Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Tech Replaces Diamonds As Girl's Best Friend 313

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the dog-still-man's-best-friend dept.
Ant writes to tell us that 'diamonds are no longer a girls best friend', at least according to a recent study commissioned by the Oxygen Network. From the article: "The survey, commissioned by U.S. cable television's Oxygen Network that is owned and operated by women, found the technology gender gap has virtually closed with the majority of women snapping up new technology and using it easily. Women were found on average to own 6.6 technology devices while men own 6.9, and four out of every five women felt comfortable using technology with 46 percent doing their own computer trouble-shooting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tech Replaces Diamonds As Girl's Best Friend

Comments Filter:
  • Early Adopters.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tktk (540564) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @03:59AM (#15830161)
    In my mind, that .3 difference is probably due to males being early adopters. My 2 sisters and I have basically the same gadgets but they lag behind a bit. We've all gotten iPods, laptops, bluetooth headsets, Tivos, & etc.

    I got a Tivo 5 years ago, one sister bought it 2 years ago, and the youngest is probably going to buy one before she heads off to college this fall.

    Once in a while, I'll catch my youngest sister talking on her phone to her boyfriend about WOW and be embarrassed for them. A nice change for once.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @04:22AM (#15830222)
    From my experiance in a university computer science department the vast majority of the women that are in the department (suprisingly there are actually in the double digits) are excellent at theory but absolutly have no idea how to write code. They usually pass classes that require coding by suducing one of the lonely male students into doing it for them.

    In contrast there are three or four females that are excellent coders. It's probably safe to say that each person has a differant way of thinking about things which may allow him/her to work problems more/less sucessfully than others.
  • Social Commentary (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Niet3sche (534663) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @04:35AM (#15830260)

    I'm curious. I seriously wonder if this, too, will be used as evidence to support that men and women are more different than alike (philosophically speaking, note).

    Here's my prediction: The current status quo tends towards women not being adopters, purveyors, or masters of technology. While there are certainly pockets of discourse and space that argue against this, I would suggest this story is more widespread than its alternative (e.g. "women are technologically-savvy"). I have to wonder at what point the evidence for the realization that there is more intra-group variability than extra-group variability between the sexes will become wholly overwhelming and force a change in the commonplace "line" on women in/and technology.

    I promised a prediction - here it is.

    When the above assertion becomes commonly accepted, so too will the notion that women are fully able and capable of using, enjoying, and mastering technology. However, we will supplant the current story with a new one - "Women are using technology as wholly a surrogate for that which they do best - that 'social stuff'."

    I should blog on this, but it's late. Thoughts? Am I way off-topic here?

  • success? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @04:50AM (#15830298)

    with 46 percent doing their own computer trouble-shooting...

    ... and failing miserably.

  • Nothing New To Me (Score:2, Interesting)

    by baronvonchickenpants (696100) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @05:13AM (#15830357)
    My wife is a cellular tech, and she's just as comfotable with technology as I am, if not more so. She uses our iPod more than I do, carries a Motorola SLVR, and can't wait to get a MacBook.
  • by AriaStar (964558) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @05:46AM (#15830427) Journal
    What the hell is it with this assumption to all women love shoes? Shoe-shopping gives me hives. I am a 25-year-old analytical engineer specializing in e-mail security, and eyes bug out when that's said. Why? Why assume women are technologically inferior? Why assume that tech is a man's field? Sure, there's this smug sense of doing something that sounds cool that a lot of women aren't doing, but it would sure be nice if it weren't greeted with a sense of disbelief, if more women weren't so intimidated.

    This articles makes women out to be a bunch of fashion whores who are shocking people by wanting tech items. A weekend vacation in Florida is over in a weekend. That diamond necklace will only be worn on special occassionas (unless given by someone special, in which case I'd never take it off, as I never take off my pearl necklace except to shower). Why take the designer shoes over a pricey camera when knock-offs of those shoes can be had for $20? That plasma TV would be great for picking up the details in every outfit on Sex and the City. *sense the sarcasm*

    Yet a plasma TV hardly counts for tech in my book. Why is an LCD TV not considered tech? Because they are hardly more than appliances. You want to fix a TV, you take it to an appliance repair person. Would this TV be considered a technological item if this study were done with men? Or would it be done with an item that requires more knowledge than how to press some buttons on a remote to change the channel?

    Do this study with a MacBook and give women a little more credit than as mindless whores only concerned about where they shoes are Jimmy Choo or whatever. Then maybe more of us wouldn't be afraid of entering the domain of men.

    Who am I kidding? I love being a woman in a man's world.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @08:35AM (#15830942)
    Perhaps you should do a little research then.

    Men and women have the same average IQs on the tests given. The only difference is usually accepted to be in the variance (spread) of the genders. Women tend to cluster around the mean, whereas men tend to have a slightly more spread out distribution.

    This means that there are slightly more males in the lower IQ ranges than women, and slightly more in the upper IQ ranges. The differences are not large, and some recent studies have suggested that the differences may be insignificant.

    Recent studies have also shown that there really is no difference in language or mathematical abilities between genders (unlike the common assumptions that women tend to be better at languages and men at maths).

    Both genders really are essentially the same in terms of final abilities, even if the way the male and female brains get there are different :)
  • Re:Warning (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @10:04AM (#15831583) Homepage Journal
    "First joker to ask if one of those women's "technology devices" is waterproof and vibratory gets...um...well, modded heavily, probably...

    "In what direction? Also, does it play MP3's?"

    Well, if you wanted it to, I supposed you could get her an iBuzz [ibuzz.co.uk] and have the best of both worlds!!

  • by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @04:40PM (#15834833)

    Explaining to your fiance why she will have a piece of glass vs a real diamond will probably result in you not needing one anyways.

    Who is talking about a piece of glass? Artificial diamonds are virtually identical (or superior in most quality respects) then the "natural" ones. DeBeers is spending hundreds of millions dollars desperately trying to come up with ever more convoluted ways of detecting them for the sole purpose to be able to claim that they are "fakes". But science and time are against the troglodytic money-grubbers and soon you will be able to buy the formerly "10k rocks" by the pound. I wonder what will your girlfriend tell you then.

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...