SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The global cybersecurity workforce remains stagnant at just 11 percent, according to the 2017 Women in Cybersecurity Report[PDF], co-authored by The Executive Women's Forum on Information Security, Risk Management and Privacy (EWF) and the Center for Cyber Safety and Education, which partnered with (ISC)2. The report is based on survey responses from over 19,000 information security professionals in 170 countries.
Report co-author and EWF founder Joyce Brocaglia says the most important finding of the report is that "it isn't just one thing" causing the persistent shortage of women in information security, but rather a "confluence of events."
The findings, says Brocaglia, show that women are underrepresented, are paid less than their male colleagues, feel undervalued, and feel discriminated against. "That's what's leading to this stagnation."
The shortage is severe in North America, with only 14 percent of the infosec workforce composed of women, but even more striking elsewhere; women only claim 7 percent of the workforce in Europe, 8 percent in Asia, and 5 percent in the Middle East, according to the report.
"Common sense should tell you we should be doing more about this," says co-author and EWF executive director Lynn Terwoerds, noting that in order to solve the cybersecurity skills shortage, the industry must do a better engaging the female population.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:20PM (12 children)
"I don't know if affirmative action works or not, but unless you actually implement it and look at the results for a couple of generations"
We've been applying affirmative action for women in IT for decades. There are now fewer women in IT than when I started my career back in the early 1980s. So my personal experience goes back 35 years.
It clearly does not work.
In fact, I suspect affirmative action is counterproductive, for two reasons.
First, as my wife pointed out: People rightly question the competence of every woman, if they know that some number of them have received qualifications that they are not entitled to. If women are, in fact, disadvantaged in their later careers, look no farther for the reason.
Second, every women is in the spotlight. The women in my classes are continuously surveyed and interviewed. Are you treated fairly? Have you experienced sexism? What's it like, being such a small minority? I suspect this drives a lot of women away.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:51PM (11 children)
First, as my wife pointed out: People rightly question the competence of every woman, if they know that some number of them have received qualifications that they are not entitled to
Oh your wife said that? Lol, nice try.
The fact is that tons of men have received qualifications they were not entitled to because as men they got passes for their screw ups. And that hasn't disadvantaged men in the field.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:00PM (3 children)
"First, as my wife pointed out: People rightly question the competence of every woman, if they know that some number of them have received qualifications that they are not entitled to"
"Oh your wife said that? Lol, nice try."
In fact, my wife *did* say that. She holds a doctorate in CS from one of the top 50 universities in the world. She has been through all this crap, and has an acidic resentment for any appearance special treatment. She doesn't need it, and doesn't care to have her qualifications called into question by people who pay more attention to her gender than to her abilities. Would it be nicer to have more women in the field? She'd agree wholeheartedly - as long as they are actually capable.
I happen to agree with her, but from a different perspective: I think people should be treated as individuals. Your eye color, the length of your hair, your gender, whether you're left-handed or right-handed - none of those have anything to do with your abilities, and they should all be ignored. Paying attention to irrelevant characteristics is, imho, counterproductive to the stated goal of equal opportunity.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:06PM
According to you, she should have replied "Wouldn't it be nicer if there were more blue eyes in the field?" So, why did she wholeheartedly agree to something so inherently inane?
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:38PM (1 child)
Its revealing that your entire response was about your being offended at being called out for vaj-washing your misogyny.
And nothing at all to say about how men are swimming in boys-club affirmative action.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:50PM
You'd make everybody miserable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:01PM
Oh your wife said that? Lol, nice try.
And an AC said:
The fact is that tons of men have received qualifications they were not entitled to because as men they got passes for their screw ups. And that hasn't disadvantaged men in the field.
Quite the argument from authority there.
Also a ton of men is around 10-12 people. There are a lot more men than that. It'd help my suspension of disbelief, if you wouldn't use a metric that could describe ~2*10^-5% of men in the US and still be true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:01PM
I mean, what do you mean?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:20PM (4 children)
I don't exactly agree with GP's view of affirmative action, though I do agree with him (and his wife) that it can create a general atmosphere of suspicion over minorities in the workforce, who are often assumed to have benefitted from it, even without requisite qualifications.
Have you seriously NEVER heard somebody claim that "he got that job because he's black" or "she only got that position because she's a woman"?
The fact is that tons of men have received qualifications they were not entitled to because as men they got passes for their screw ups. And that hasn't disadvantaged men in the field.
"Screw ups" are different from a general assumption of lack of competence for an entire group. A "screw up" is generally an individual thing, overlooked by a manager or whatever, often which only a limited number of people know about. Even if it's more widely known, it can eventually be forgotten.
If you're a woman or black or whatever, you can't hide that. And if other folks suspect that most women or blacks or whatever receive special treatment, they can begin to make assumptions or be resentful when someone gets a promotion or whatever -- even when said promotion was entirely deserved. It's NOT a reason to do away with all efforts toward affirmative action, but it probably IS a good reason why many businesses did away with "quota" systems within a few years after they were implemented. Because a quota system explicitly says: "You have to have at least X percent of blacks/women/whatever, no matter what," which is basically telling every worker at your company that the blacks/women/whatever are likely less qualified for their jobs. Most companies looking for diversity today are less regimented in their hiring/promotion, etc. practices, but the legacy of quotas has definitely bred resentment in some situations.
(For what it's worth, my own experience and knowledge about job searches, promotions, etc. is that a lot of fields have an excess of qualified people looking for work these days. So the way I've seen "affirmative action" work in recent years isn't about hiring/promoting less qualified people for diversity's sake, but rather giving a slight preference to a minority group when a decision basically comes down to a "tie" among a set of equally well-qualified people. But that hasn't stopped the perception among some people that minorities who end up in these positions may be less qualified.)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:45PM (3 children)
> Have you seriously NEVER heard somebody claim that "he got that job because he's black" or "she only got that position because she's a woman"?
The point is that I have NEVER heard somebody claim that "he got that job because he's white" or that "he only got that position because he's a man."
Despite the fact that it is the case ALL THE TIME.
> "Screw ups" are different from a general assumption of lack of competence for an entire group.
No they aren't. At best you are splitting hairs. Nobody implies that a minority is incompetent when they demonstrate competence. Only when they do a mediocre job or actually screw up. But when a white man does a mediocre job nobody ever, ever blames it on their whiteness.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:54PM (2 children)
The reason nobody blames the whiteness is because whiteness was never a factor in his hiring in the first place. To borrow a phrase: Get it, yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:50PM (1 child)
Just because it wasn't a literal checkbox on the qualifications list doesn't mean it wasn't a factor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @08:28PM
Get it yet?