logicandlanguage.net

It's because it's a *logic* blog. All the real girly girls are out buying Cleo magazines. I don't care if it's sexist - it's the truth. If anyone needs convincing of the male-dominatedness of logic, just take a wander down into the local Computer Science department and take a head count.

It's certainly true of my history, even if some people might try to claim it's not true of the world at large.

Still, I don't try to judge anyone because of it, but the bias is real.

Hey! Hang on! Since when do I not count as a "real girly girl"?!

(But, er, trying to focus on the bigger picture here, since when has it become ok to say things like "I don't care if it's sexist"? Or sexist to tell the truth? Are feminists somehow committed to denying the truth now? Perhaps what you mean is only "I don't care if YOU think I'm being sexist.")

Uhh... I believe my true beliefs reflect a gender bias which is not accidental, but which may or may not be necessitated by gender difference itself.

I also believe I'm justified in believing it, but I could be wrong about that. :)

Cheers,
-T

It's true that Computer Science has historically been a male-dominated pursuit, but I'm not sure that this is as strongly the case as it was. Our University CS Department on at least one occasion in recent years has awarded more First Class Honours degrees to women than to men. About 1/3 of our current PhD students are female, although about 1/5 Faculty are.

Of these female Faculty (5 in all), only 1 woman works in logic. However, another works in algorithms, traditionally viewed as more mathematical, and hence often viewed as harder, than other branches of CS.

I think the larger question relates to research culture. I trained initially as a pure mathematician, but did not pursue a career there because I was offended by the macho posturing (people competing for results, refusing to talk about their work, dissing the work of others). Statistics (which I pursused initially) and Computer Science are far less macho than Pure Mathematics. Within CS, AI is even less macho. Perhaps it is because we in AI realize the magnitude of the research task we confront, and so recognize that co-operation and collaboration are essential.

Let me stress that I am not saying that all is sweetness and light in AI; rather, that it is far less macho than other mathematical sciences (pure mathematics, physics, economics, in particular). Since Descartes, our culture has favoured written symbol manipulation over other forms of intelligent behaviour, to the detrimment of our full humanity. With the rise of computer graphics, and other non-verbal communication modes (eg, sound, touch), in CS, we are changing that bias now.

I'm male. But not a distinct male---I am to one of your recognisably male posters as Hesperus is to Phosphorus.

Ah, curiouser and curiouser...

Now which of my other posters

i) would know the year of the Helsinki conference
ii) would be sensitive enough to feel slightly embarrassed about correcting me, and so use a pseudonym?

But with that I think my curiousity will have to yield to your right to anonymity.

I remember thinking on seeing your first post that you had read too much that Brian Leiter has to say about comments. His experience may be related to being involved with more touchy political blogging.

As to women in various subjects, you can see numbers from 1985-1995 here:

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf99338/access/append/appb.htm

There's a detailed chart for subdisciplines in 1995 (I believe that's chart 4-32 or so?) which suffers from small sample size (and lack of breakdown among the humanities), but points out that logic has about the same representation of women as math at large (about 20% of PhDs), while there are interesting contrasts between other pairs of related areas.

On women in computer science (sort of relevant?), see this website at Carnegie Mellon, whose undergraduate enrolment of women in CS went from 8% in 1995 to 42% in 2000. Change is possible, and (to me at least) surprisingly fast.