude that, while voters are unhappy with their political establishments, they're unhappy mainly because they resent being asked to reconsider their government benefits and, no matter how unaffordable they may be a generation down the road, they have no intention of seriously reconsidering them. The Scottish executive recently backed down from a proposal to raise the retirement age of Scottish public workers. It's presently 60, which is nice but unaffordable. But the reaction of the average Scots worker is that that's somebody else's problem. The average German worker now puts in 22% fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable will propose closing the gap in any meaningful way.

This isn't a deep-rooted cultural difference between the Old World and the New. It dates back all the way to, oh, the 1970s. If one wanted to allocate blame, one could argue that it's a product of the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee that liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. If Washington's problem with Europe is that these are not serious allies, well, whose fault is that? Who, in the years after the Second World War, created NATO as a postmodern military alliance? The "free world," as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it's hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam.

There is no "population bomb." There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world--eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world's population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%.

Nineteen seventy doesn't seem that long ago. If you're the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair's less groovy, but the landscape of your life--the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge--isn't significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.

And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.

And by 2020?

Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.

To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA's got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night. Even if they avoid that, the idea of a childless Europe ever rivaling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what's left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. Japan faces the same problem: Its population is already in absolute decline, the first gentle slope of a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it's populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Very possibly. Will Germany if it's populated by Algerians? That's a trickier proposition.

Best-case scenario? The Continent winds up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates.

Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction.

In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: "As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?"

Re:Because civilization depends on having children (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820551)

> That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%,

I guess what they say about Catholics just isn't so.. <smirk>

Re:I don't get it (2, Insightful)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820115)

Back to reality an IT job does require time to be on call at all time. It's really a cut and dry case, servers/other important technology can break at any time and so people have to be on call to fix it at all time. It's much like power/water services, if your power goes out and you call the company (cell phone, before anyone complains about my analogy) you'd expect them to have someone ready to come out even if it was after normal hours wouldn't you? Same deal for IT.

The on-call constraint isn't arbitrary and so you, in essence, wasted a perfectly good analogy making a point that's functionally useless. You are correct that IF on-call was an arbitrary constraint it should be removed and your analogy is nice but it's not arbitrary and so the IF statement may as well be If(false) consider removing the constraint.

Re:I don't get it (2, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820403)

24 hour support doesn't mean on call- it means you hire 3 shifts of people. SO no, there is no excuse for forcing people to carry a pager.

The new plumbers (2, Informative)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820481)

It's much like power/water services, if your power goes out and you call the company (cell phone, before anyone complains about my analogy) you'd expect them to have someone ready to come out even if it was after normal hours wouldn't you? Same deal for IT.
It didn't used to be that way. People say to me, "you have a master's degree -- why do you have to work odd hours?" I tell them it used to be that way, but since the Internet came along, my profession got downgraded to the equivalent of plumber -- a blue collar worker -- more maintenance and administration and less research and development.

But in all honesty, my computer work was 24 hours before the Internet, too. It was just called a "BBS" and I didn't get paid for it.

Re:I don't get it (5, Insightful)

hobbesmaster (592205) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820133)

Of course... Women are completely incapable of taking jobs which require you to be on call most of the day - only young men can do that.

That must be why nursing is dominated by young men. ;)

Re:I don't get it (1)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820163)

The thing is, I'd have to argue that in most cases I've seen, on-call and after hours work IS a fundamental aspect of the job. If important server X goes down at 2am someone needs to fix it asap. You could hire someone to work nights but most of the time there isn't actually enough work that needs to be done during those hours to justify paying another person. Due to the way business and life is scheduled you really need most or all of your staff there during the day (meetings, trainings, general communication, more stuff needs to be fixed faster due to other employees using it, more activity to monitor, etc.) and someone just available during the evening/night for just in case, so moving one or two of the current daytime staff to nights is also not the best solution.

In exchange we frequently get paid more and at every company I've worked at IT also has other perks like frequently getting less restricted access to internet/web (or just getting access to the web at all) while at work.

Re:I don't get it (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820255)

(or any employee who's a primary caregiver for kids)

I appreciate that. Personally, I think the incentives for being on call should be improved. Before I had kids (and got divorced) I would regularly work 12-14 hour days 6 days a week, because I loved the money. Now my experience in the tech world seems to be that people on call are NOT compensated properly at all. The incentives/differential should prompt those that are capable to these jobs that demand more, unfortunately most IT jobs pay the same whether it's 9-5 or on call + 40hrs adjusted to eliminate overtime or worse 50+ hours on-call on salary. For me, a single dad, it's not the hours that have me daydreaming about an exodus, it's the damn paycheck/employer selection.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820375)

Back to reality... If it's the case that IT work schedules and conditions happen to have been designed by guys who didn't mind being on call, and the company could change its conditions to make it possible for women (or any employee who's a primary caregiver for kids) to have the job and be effective, then they should change. That's not special treatment for women. That's putting an end to arbitrary conditions that create, in effect, special treatment for young, single men. (Because I'd say that not having to compete with women for your job constitutes special treatment.)

This ain't all bad! I'm a 50+ compuer-droid, on call 24 hours a guy. My daily parade gets rained a lot. Sure, 10 years ago I was buff. Less so, no. Sure, I oughta have a fitness cener membership. I've had them in the past, but no more. Their matrix sensors know when you're thinking about doing a workout, the phone rings, end of workout ideas. It happens night after night, and then you're 45+, and it gets worse everey year.

I totally empathize with women caught up in the crap that's became the US information Crapper.

OTOH, I babysit their kids while on 2z7 call and take their kids to the office. The older ones fix a lot of stuff, too.

Pinch me, I'm dreaming, again.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820429)

That's putting an end to arbitrary conditions that create, in effect, special treatment for young, single men. (Because I'd say that not having to compete with women for your job constitutes special treatment.)

Ok Einstein women bear children and therefore are superior to men because they might have to be in the hospital for however long it takes to pop out that kid. Men don't. While I believe in the equality of the sexes I have seen many places that make the men do the heavy lifting because Susie is pregnant and we don't want to hurt her. Suzie was hired for the EXACT same job as I was but I have to do the heavy lifting because Suzie decided to tramp around and let someone else's penis to explore her vagina.

If all things being equal and such I would say that women miss more time from work due to child care and or rearing a child than a man would. Yes there exceptions to this but the way society places motherhood on a pedestal, while wanting equal pay for EQUAL work is bunk. Women can't do the work that they were hired to do ... and they wonder why they don't get equal pay.

I was single for much of my worklife. I was always asked to fill in when family emergencies came up (yea I know I made that choice to stay single. But my point is my life was different but I was asked to go above the "call of duty" and help the unfortunate "victim out". Was I paid more to assist someone else that was "equally" qualified to do that job? Hell no it was assumed that because I had no family I would have no valid excuse for saying no.

Re:I don't get it (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820439)

'Think of it this way... What if an IT department didn't have women's bathrooms, because it was designed back when only men held IT jobs. So the job "requires" women to go to a different building to use the bathroom. If a women quits because she finds that annoying, it is literally correct to say that she isn't willing to accept the conditions of the job. But obviously no one would defend that situation.'

I fail to see how that scenario has any relation to the current question.

'That's putting an end to arbitrary conditions that create, in effect, special treatment for young, single men.'

False. That's putting an end to work demands that create, in effect, special treatment for anyone who is not the primary caregiver for kids. It has nothing to do with gender. Further the company didn't give people without children special treatment. You could claim they gave themselves that advantage by choosing not to have children or you could pass it off on fate if you have trouble owning responsibility for your actions.

It is illegal to discriminate based upon age, gender, race, or religion. It is neither or illegal or wrong to discriminate based upon dedication. Employees who sacrifice work performance and/or availability for things that are more important to them (doesn't really matter if it's children, family, or something else) are less dedicated to the job than those who do not. You might be justified in that choice, it might be the right choice. Maybe you should put your children and family before your job. But as an employer I'm making a bad business decision if I let understanding and sympathy interfere with choosing a candidate with greater dedication and availability.

It's really no different than refusing to hire an employee who has a second job because you don't want to schedule around it. The same is really true of daycare and maternity. It makes no more sense for employers to accommodate pregnant women or women who leave for maternity than it makes to accommodate anyone else who was injured outside of work. If a man has a little too much to drink and gets in a skiing accident that will make him unable to work for 3 months there isn't even a guarantee of a job when he returns. Why should a woman who has a little too much to drink gets knocked up be treated any differently?

Please understand, I am not saying that no companies should have jobs waiting for employees after pregnancy or accidents or accommodate injured employees. I am not saying that employers shouldn't consider providing daycare or work from home options. But it is a choice the company makes and they make those choices for business reasons. They might attract better employees that perform better or be able to pay employees lower salaries (something has to PAY for those accommodations after all). But there is no just reason to force them to provide those things.

Re:I don't get it (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820559)

> Why should a woman who has a little too much to drink gets knocked up be treated any differently?

Maybe because a woman who has to care for a child shouldn't be required to justify the circumstances of the conception. Dumbass.

meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820573)

If you don't like IT, go into nursing. You'll be just as overworked except the gender ratio is opposite.
Who gives a flying fuck in the end? Do the job that interests you and move on.

Re:I don't get it (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820235)

Its not just one gender or the other ... its everyone.

Everyone is fed up with strange hours

Everyone knows that its getting harder and harder to fill advanced IT jobs.

Things like "flex time" used to be "perks" - now they're mandatory if you're looking to fill a lot of positions.

Weather's crappy? Telecommute. Stay in touch via email, phone, ssh, icq, forwarding X, etc.

Already put in 40 hours or more over 4 days? Long weekend! (but if you're "on a roll" or "in the zone", accumulate the hours and post them next week and take a comp day off.) The 60, 70 and 80-hour week death marches were stupid, unproductive morasses. Getting into them was like getting into Viet Nam - more effort, less results.

A lot of us take our jobs seriously, to the point where we're thinking about code, implementation details, etc., during what should be our "down time" ... flexibility from management is expected if you want to keep talent that is serious and committed - because if you don't want them, be sure your competition does, and is probably willing to throw in more perks and more money to boot.

You wanted to be in support? Weeeeelll, that's another kettle of fish. Odd hours and being on call are the nature of the beast. Complaining about that is akin to a taxi driver complaining about having their "space" invaded when they pick up a fare, or a surgeon complaining about the sight of needles and knives and blood making them feel queezy ...

Re:I don't get it (1)

jamestks (922482) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820267)

Believe it or not, most men aren't thrilled about getting call at 1AM (unless it's a booty call). Many medium-size companies have 'Operations' staffs which handle routine IT problems. If you absolutely hate the mid-night phone calls, make sure you ask about them before accepting the job. It's true that you don't see many women in the technical side of IT anymore. All 14 of my co-developers are male ^_^

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820517)

Essentially this will come down to a management problem. At some point, people will avoid IT as a career altogether. And when that happens, demand will go up for people, more money will be offered, and people will hold their noses and come back. In the late 1990s perks for IT were tremendous -- stock options, lots of vacation, huge bonuses. Now IT is treated like 3rd world labour...its a necessary evil for most businesses, they hold their nose and pay for it.

If you've conditioned your workplace to disinterest women, you've effectively reduced your hiring pool by 50%. That's not a problem right now, but during the next industry crunch you'd f***ed. People management and staff retention is a strategic goal, not a tactical problem...too bad most of the industry right now is being managed quarter-by-quarter.

Re:I don't get it (2, Insightful)

bushelpeck (1090329) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820561)

As a woman in IT, I agree with your position on equality. It's difficult and discriminatory enough without the stigma of special treatment or double standards being hung over my head.

I'm not on call 24/7 because I chose a job that doesn't require it. If I had I would either put up with it or quit for something I liked better.

It's not just IT people who have tough time requirements, btw - where I work, many on the business side have to endure punishing travel schedules. They tend to be younger, single men just like the 3am server-crisis guys.

That said, there's a lot I wish I could change about the "No Girlz Allowed" clubhouse mentality of the IT profession but creating more resentment towards women due to special treatment isn't the way to do that.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820585)

Why would companies want to attract people who aren't willing to accept the conditions of the job?

Here is a another question. Why do people in IT put up with these hours? It isn't limited to women; the hours just plain suck. Most companies don't provide 3 shifts; they just expect people on the 1st shift to cover a 24x7 operations.

A cynic's answer (0, Offtopic)

Buran (150348) | more than 6 years ago | (#18819955)

The cynic in me says "Why would they care? They'll just outsource a lot of those jobs anyway."

The other side of me says "I hope not" since I'm trying to find helpdesk work in a certain area so I can make a move, for personal reasons, later this year.

That can't be her real name ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#18819967)

Dot Brunette? Seriously?

Sounds like a veiled reference to Marlo Thomas. "Hey look! It's dot brunette again!"

I'm not female, but (5, Insightful)

Jethro (14165) | more than 6 years ago | (#18819973)

I am not a woman. And frankly, I would LOVE to flee my IT jobs, ESPECIALLY because of the whole being on-call 24 hours, and all the after-hours work, etc. Yeah, I can move into Management, but at the price of selling even MORE bits of my life away. Honestly, if I had ANY skills other than the pretty small niche of IT I'm in, I'd be fleeing, too.

You ask me, women are fleeing IT because they're SMARTER.

Re:I'm not female, but (5, Insightful)

AgentUSA (251620) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820273)

I'm also not a woman and I'm definitely planning on moving on and leaving IT after 10 years. Very long hours, unrealistic deadlines, lack of resources, bad management, and the 24/7 grind have completely sapped the enthusiasm I once had.

I'll always be very interested in technology, but as far as my career goes, it's just not worth it anymore.

Re:I'm not female, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820373)

So... what field are you going to move to that doesn't have this?

Re:I'm not female, but (1)

AgentUSA (251620) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820509)

Maybe teaching, project management, auditing, I don't know for sure yet.

I completely understand that some of the problems like bad management and lack of people are things you have to deal with in any job. But, I really hope I can find a better work/life balance. Hell, I hope I can find any work/life balance.

Re:I'm not female, but (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820347)

"ESPECIALLY because of the whole being on-call 24 hours, and all the after-hours work, etc."

If you're not getting paid for that, then your employer is quite possibly breaking the law. Server/infrastructure support isn't deemed to be exempt work, at least not by any rational reading of the Fair Labor Standards Act - and the exemption for "computer professionals" doesn't necessarily apply, either.

My current job doesn't require me to be on-call, but, my last one did, and I was paid a weekly stipend to be on-call, in the first place, and was paid overtime when I did get called.

If you're working a full standard business week, and not being paid to be on call, etc., then you're being abused by your employer, in my opinion, as one that knows better.

Re:I'm not female, but (3, Insightful)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820391)

You ask me, women are fleeing IT because they're SMARTER.

Let's be honest. It is much more socially acceptable for women to "choose family over work" or simply be dependent on family for sustenance. They have more freedom to turn down a job that they don't like. With the state of the economy in this country, men are more desperate for work, and therefore have less leverage to change the shitty conditions they work in.

Re:I'm not female, but (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820555)

I am not a woman.

Now that you've finally admitted it you must feel a lot better. It'll get easier from here on out.

Disadvantage? What disadvantage?..... (4, Insightful)

Slugster (635830) | more than 6 years ago | (#18819997)

I tend to wonder if this has more to do with women having higher employment standards than men do--I know in my current employer, it's consistently more difficult to find women willing to work night shifts than it is men.

And FWIW, I got an assoc and had a couple calls for a networking tech positions.... part-time hours, and on call at times--like evenings and weekends.
Ummm,,,,,, no thanks.
Stuck trying to live off an $8/hr job with no way to even well consider a second job? Nope, forget it.

I never did get a tech job. It was kinda a bummer at the time, but nowadays I don't worry about it that much.

Re:Disadvantage? What disadvantage?..... (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820021)

and on call at times--like evenings and weekends.

Stuck trying to live off an $8/hr job with no way to even well consider a second job? Nope, forget it.

Agreed. If someone wants me on call, that time is on the clock because that's time I could have been doing something, except for the fact that I'm working.

More career options than Men (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820323)

Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he was seeking was no longer there. This led him to write the book How the West Was Lost. I disagree with his criticism of post-Enlightenment civilization in general. Still, he is articulate and original, which makes him worth reading.

Boot believes that democracy, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word.

Modern glossocracy can be traced back at least to the slogan of the French Revolution, "Freedom, equality, brotherhood." As it later turned out, this meant mass terror, martial law and authoritarian rule. According to Boot, the more meaningless the word, the more useful it is for glossocrats. The impulse behind Political Correctness consists of twisting the language we use, enforcing new words or changing the meaning of old ones, turning them into "weapons of crowd control" by demonizing those who fail to comply with the new definitions:

"Like the Russian intelligentsia of yesteryear, the glossocratic intelligentsia of today's West is busily uprooting the last remaining vestiges of Westernness. The press is one gardening implement they use; education is another."

One example of how language is power is given in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll:

Humpty Dumpty"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'"

According to Boot, glossocracy depends upon a long-term investment in ignorance: "A semi-literate population is a soft touch for glossocratic Humpty Dumpties insisting that words mean whatever they want them to mean."

As I've said before, Political Correctness was pioneered by feminists, including the totalitarian changing of the language to make it more gender-neutral and less "oppressive." Those who successfully manage to enforce their definition of words win the ideological contest.

The New TotalitariansThere was an interesting book called The New Totalitarians written by British historian Roland Huntford about Sweden in the early 1970s. It is especially noteworthy how the Socialist government deliberately broke down the nuclear family. This was presented as liberation from the oppression of women, but was in reality about tearing down the religious fabric of society and eliminating the Church and Judeo-Christian thinking as ideological competitors.

It was also about increasing state control over all citizens by breaking down a rival institution that obstructed the uninhibited state indoctrination of children. Besides, the state could foment animosity between men and women and step in as an arbitrator, thus further enhancing its powers. During the past few elections in Sweden, there has been virtually no debate about mass immigration, but a passionate debate about "gender equality" in which almost all contestants call themselves feminists, and only debate which ways to implement absolute equality between the sexes.
- - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Huntford demonstrated how, when it was decided that a woman's place was not at home but out at work, there was a rapid change in the language. Page 301:

"The customary Swedish for housewife is husmor, which is honourable; it was replaced by the neologism hemmafru, literally 'the-wife-who-stays-at-home', which is derogatory. Within a few months, the mass media were able to kill the old and substitute the new term. By the end of 1969, it was almost impossible in everyday conversation to mention the state of housewife without appearing to condemn or to sneer. Swedish had been changed under the eyes and ears of the Swedes. Husmor had been discredited; the only way out was to use hemmafru ironically. Connected with this semantic shift, there was a change in feeling. Women who, a year or so before, had been satisfied, and possibly proud, to stay at home, began to feel the pressure to go out to work. The substitution of one word for the other had been accompanied by insistent propaganda in the mass media, so that it was as if a resolute conditioning campaign had been carried out. Very few were able to recognize the indoctrination in the linguistic manipulation; in the real sense of the word, the population had been brain-washed."

For my own part, I find it interesting that the same people who, in the 60s and 70s, broke up the traditional family structure in Western countries and warned people against the dangers of overpopulation, telling people to lower their birth rates, come back a few years later and say that we have to import millions of immigrants because we have such low birth rates.

Betty FriedanAuthor Daniel Horowitz has written about the highly influential American feminist Betty Friedan, whose 1963 book "The Feminine Mystique" is widely seen as marking the beginning of the Second Wave of feminism. Horowitz documents how Friedan had for decades before this been a hardened Marxist. It is revealing that she tried to hide her background, presenting herself only as an average suburban housewife. In the early drafts, Friedan quoted Friedrich Engels, but these quotations were cut out before the book was published. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had called for the abolition of family. Friedan denounced the American suburban family household as "a comfortable concentration camp."

Roland Huntford noticed that the teaching of history was severely curtailed in Swedish schools because it was "impractical." Religion, and Christianity in particular, was presented as superstition designed to fool the masses, which had been liberated from this ancient oppression by the Labor movement.

As he noted, "Scrapping historical knowledge deprives pupils of the instrument for criticizing society here and now. And perhaps that is the intended effect." Journalist Christopher Hitchens later wrote that "For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, though, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught."

Ingvar Carlsson"The State," in the words of Mr Ingvar Carlsson, then Minister of Education, "is concerned with morality from a desire to change society." Mr. Carlsson, who was later Swedish prime minister until 1996, also stated on one occasion that "School is the spearhead of Socialism."

According to Huntford, the word "freedom" was almost entirely confined to the sexual field in Sweden:

"The Swedish government has taken what it is pleased to call 'the sexual revolution' under its wing. Children are impressed at school that sexual emancipation is their birthright, and this is done in such a way as to suggest that the State is offering them their liberty from old-fashioned restrictions."

He describes a meeting with Dr Gösta Rodhe, the head of the department of sexual education in the Directorate of Schools. She stated: "You see, since there's a lack of tension in Swedish politics, younger people have got to find release and excitement in sexual tension instead."

Herbert MarcuseHerbert Marcuse, one of the major theorists of the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism, identified faith-based morality as the chief obstacle to a Socialist society. In his 1955 book Eros and Civilization, he argued for freeing sex from any restraints. He made a huge impact in the 1960s. Although he may not have coined the term "Make love, not war," he undoubtedly endorsed it.

Mr. Huntford ended his book with a warning that this system of soft-totalitarianism could be exported to other countries. This was in the early 1970s, and he has been proven right since:

"The Swedes have demonstrated how present techniques can be applied in ideal conditions. Sweden is a control experiment on an isolated and sterilized subject. Pioneers in the new totalitarianism, the Swedes are a warning of what probably lies in store for the rest of us, unless we take care to resist control and centralization, and unless we remember that politics are not to be delegated, but are the concern of the individual. The new totalitarians, dealing in persuasion and manipulation, must be more efficient than the old, who depended upon force."

"As political and economic freedom diminishes" said Aldous Huxley's in Brave New World, "sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase." This fits perfectly with Huntford's description. The state strips away your personal, economic and political freedom, yet grants you sexual freedom in return, boldly hailing itself as your liberator.

Language is underestimated as a source of power. Those who control the language and the school curriculum control society.

1984George Orwell said: "If freedom of speech means anything at all, it is the freedom to say things that people do not want to hear." In his book 1984, a totalitarian Party rules much of Europe. Their three slogans, on display everywhere, are: War is peace, Freedom is slavery and Ignorance is strength. It's the ultimate glossocracy, even creating an entirely new language called Newspeak:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."

I love Orwell's book, but frankly, it fits an openly totalitarian society more than it does Western nations. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, with its hedonistic society where people derive pleasure from promiscuous sex and drugs, is closer to the mark. Scholar Neil Postman contrasted the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death:

"Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.' In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."

Postman warned against the pitfalls of our mass media society:

"What started out as a liberating stream has turned into a deluge of chaos. Everything from telegraphy and photography in the 19th century to the silicon chip in the twentieth has amplified the din of information, until matters have reached such proportions today that for the average person, information no longer has any relation to the solution of problems. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."

This can potentially be exploited by those in power. In an openly totalitarian society such as the Communist state of East Germany, authorities can enforce censorship at gunpoint. The German Democratic Republic, as it called itself, claimed that the Berlin Wall was an "anti-fascist protection barrier," while it was really designed to make the country into a prison.

Angela MerkelIn 2007, former German president Roman Herzog warned that parliamentary democracy was under threat from the European Union. Between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from Brussels. According to him, "EU policies suffer to an alarming degree from a lack of democracy and a de facto suspension of the separation of powers."

At the same time, German chancellor Angela Merkel told the public that she did not intend to re-launch a broad debate on the revised EU Constitution but would rather focus on confidential talks with governments. This is especially sad because Merkel grew up in East Germany and should know better than to back an intrusive anti-democratic system. Maybe she's a glossocrat and simply went from one glossocracy to the next.

Undercover MosquesAt the Gates of Vienna blog in January 2007, Englishman Paul Weston vented his frustration over the situation in the UK. The big story that week in British TV had been the supposed racist remarks by an English girl to Indian actress, which attracted over 9 million viewers. They were participants in "Big Brother", a trashy reality television show that has become massively popular in many countries. At the same time, "Undercover Mosques" had an intrepid journalist with a hidden camera put his life on the line to record what was being said in leading mosques in Britain. He found they preached Islamic supremacism and hatred of non-Muslims, with statements such as: "You have to live like a state within a state until you take over." The viewing figures for this highly important program were between 1 to 1.5 million people. British media were interested in one thing and one thing only, Big Brother.

There were two other stories in the papers that week. The British Parliament would nod through a watered down version of the EU Constitution without, as previously stated, a referendum, and the German Chancellor was intending to re-introduce said Constitution. Both stories, according to Mr. Weston, went nearly unmentioned by the TV media.

The irony of this is that the name Big Brother comes from George Orwell's novel 1984, where Big Brother is the all-seeing leader of the totalitarian state. In 2007, Big Brother is real, but a sensual distraction, not an oppressive tyrant.

In the 19th century, Britain was threatened with subjugation by Napoleon. The British people rose to the occasion and defeated the threat. In the 20th century, Britain was threatened with subjugation by Adolf Hitler. The British people rose to the occasion and defeated the threat. In the 21st century, Britain was threatened with subjugation by the combined forces of Islamic Jihad and a pan-European superstate. The British people didn't notice the threat, as they were too busy watching semi-naked people do obscene things on TV. I bet even George Orwell didn't see that one coming, but maybe Huxley did.

I quoted The Road to Serfdom recently, and was told that it was "irrelevant" since it was written in the 1940s. I disagree. Here's a passage from it where Friedrich Hayek accurately describes Political Correctness. Page 117:

"The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they, or at least the best among them, have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognised before. (...) The most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of the meaning of words by which he ideals of the new regimes are expressed. (...) Gradually, as this process continues, the whole language becomes despoiled, words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them."

Hayek was particularly concerned with words such as "equality" and "justice," especially in combination:

"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict which each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time."

There is reason to fear that words such as tolerance, diversity and dialogue have become just as perverted, twisted and meaningless in the West under Multiculturalism as words such as freedom and democracy were in the East under Communism.

Every time something bad involving Muslims in Europe happens, the solution is supposed to be "dialogue." But what created the problem in the first place was the Euro-Arab Dialogue. Dialogue is thus the cause of Europe's Islamic problems, not the solution to them.

The peculiar thing about "diversity" is that the more ethnic diversity you have, the less diversity of opinion you have, since everybody is scared to death of saying something that might "insult" somebody. Moreover, people cry for more surveillance to counter the turbulence caused by all this diversity. A survey showed that a full 80 percent of Swedes favor increased surveillance to tackle terrorism and serious crime. 87 percent think that the police should be able to secretly bug telephones and access computers of ordinary citizens. Diversity, thus, leads to internal and external censorship and a more totalitarian society.

Besides, those who praise diversity the most are frequently those who are the least tolerant of diverging opinions. As British newspaper columnist Richard Littlejohn puts it: "The Fascist Left have turned the Nanny State into the Bully State. There is no limit to their intolerance in the name of tolerance."

"Tolerance" has been defined as support for Multiculturalism and continued mass immigration. Tolerance thus means that Western populations should eradicate themselves and their own culture. It means a slow-motion surrender to Islamic culture and Islamic rule. Yet if you are against tolerance you must be some kind of evil racist or something. Who doesn't like tolerance and diversity?

When Americans try to explain the extraordinary passivity displayed by Europeans in reaction to the massive onslaught against their countries, they tend to focus on restrictive gun laws. Our problems cannot be reduced simply to a matter of guns. After all, Americans face many of the same challenges even though they are armed.

The real reason behind this passivity is not just that Westerners have been disarmed physically, but more importantly that we have been disarmed culturally, verbally and morally. Cornered linguistically, deprived of words to formulate what we fight for and against and cut off from our historical roots, Westerners have become easy prey for our enemies.

I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries in the future, this doesn't matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale, Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won't make a big difference.

Don QuixoteModern Westerners tend to have a poor knowledge of our own history, and what little we do know we are taught to hate. We are taught, simultaneously, that our culture doesn't exist and that it is evil, which seems like a contradiction in terms, but both claims serve to undermine traditional loyalties, which no doubt was the intended purpose. Since our Multicultural Humpty Dumpties have already decided that there is no such thing as Western civilization, only a random collection of cultural impulses from a variety of sources, you look silly, ignorant and uneducated if you defend it, a bit like a Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

One must give Muslims credit for inventing the term Islamophobia, thus demonstrating that they understand the workings of Western glossocracy better than many Westerners do themselves. While nobody had heard of Islamophobia a mere decade ago, it is now the subject of international conferences and is quite literally treated as a threat to world peace.

Yet even though we now have a word for an imaginary problem, Islamophobia, we still haven't coined a term for a very real problem, the pervasive self-loathing and desire by some Westerners to eradicate their own culture. I've noticed that in many stories involving magic, a magician gains power over something once he gives it a name. So let's give the anti-Western self-hatred a name. What about self-termination? This is an historical epoch where the West has gone from self-determination to self-termination.

If language is used to assault Western culture, regaining control over it should constitute our first line of defense. We have a right to resist those who advocate our nation's self-termination. A policy which deprives us of self-determination and maybe our children of self-preservation is evil, and we have not just a right, but a duty to oppose it, even if it is championed by our own government; in fact, especially then. It is unacceptable that those who put the survival of our countries at risk are allowed to claim a monopoly on goodness.

I've been pondering how it was possible to pull off a stunt as large as the creation of Eurabia. There are many reasons for this, not the least the emotional scars in Europe following two world wars and the passivity bred by generations of intrusive bureaucracy. But one major factor has undoubtedly been the skillful manipulation of language employed by its creators. The key to hiding something in an information society such as ours is not to ban mentioning of it. Prohibitions only trigger human curiosity. It is rather to make it sound innocent, vaguely benevolent and above all exceedingly boring, and then drown it in the cacophony of noise and impressions we get bombarded with every single day. Since most people have short attention spans, they will soon move on to something else even if they have a vague idea of what's going on. If you implement your agenda gradually over many years and refrain from openly stating your end goals, you can get away with quite a lot.

Tariq RamadanHere's a quote from the Algiers Declaration for a Shared Vision of the Future from 2006. It states that: "It is essential to create a Euro-Mediterranean entity founded on Universal Values." "Universal Values" sounds ok, doesn't it? Well, the problem is, for Muslims the only universal values are Islamic values. As Tariq Ramadan says, "Muslim identity is the only true source of universality." In other words: Arabs will see this as an admission that Europe should in the future be based on Islamic values. So a betrayal of breathtaking proportions is made to sound entirely innocent, and is tucked away in boring-looking documents that 99.99% of EU citizens have never heard of. In the odd chance that an outsider might read one or two of them, he would still have to penetrate layers of incomprehensible Eurabian Newspeak to decipher their true significance. It's clever and it works, especially if the most plainspoken agreements are not made public or put in print. It then takes a person of Bat Ye'or's intellectual stature and trained eye to see through the glossocratic fog and connect the dots.

Through such methods, the EU has managed to do what nobody has been able to do since the Roman Empire, and hardly even then: To unite most of the European continent, from Spain to Romania and from Finland to Italy, in one political entity. Whereas the Soviet Union was, in the words of Ronald Reagan, the Evil Empire, perhaps the European Union will be remembered as the Glossocratic Empire, probably the first empire in human history built primarily through the ability to manipulate words. This was achieved by downplaying crucial information and drowning the public in irrelevant information, and by boring people into bureaucratic submission.

However, just as Neil Postman warned against the pitfalls of the information society, he also said that "Technology always has unforeseen consequences, and it is not always clear, at the beginning, who or what will win, and who or what will lose."

It is no coincidence that the newest and most decentralized medium, the Internet, has become the preferred medium for opposition to the ruling glossocracy. As author Bruce Bawer has noticed: "Thank God for the [Inter]Net. I tremble at the thought of all the things that have happened during the past years that I would never have known about without it. (...) If Europe is saved, it will be because of the Internet."

One comment, later censored at a BBC online discussion forum, said:

"That the BBC does not allow a link to LGF [Little Green Footballs, major anti-Jihad blog] will come as little surprise to those of us familiar with the BBC's output and editorial tone. What has come as a surprise to me, a relative newcomer to the 'blogosphere', is the degree to which the news the BBC chooses to present to us is filtered and censored. Whole stories that cause a sensation on the blogosphere and are of undoubted public interest are either mentioned in passing or not mentioned at all by the BBC."

Nicholas CopernicusJust as Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century demonstrated that the sun does not revolve around the earth, so too the traditional media outlets are slowly discovering that the information society no longer revolves around their editorial policies. It's the Second Copernican Revolution. We have yet to determine just how significant it is, but it is already creating visible cracks in the edifice of the Glossocratic Empire.

Women and men are different... (5, Interesting)

Giometrix (932993) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820091)

Women and men are different, we just think different and enjoy different things. Men tend to enjoy playing with the latest and greatest toys, and IT lends itself to playing with the latest and greatest toys. I really don't see that in most women. That's not to say that many women in IT don't enjoy the work, but something tells me lots of women in IT got into the field in the late 90's when any joe schmoe (or in this case jane schmoe) in IT could make money. Now that there's not quite as much money flowing, there's much less of an incentive to stay in a career they weren't enjoying to begin with.

Good for them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820095)

bad for us :(

This is a good thing! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820097)

I am not a sexist, but it has to be said that (at least in programming jobs) women simply are inferior to men.
I think its probably because computers are logical, and womens minds work at a more emotional level compared to mens.
I remember once having to completely re-write one module of our mission-critical stock lending system because the woman who programmed it had no concept of a thread-pool. I mean, this is the sort of thing that would be flat out obvious to a male developer.

The only downside of this that I can see is that IT can be a pretty difficult place to meet a partner unless you're a gay guy who likes geeks with no fashion sense. However, on balance, I think the amount of wasted effort that will be saved by guys not having to 'clean up the mess' from over-emotional female developers means that women leaving IT is overall a good thing.

Re:This is a good thing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820157)

I am not a sexist

Indeed. You are a moron.

Re:This is a good thing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820177)

The only downside of this that I can see is that IT can be a pretty difficult place to meet a partner unless you're a gay guy who likes geeks with no fashion sense.
Well, by you logic, if your a gay guy. you probably think on an emotional level too and are inferior, so you shouldn't be in IT either.

Re:This is a good thing! (2, Insightful)

SixFactor (1052912) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820387)

It was unfortunate that you had to re-work the code of your colleague - but incompetence knows no gender bounds.

I have worked with women in IT who were dedicated, technically adept, and most importantly, customer-focused. Mind you, this was at a nuclear power plant, which is a machine that is continuously operating for up to two years, and this places some serious demand for IT support (yes, it was/is an MS-based house, but that's another issue). Approaching it from a cultural standpoint, operators (mostly male) are required to have the utmost confidence that they can handle the beast at all times, and this often manifested itself as massive chips on shoulders, and demands of flawless execution on just about anything. Having women in IT 'gentled' the testosterone-charged atmosphere, and that helped just getting the job done. In comparison, the IT departments at other plants in the fleet were male-dominated, and for some reason were a lot less effective. Could have been a competence issue - but IMHO, it was cultural.

Finally, regarding the quest for a prospective partner: I believe it unwise to date someone at work. Think in terms of consequences if things go awry.

Re:This is a good thing! (1)

aveldina (938862) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820461)

I mean, this is the sort of thing that would be flat out obvious to a male developer.

Is that the case, or does it have something to do with that male programmer's previous experience? Are some of these places hiring women just to fill female gap with little regard to the amount of experience that person should have resulting in these types of situations? How many mistakes do your male developers make? It may be easy for you to sweep those examples of poor programming under a rug, but when a female programmer makes a mistake.. well they shouldn't even have a job anymore. After reading these types of comments on Slashdot I'd question why a women would want to enter IT when this type of attitude has already been set against her from the very beginning.

Re:This is a good thing! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820519)

I had a similar experience with over-emotional female co-workers. I worked as part of a team developing the back end for a major online store. In that team there were three developers, myself and two women. One of these women was constantly making private calls about her abusive boyfriend and constantly missed deadlines (if the guy was such a jerk why didn't she leave him? that would have been the logical thing to do). The other would meet deadlines about 50% of the time, but her coding style was very confrontational, using K&R-style indentation deliberately in contravention of the coding standards and using multiple inheritance injudiciously.

I ended up taking up the slack, doing loads of extra hours and re-working these two women's code and as a result suffered a severe case of burnout.

I now make a point of not working on any programming projects where there are a significant number of women involved. It's simply not worth sacrificing my health for.

It's the cellphones again! (5, Funny)

alienmole (15522) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820129)

So the problem is that women in IT are on call at all hours, which means that cellphones have a lot to do with this. But it goes deeper than that: cellphones are also causing honeybees to disappear [ttp]. Notice a pattern here?

These women are obviously going wherever the honeybees went: obviously, a peaceful cellphone-free land, populated with women and bees, a land of milk and honey, one might say.

I Like The On Call Pay... (2, Informative)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820171)

I am in IT and I have to take on call. We rotate it. But we also get an extra bump when we are on call - whether we get called in or not. But sometimes we end up spending all night and all weekend having to fix stuff and that does get real old really fast. I had to miss my fiancee's sister's birthday because I was on call and got called in.

Now, management sees the on call pay as an expense they would like to cut. When/if they cut it, I think the on call response is going to get a lot worse. A lot worse.

"Oh, a double-disk failure? Darn..."

Solution: Only give H1-B Visas to Women (1)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820187)

So, if we have a deficit of women in IT, how about we just give the H1-B's to women?

News Flash! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820189)

You do not see a whole lot of women in the construction business either. Not stereotyping but women don't fight for jobs they don't care anything about. I would LOVE to see at least 50% women mixed in at every job stratum but face it..there are some jobs women don't give a shit about and would rather fight for other lucrative positions.

I don't see an overwhelming majority of women fight for selective service either for that matter.

Proof that women are smarter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820195)


Leaving unrewarding jobs where they are treated like dirt at any hour of the day or night?

Sounds to me like women are just less willing to deal with the generally poor quality of the job and its compensation than men are.

(Never going back into IT. More money in better jobs with better hours and more respect.)

24 hour? (1)

johansalk (818687) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820205)

What kind of IT work require 24 hour on-call?

Re:24 hour? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820331)

Email server admin, for one. Being available to react to a server of any sort paging you because its going down. I dated a woman who had a job administering an email server, and she got a call once late at night while we were having sex (No, she didn't answer it till later). It wasn't even a server paging her, it was the junior admin calling her because the spam filter was having some kind of issue that was causing email to be sent over and over again endlessly and he didn't know how to stop it.

Being on call seems like an unreasonable request I find except that e-commerce sites are made to be available 24/7 and every hour they're down is money lost for the company, and the website itself is the storefront for the retailer pretty much. Having issues not dealt with in a timely manner gives people a bad impression about the health/professionalism of the company.

Re:24 hour? (1)

broKenfoLd (755627) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820565)

"What kind of IT work require 24 hour on-call?"

The kind where you actually have to fix something that breaks.

Managers and many consultants, who only talk about fixing things, have the luxury of waiting until 8am before pushing hot air around(this does not include time spent in the mirror practicing buzzword-filled catch phrases of course)

There are women in IT? (-1, Troll)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820207)

One study cited in the article states that by 2012, 40% of women now working in IT will leave for careers with more flexible hours.

What's 40% of zero?

...said Dot Brunette, network and storage manager...

It sounds like you hired a stripper as a network and storage manager. What's her real name?

She noted that companies can fail to attract female workers, or see them leave key IT jobs because they fail to provide day care at work, or work-at-home options for someone who leaves to have a child.'"

Hmmm...my choices are an all-male IT staff or additional childcare staffing and space expenses? Sorry, but you're making it too easy.

It's been over for some time now... (0, Offtopic)

ClaudeVMS (637469) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820285)

With all the lead in that "rod" management has in their lower intestines, and the number of H1B visas being passed out in DC like candy to rich companies who buy congressmen, computing in America is over! I'm changing careers to material science - now that is a career area with no user manual and no way to "assembly line" my work. It would be nice if management could work from home - and we could brick up their windows and doors (snort!)

Why are women hired ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820415)

To motivate their male counterparts. Girl: darling... please do it for me Boy: yes my dear..I'll do all the work with day in and night out and on weekends we will go somewhere. They hire 1 woman per 4 men..so that the competition is healthy.

Re:Why are women hired ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820467)

I someone wants to leave their job to have a kid, that was a choice. If the job is more important than having a kid, dont have kids.
If the kid is more important and you want to stay home with it, dont complain about it
I fail to see the logic in providing child care at work. Sure its nice if the employer does it but require it.....

Maybe it's because Women are Smarter than Men (4, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820425)

To quote Philip Greenspun:

"Pursuing science as a career seems so irrational that one wonders why any young American would do it. Yet we do find some young Americans starting out in the sciences and they are mostly men... A lot more men than women choose to do seemingly irrational things such as become petty criminals, fly homebuilt helicopters, play video games, and keep tropical fish as pets (98 percent of the attendees at the American Cichlid Association convention that I last attended were male). Should we be surprised that it is mostly men who spend 10 years banging their heads against an equation-filled blackboard in hopes of landing a $35,000/year post-doc job?

Having been both a student and teacher at MIT, my personal explanation for men going into science is the following:

      1. young men strive to achieve high status among their peer group
      2. men tend to lack perspective and are unable to step back and ask the question "is this peer group worth impressing?"

It is the guys with the poorest social skills who are least likely to talk to adults and find out what the salary and working conditions are like in different occupations. It is mostly guys with rather poor social skills whom one meets in the university science halls...

What about women? Don't they want to impress their peers? Yes, but they are more discriminating about choosing those peers. I've taught a fair number of women students in electrical engineering and computer science classes over the years. I can give you a list of the ones who had the best heads on their shoulders and were the most thoughtful about planning out the rest of their lives. Their names are on files in my "medical school recommendations" directory."

- Women in Science [greenspun.com]

Confused, also.... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820475)

So men and women are different and should be treated accordingly right? But also be treated equally? So we should embrace diversity while simultaneously demanding equality? I guess that's why there are rarely 'deadbeat moms' in the news or 'crack-whore dads'.

sigh (2, Interesting)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820491)

What is the big f'ing deal with the whole "lack of women in the IT industry" fad? Why doesn't the hair salon industry get this much publicity for it's lack of men working in it? Seriously, it's stupid. Women do what they're good at, and men do the same. Everyone meets in the middle eventually in executive and management land.

It's not restricted to women (3, Insightful)

femto (459605) | more than 6 years ago | (#18820511)

A number of my friends with children are looking to get out of the drudgery of abandoning their families for 60% of their waking hours.

These are the people working a 55 hour week in a "9 to 5" job, with an hour of commuting each way. They are typically engineers or other professionals working in jobs where technology companies demand that the product be in the market yesterday. Their (ex) colleagues have been "downsized" and the company is too tight to employ replacements or there just aren't the qualified people out there. Consequently they are each doing one and a half jobs. Flexible hours policy is "We don't mind what hours you work as long as the job gets done", which translates to "55 hours".

These friends are figuring out that they are missing out on being part of their family growing up while earning 2-3 time the average wage. Often they are concluding that they are better to move to a part time job, earn a little above an average wage and be part of the family growing up. If the change requires a change of employer or profession then they are prepared to do it. When pushed the better employers realise that they are better to have a part time expert than no expert.

me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18820525)

although I am not a woman. :)
I was sick and tired of having to be available 24/7. So now I got a another job and my income is down by 20% but it is worth it. It wasn't good for my health either.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account