11 ms·

Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

73 points by skormos 15y ago

MSwaffer 15y ago
"Girls aren't supposed to get involved in robotics" was the answer I got from a high school girl on why more girls weren't in the robotics club. All the stats about girls not doing well in math etc. just tell me that gender stereotyping is alive and well.
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to. here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence. But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence constitute "evidence"? Aside from direct observation, what other definition of "evidence" would you use? Or are you assuming that because one ratio exists in one set (the general population of humans) it must exist in any subset? This would require that the subset have no defining characteristics, which effectively prevents it from being a subset. (A bit loose with my language, but you get the gist) Then his sheer audaciousness when he calls observation of the data circular logic! If I there are 20% blue trees in the world, and I see a lot with 40% blue trees, is it not natural to conclude there is some agency at work here? The question becomes one of intelligent design -- was there a external intelligent agent causing the blue tree delta? With complex systems, this is as much a religious question as anything else. We simply don't know. Very intelligent people could creatively speculate on all sorts of prime movers, natural or not. Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software? As far as I'm concerned this shoddy history should make us doubly wary of the any suggestion that a diversity imbalance is natural. I'm really not sure what to do with this. Is he arguing that since a certain type of rhetoric has been used to ill purpose in the past that it should be looked upon extra critically now? If so, how would I go about picking and choosing which methods of reasoning might be better or worse to use? It seems to me that he's arguing that based on some conclusion to the argument (there might be a natural difference) that we should hold the methods of reasoning suspect. But if we got a different conclusion using the same methods, that would be okay? This is like a generic ad hominem -- don't trust that reasoning because it's been faulty in the past! Well sure, all kinds of ways of reasoning have been faulty in the past. This has nothing to do with anything. That is, given we have a unnatural imbalance, is it a problem that's sufficiently serious to spend energy on fixing it? But he hasn't shown an unnatural imbalance at all, he's just made broad statements about how he feels about certain kinds of tools being used in the discussion. Lack of diversity is itself a problem. Different people think differently, and consequently come up with different ways to solve problems. If you have a bunch of people with the same background, they miss lots of ideas - leading to inefficiencies and lack of innovation. A diverse group is usually more effective. See here I completely agree with him -- a lack of various backgrounds, opinions, and personalities hurts small groups. But he seems to be saying that these good qualities -- opinions, backgrounds, personalities -- are inherently part of being a female, being a Norwegian, or of being black. So it's okay for him to say that in general being Norwegian is cause to make you so different you have value as a team member, at the same time he's saying that there are no natural differences to account for the difference in observed ratios? Huh? Who is using circular logic again? Fowler seems like a nice guy, and I'm sure he likes puppies and ice cream and all of that, but this is tripe. I am a firm believer in having as much possible diversity as possible in my teams as long as we can hold the group together. So count me in as being a huge proponent of diversity. But diveristy is all about things that you can't see -- not bullshit like your skin color, how tall you are, or your gender. Lots of teams fail because nobody on the team had good empathy skills. Nobody fails because there wasn't a person on there wearing glasses. Don't confuse the true greatness of diversity with some kind of flavor-of-the-week political bullshit. Here it is: nobody knows. It's a complex system full of individuals all acting in their best interests, not something you can perform a logical proof on. The variables and systems involved are legion. If you would like to discuss the story of just one person, we could do that with some clarity. But if you start waving your hands around and claiming you already know the answer -- whether you want it to be a natural ratio or whether you see prejudice in the world -- we're not going to get very far. I can assure you that whatever happening is natural, but by "natural" I mean it might be that the society at large has major problems that need to be fixed. Or maybe not. Beats me. This is a topic for moral discussion, not logical discussion, and bringing these kinds of logic tools to the table only makes things worse, not better. Must be in angry-old-guy mode again today. Sorry about that. I'm just really disappointed that Fowler couldn't see the errors of his own thinking and then presumes to lecture us about it. Man I find that really annoying.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  the difference here is on the meaning of "natural". you're taking it to mean something like "what we have" and then your argument makes sense: we see what we have because of some process that exists (is natural). but fowler is using "natural" in a sense more like "unbiased by historical accident" or "what we would get if a bunch of people were suddenly created out of nothing and formed a society from zero". so there's nothing new here. grumpy, indignant old men (self aware or not) believe the status quo (which only incidentally favours them) to be natural. people like fowler do not. [edit: i've removed fowler's superlatives to be less unpleasant (sorry - in my defense i have been configuring maven all day...); the grumpy old man characterisation is from the parent post]
  - DanielBMarkham 15y ago
    Great comment. Thanks. Yes, you are correct. I made an edit to that effect. If I observe something, it is occurring, correct? Or I could not have observed it. The question becomes why is it occurring? We can observe "simple" things like trees and rocks and disagree on the reasons happen the way they do. I'm not trying to argue from ignorance here. Certainly you could ask each and every person and draw some general conclusions. But that kind of approach is very fluffy and you could spin the results to say just about anything you wanted. If you have a master's degree in computer science and decided to be stay-at-home dad, is that because the system is flawed? Perhaps you just prefer being with your kids? Most people don't make those kinds of decisions for any one reason. It's complex. Like I said, I love diversity. I think my biggest problem is this continuing thing we do where we define diversity as external characteristics. It's the internet age. I could care less what your sexual organs are or skin color is. EDIT: Just to be sure I am advancing the discussion, the moral question is this: Assume I run a company with 100 employees. Only 20 of them are a member of a sub-group that is 30% in the larger population. Is it the moral thing for me to do to hire another 10 people of this subgroup, even if it means not hiring people of another group that might be better qualified just so the ratios match up? If the answer to that question is "yes", then I have two follow-up questions. One, how many kinds of subgroups do I need to track? One-armed people? People who have beards? Who gets to decide what subgroups are special or not? Two, is it moral for a voter to make somebody do something because they personally find that it has a moral outcome? If I wanted people to be nicer in the world, could I pass a law that required all of them to give 10% to charity? Does something I feel morally outraged about automatically mean I should go mucking around with somebody else's freedom? If so, where's the stopping point? As for Jim Crow laws, please note that I am not saying that society shouldn't evolve. I'd argue that some degree of legislating morality is necessary for society to move along -- even though I find it most distasteful. But there should be time limits on these things. That's why I bring up the internet. I really don't need grandpa's generation telling me how I should think. This is something each generation needs to settle for itself.
mc32 15y ago
>Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software? True. But are underrepresented groups being actively denied access as was the case in the example above? Apple and oranges. Not saying there isn't a problem, just saying it's a different problem. I think in this case more passive cultural than active cultural problem. There are imbalances everywhere. Line cooks. Where are the women line cooks? Photography. Where are the women in professional photography -how many women street photographers do we know, other than Vivian Maier? Where are the straight people in fashion? I think, at least in some cases, there is self selection going on. Different airports have different pluralities of ethnicities doing lots of the service work. SFO is different from JFK is different from BOS, in that regard.
godares79 15y ago
I feel like this imbalance is going to correct itself over the coming decades. As people become more connected, and are introduced to computers at a younger age, the diversity of those interested in them to the point of wanting to work with them as a career will increase. The stereotype of the white pasty male computer nerd is vanishing. With it is the pressure for those who don't fit that stereotype to choose a different field (Fowler mentioned this). I feel like this lack of diversity was almost purely societal and as society changes this will. You are already seeing the enrollment of women at universities increase from its post-bubble years. It will probably keep going up. I don't think it will ever be on par, but it will get closer.
- lindseybieda 15y ago
  The overall trend right now shows the opposite: http://rarlindseysmash.com/images/entries/degrees.png http://rarlindseysmash.com/images/entries/degrees.png this isn't an issue that is going to self correct and people trying to take steps to remedy a problem should not be lambasted by the community.
funkah 15y ago
> A diverse group is usually more effective. Does this mean the problem will take care of itself? That is, if it is true that a diverse group is usually more effective, the products and startups that succeed should have teams which tend to be more diverse than the ones that fail. And as that happens, founders interested in succeeding would pay more attention to the diversity of their firms.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  There's also the problem of confounding variables. All else being equal, a diverse group is usually better. However, if you have to fudge those other factors in order to get a diverse group then perhaps you've completely erased that advantage.
- jdp23 15y ago
  Not necessarily, because it's starting from inequality. Here's a simple example. Assume hypothetically that due to historical differences the vast majority of investment decisions are made by a non-diverse demographic who prefer to invest in people like themselves. So even though the diverse groups outperform, it may not be enough to overcome the "unfair advantage" of easier access to capital.
- MartinCron 15y ago
  The bottleneck to success isn't simply the effectiveness of implementation groups. You've heard the old line of it being about who you know instead of what you know? There are (real and perceived) barriers to entry, entrenched good-old-boys networks, gatekeepers, stereotypes, etc. Even if it's more like a minor obstacle than a brick wall, those tiny disparities add up can make a huge difference.
te_platt 15y ago
He talks about diversity of sex and race being necessary to have a diversity of viewpoints. If that is true doesn't that imply that that different sexes and races have fundamental differences based on those attributes? If so shouldn't we expect a diversity imbalance in every occupation. That is, people with fundamental differences will tend to want to do different things. If it's not true then why care about diversity of sex or race. Also I disagree with this line from the article: "A diversity imbalance suggest that there are many women, who would have good careers as programmers, who are not getting the opportunity to do so." If women are denied opportunities as programmers there will be an imbalance. An imbalance can be caused by any number of other factors.
nsxwolf 15y ago
I don't get this. Maybe it's because I'm a white male, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why is there such a resistance to the idea that there might be differences in what groups of people are interested in at any given time? Not an issue of genetics or competence, but a complicated web of social influences that make people less likely to be interested in one path or the other? If there are truly unjust and discriminatory barriers, then by all means let's remove them. But if we succeed, and it doesn't change the numbers much, does it matter? If certain groups really think it's a problem then let them do the work of encouraging their group members (alert, this feels condescending - who says they'll even self-identify with that group) to get into tech. It's certainly not my fault. I'm a cheerleader for tech careers. The more, the merrier. But if you're not into it, then you're not into it. There's a lot of things I'm not into, either. Whose fault is that? And why should it matter?
- puls 15y ago
  I think his entire point is to call out that complicated web of social influences as the problem.
  - monochromatic 15y ago
    Why is it a problem?
    - MartinCron 15y ago
      It's only a problem if you care about things like injustice, inefficiency, and wasted potential.
      - nsxwolf 15y ago
        It's only wasted potential if you're sure that a career in technology is superior to any other career or goal in life. That's certainly not true. I'd be curious to see the reaction of you telling a woman who is satisfied with her life that she's wasted her potential.
ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
I was under the impression that most people had accepted that the reason more men than women do software development is that more men find it interesting than women do, not because women are less intelligent or because there's a conspiracy to keep them out. Too bad, I guess not. As an aside, my boss at the moment is a woman, and a few years ago she had to staff up significantly and hired several young women at the junior level. The interesting thing is that her team hasn't really changed because of "the diversity" since it turns out that women who like programming act pretty much like the men who like programming: they're kind of socially awkward, have sometimes unreasonable expectations that the world will be a meritocracy, make a fetish out of liking cartoons and movies that most people don't, and so on.
- roguecoder 15y ago
  No. At least, I've certainly seen no research suggesting that is true; you may believe it but "most" people don't and if they did they haven't provided evidence for that belief. If your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain the massive variation over time in gender gap even just in the United States? (citation: http://phrogram.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.00.12.14/Computer-Science-in-Crisis.JPG http://phrogram.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityS...)
  - ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
    If you're talking about the sharp decline in computer science degrees granted to women around 1984, I have a couple of guesses. First, no one really knew what kind of career path getting a computer science degree entailed until around then anyway, and once women had figured it out they decided they didn't want it. Second, in my opinion women are much more sensitive to their career's stability and predictability than men are, for the simple reason that they're the ones who have to plan out when to have children. You'll notice that the drop-off more or less coincided with the first (or second, or maybe third - I forget which) big bust in the PC industry in the 80s. Mainframes and even microcomputers did not have boom-and-bust cycles like PCs did in the 80s, although individual companies might blow up the industry as a whole was relatively stable. College students looking for stability around that time might sensibly decide "computing" wasn't for them any more. My favorite reference in this discussion (well, about women in science and engineering as a whole) is Philip Greenspun's article (http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science) who basically makes the argument that the median scientist who doesn't win Noble Prizes actually has a pretty crappy career and that women are smart enough to stay away.
datashaman 15y ago
Reprocussions is a word?
- phuff 15y ago
  No. It's repercussions.
  - warmfuzzykitten 15y ago
    Having been dinged by PG for rewriting the title of a posted link - common practice on HN - it particularly annoys me when it's done by people who can't spell.
bitops 15y ago
Amazing, but unsurprising, that the first slew of comments are all about tearing down the post.
- jdp23 15y ago
  As Martin says "Personally I find it troubling when software professionals, who ought to be good at logical thinking, can reach so easily for such circular logic."
  - bitops 15y ago
    I don't mind the downvotes, but I think my comment was misunderstood. Of course, whenever there is any type of gender-related article on HN, it gets pretty nasty pretty quickly. HN, for all the good things I can say about it, is firmly entrenched in the mindset that Martin is writing against.
    - roguecoder 15y ago
      And yet, still better than slashdot!
jkr124 15y ago
Some people bring a cult-like mentality to the discussion of diversity and related issues. Dissent is not welcome, unpleasant facts and observations explained away often in contrived ways. Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species?
- MartinCron 15y ago
  Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species? The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of "meaningful group variations within the human species". Without hard science, it's a scary and dangerous place.
  - jkr124 15y ago
    "The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of 'meaningful group variations within the human species'." That is an extremely strong statement to make without justification. It sounds like a forbidden knowledge-type of argument. Science should decide if there are statistically significant intergroup variations. But right now, that is strictly verboten by the type of arguments you just gave me. This strikes me as an echo of the resistance to understanding human evolution, but by a group that considers itself to be rational and scientific. It seems some people literally have taken the notion of universal human equality as a revealed truth in the religious sense. These people are hostile to inquiry into the matter because it would literally upset their entire worldview.
    - MartinCron 15y ago
      That's why I said that without hard science it's a scary and dangerous place. With hard science, you can do things like determine that some ethnic groups are more likely to develop particular kinds of illnesses or respond differently to some kinds of medications. That's great! But looking at the status quo and saying "I guess women just aren't any good at this whole programming business" isn't hard science, it's ex-post-facto rationalization.
plinkplonk 15y ago
Edward de Bono once talked about how words become loaded with emotional connotations and value judgements to the point where it is hard to argue for or against certain positions. Eg: You can make an argument for or against a mixture of two things in differing ratios, but the moment you use the words "balanced" and "unbalanced" to represent the two states, the it is harder to argue for the "unbalanced" side. Likewise for "core" vs "surface" (de Bono's example) Who would want to argue against balance, 'core', or in this case, "diversity"?(What are you, some kind of bigot?). "Diversity" is automatically assumed to be a positive, before the argument on whether it is desirable begins, and there isn't a value neutral or value positive word that is its opposite. Specifically in this post, there are plenty of value laden words - 'diversity', 'meritocracy' etc put together to slant in a particular direction. Not much solid argument or content there - the power of the argument comes instead from the values attached to the specific words used, which makes it a bit iffy - Martin is a gifted writer and clear thinker - this just isn't one of his better efforts. [Due Disclosure: I know Martin from my days at ThoughtWorks. I respect him immensely and think he is a very impressive person, who has given me a lot of very useful advice on many occasions.]
- queensnake 15y ago
  re: "little solid argument" - he does say that diversity means a wider variety of thinking, and /more programmers/.
  - plinkplonk 15y ago
    "/more programmers/", as long as the new set has a different and "better" distribution ratio among its members than exists presently. Just reinforces my point. As to "wider variety of thinking" this is immeasurable and is sufficiently vague so you can take it to mean anything you want it to mean. Fwiw, I am not saying Martin is wrong - he is a smart guy and he is a probably right. I am just saying his argument uses subtle tricks of rhetoric to, essentially, circle back to his assumptions.
tomjen3 15y ago
Why are we having this debate? Shouldn't we focus on developing awesome software?
- duality72 15y ago
  That is exactly why we are having this debate.
mhartl 15y ago
Although it's easy to become accustomed to it, it's pretty obvious the child care world has some serious issues in diversity. By this I mean that it has some notable differences in proportions of people compared to the general population. One of the most obvious differences is the low proportion of men, which is true all over the world. In the US, where I spend a good chunk of my time, the over-representation of Latinos is also obvious. One point of view I hear fairly regularly is that these diversity imbalances are natural - because men don't have the aptitude or inclination for child care. The big flaw here is a simple one of evidence. There are (roughly) 50% men in the world, so we should expect the ratio for men in child care to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural. This waste hurts our society, too. We need more and better child care to nurture and support the next generation. By not bringing enough men into the profession, we are handicapping ourselves. How can we say we are hiring the best people when we ignore significant chunks of our population?
- dgabriel 15y ago
  Your rewrite is completely valid. Were you expecting it to be absurd? It's not. The same interesting questions arise. I'm sure you can come up with reasons why men may choose not to make their living caring for children, even though they'd prefer to do so. Is this not a problem we should attempt to fix?
  - robobenjie 15y ago
    In fact, my wife works in Early Childhood education at the Laboratory School at Stanford, and they do think and worry about exactly those kinds of things.
  - bermanoid 15y ago
    Your rewrite is completely valid. Were you expecting it to be absurd? It's not. The same interesting questions arise. I think the point is, that when "women in tech" comes up, the default assumption that people (particularly feminists) tend to jump to is that sexism is keeping women out of tech. More specifically, that sexist guys in tech are keeping women out. Even when not stated explicitly, this accusation has been made many, many times, and underlies every discussion about this topic. But the immediate assumption when it comes to nursing is almost never that women in nursing programs mistreat men. In fact, I've almost never heard that accusation, even though it's considered the null hypothesis when it comes to "women in tech". People are much quicker to look for other explanations, for instance that men are more likely to be bothered by the working conditions, pay, autonomy, etc. than women are. I'm sure you can come up with reasons why men may choose not to make their living caring for children, even though they'd prefer to do so. Is this not a problem we should attempt to fix? Absolutely, we should address these problems. First we need to know what they are, though, and I think the discussion about this topic has been much more productive in nursing than it has been in tech, because sexism is not considered the null hypothesis there.
CoderDude1 15y ago
I wonder if Nurses, Social Workers, and Daycare teachers are writing these same articles about how there are not enough men in their fields.
- dgabriel 15y ago
  Yes. In nursing: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/06/health/main521057.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/06/health/main521057.... http://www.lpn-to-rn.net/articles/men-nursing.php http://www.lpn-to-rn.net/articles/men-nursing.php In social work: http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/092310p32.shtml http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/092310p32.shtml http://www.prlog.org/11694478-men-in-social-work.html http://www.prlog.org/11694478-men-in-social-work.html In teaching/day care: http://www.menteach.org/ http://www.menteach.org/ http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ484021&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ484021 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_...
Morendil 15y ago
Recommended reading on this topic: Ensmenger's "The Computer Boys Take Over", or the more scholarly "Gender Codes" edited by Thomas Misa. The latter in particular gives lots of detail, not just in describing the situation (the imbalance isn't the same everywhere, in every company or in every job description) but also in in explaining how (historically) and why (causally) the situation became what it is today.
dudeguy999 15y ago
Martin says that we are turning away qualified female candidates right now. That's not the case. Only one female candidate comes through my door for every 7 or 8 males. We are meritocrats like Martin and would be happy to hire females. But first they have to show up.
- brianprogrammer 15y ago
  I don't believe he said anything close to that. Part of the reason posts like this get people fired up is that they assume that they are being accused of shutting women out unfairly. He left open the possibility that women (for example) select themselves out of programming careers for whatever reason. Imagine if you threw a party and invited half men, and half women, but only the men showed up. Wouldn't you be displeased with those results and conclude that you need to do something different to make your party more appealing to women? I know I would.
queensnake 15y ago
I thought someone would have mentioned this by now, but in other cultures (my sample: India, China, Ukraine), there /are/ more women programmers. At least, I've worked with proportionately more women from the above nations, than white American women. Meaning it's culture and not ability or /native/ inclination, at least.
loumf 15y ago
It's fun to take apart the logic, rhetoric, and nitpick on every word of this post. We could argue the premise all day long -- and 5 years from now there will be fewer women, minorities, etc, than there are now. Instead I prefer to take constructive action to change this, without worrying if (1) it is natural or unnatural or (2) it would be better. I accept that the current state is unnatural and a more balanced population would be better. If you agree, please post replies here with what you think can/should be done (or what you are already doing). If you disagree, please reply to one of the other threads.
- mc32 15y ago
  I agree with you. Not sure about the "unnatural" qualifier though. That presumes an active agent present. What can be done. I think that's difficult. It has to be something pervasive, insidious in the culture. Via TV, internet, radio, entertainment, education, propagated by not only peers but all via all media. Everywhere. There needs to cease the archetyping of human roles. Something on that scale could happen, but it would take a generation or two. Kind of like the deprogramming of National socialism in Germany, or deprogramming of Religion in (soviet) Russia. 100% success isn't necessary, just enough to overcome the momentum or steady state. Very vast, very pervasive with both incentives and punishment. Piecemeal I don't think would result in fast enough turn-around in attitude. To me the problem is cultural. It's not men or women, it's the whole body of the culture which results in the skewed numbers.
  - loumf 15y ago
    What I am doing is trying to bring up the conversation with as many people as I can -- saying I think it's worth solving and asking for ideas. We need more software developers, and this is an untapped pool. If we increase it a little, we'll have a lot more programmers. I have also noticed behaviors that work to systematically lower participation by women, and I have worked to reverse them. For example -- noting that invitations to speak at a tech conference included no women, even though there were many qualified choices (I gave the conference organizers a list). I think the issue was that we invite who we know -- we need to break out of that -- our networks are probably overwhelmingly male. I suggest more discussion (not here -- everywhere) -- but focused on ideas to increase the number of women in programming -- not meta-discussions. Try to notice when the ratio is bad and comment on it -- insist on something being done. And --- if you notice behaviors that work against changing the ratio -- do something about it. And, I don't think it's very constructive to keep meta-arguing about it. If you want to, go ahead, but it's starting to sound a little silly. Almost all of these arguments were used to stop women from becoming lawyers 100 years ago. When, instead, we started working to include women -- their numbers grew to half the profession. 100 years from now, many of these arguments will seem outdated, especially the ones arguing natural aptitude.
greggman 15y ago
I'm having a problem with this as well. I'm sure I get the bozo bit flipped on me but... Let's pick some other topics. What's the percentage of men vs women that knit as a hobby? Crochet? Cross Stitch? Scrapbook? Ok, those are hobbies. But I'll bet if you asked most programmers, at least the good ones, they got started programming as a hobby and that happened to end up leading to a career. How about nurses? In the USA is 93% women. 7% men (or was 14 years ago, not sure about today) Are you going to argue that 50% of the participants of all those things should be men and that something is wrong because they are not at 50%? I 100% want to see more women programmers but I'm at a loss on how to get more women interested in being a programmer. Should we try to do more? Of course! But there's a part of me that feels it's like saying "I wish more people didn't like pop music". I can wish all I want but if the biggest problem is culture it's going to take some serious concentrated effort to change. I'm talking like every 5th Hollywood movie and every 4th TV show needs to start showing women as programmers and in positive light the same way in the 70s they all started making anti-discrimination stories and girls can do anything stories. It's going to take women's magazines running articles on how awesome programming every month for years. It's not enough just to say women can do anything. If you want to change culture it's going to take a lot more than just a few words on a blog or a few more male geeks being aware of things they do that drive women off.
- Kathy 15y ago
  As noted above, the lack of men in nursing is something that the nursing community worries about. What I do think anyone who wants to see more women programmers can do is this: if you hear that women (or a woman) is discouraged from X for reason Y do not dismiss their concern. First, reason Y is probably a symptom not the main reason. Second, dismissal is in itself a discouragement, as it implies that their opinion is not worth anything. It would better to reflect on what the main reason might be (or what assumption are you making that may be false).
lifeisstillgood 15y ago
For a given value of true, Programming is just normal human language literacy with slightly stricter syntax rules. As such I say there should be as many good women programmers to good male programmers as there are good women writers.
- lancewalton 15y ago
  Programming is just writing lines of code with correct syntax?
  - mc32 15y ago
    As much as writing a novel is just writing sentences with correct syntax.
    - lancewalton 15y ago
      My point exactly.
Tichy 15y ago
"But making statements with inclination is little better than with aptitude - there's still no evidence and it has just the same shoddy history" Sorry, but that is just bullshit. Everybody who is in IT and has talked to a bunch of women in his life has collected some evidence on this. When would Fowler accept it as evidence? If you have asked 100 women, or one million, or one billion, if they are inclined to go into IT? What do you suppose would be the result if we asked everybody on HN "what percentage of women you know have an inclination to go into IT"? I think there would be thousands of samples with a fairly obvious result. Why there is little inclination is another question, but the logic Fowler employs here is simply bullshit. It matters because I don't think he'll be able to sway people's opinions if he simply dismisses the evidence they personally collected for themselves. Who are people supposed to trust, if they can't even trust themselves? Also, if he deals with evidence like that, I can not trust his argumentation because it seems as if he only wants to see or accept "evidence" that supports his viewpoint.
xbryanx 15y ago
My argument for improved diversity (racial, gender, economic, et al.) in the software world is simple and wildly unscientific. It would be lots more fun. Every time I've worked on diverse technology teams it's been more enjoyable and I feel like I've done better work. I know this is a facile argument, but it's definitely the driving reason I work for this change in the software world.
theprogrammer 15y ago
Diversity is a good thing. That's been stated as axiomatic on these discussions and it's probably true. But what kind of diversity will have the greatest effect? I posit that there are far greater kinds of diversity that will have a bigger impact than gender: language, culture, education. I would also be interested in studies in why girls aren't as interested in science and computing as boys. When I started no one around me knew what a computer was. I'm kind of puzzled why I was interested at the age of 11. I was also discouraged from doing it at school, but it didn't stop me. I take issue with te while geek thing. It may be true of some devs, but most I know don't fit into that stereotype, they have a wide range of other interests. I wish people would drop it.
daniel_solano 15y ago
This footnote drew my interest: Although female programmers are rare now, that wasn't the case in the 70's. That shift is another argument against the natural balance hypothesis. I am too young to know, but is this the experience of others as well? Again, this is based purely on anecdotal experience, but I wonder if women programmers tend to concentrate into particular industries (for whatever reason). My wife was a programmer at a contractor for a large government agency, and it struck me that there was a higher concentration of women there than in other industries or in the start-up scene. If this is generally the case, I am not sure to what extent this would support any given hypothesis.
- ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
  Back in the day I think the popular perception of programmers was kind of an extension of a secretary (it's just typing on toggle panels instead of a typewriter, right?) so there were lots of women stuck in secretarial positions who tried it out.
  - pmb 15y ago
    ...and those secretaries were good at it. And so were the women math PhDs who could not get jobs elsewhere. And so were the women who had female mentors, and therefore failed to be chased away. All of which dumps water on the "innate abilities" trope that people keep bringing up as the null hypothesis which must be disproved, instead of the claim which requires proof. It genuinely weirds me out how many white males in tech see no conflict or even feel a shiver of historical echoes when they argue the premise that they (white men) are intrinsically genetically gifted in ways which other groups are not, and that is why they are superior (at technology). Every other time it has ever been argued, it has been false. Unless the argument was that white men are better at the combination of having penises, privilege, and low amounts of melanin --- we have that hat trick down.
    - ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
      I wasn't arguing the "women aren't good at programming" position. My personal opinion is that the most important reason there are few women programmers, next to which any other factor fades into insignificance, is that women are simply less interested in doing it. Now that I think about it, the fact that there used to be many more women programmers when women's career options were more limited is pretty strong evidence that this is true: Now that women have more options, there are fewer women programmers.
nsxwolf 15y ago
Also: This sentiment that women should be interested in programming jobs, but aren't because they've been damaged by the patriarchy in some way, and now it's up to (predominantly) men to fix this for them - strikes me as a bit sexist. We could potentially take the Avatar/Dances With Wolves approach. A really awesome superstar male programmer could start dressing in drag and lead female programmers to victory. Or at least 50% representation.
- lindseybieda 15y ago
  It's up to everyone in the community to fix this. No matter what their sex or race. It's just a matter of being a more open and welcoming community. I'm sure there are fellow female (and other minority) programmers reading the comments on this article feeling completely unwelcome in the programming community.
  - shallowwater 15y ago
    I'm one of those lady-types reading the comments here and getting the message loud and clear that no matter how interested I may be, or how talented I may become, I am not a welcome addition to this community.
    - nsxwolf 15y ago
      What led you to that conclusion? No, seriously, I want to know. Why don't you feel welcome?
      - Kathy 15y ago
        How about comments like "Women getting their panties in a bunch about something as minor as that is the reason they aren't taken seriously in the workplace (to the extent they aren't, I mean)"? Not even so much the message as the way it was said.
        nsxwolf 15y ago
shallowwater 15y ago
[reads all the comments about how no one wants ladies in their field anyway] And people wonder why the ladies don't want to hang out with you kids all day. Could it be that ladies are smart enough to figure out when and where they are unwelcome? UNPOSSIBLE signed, a lady who is interested in programming
- jcoglan 15y ago
  This needs to be at the top of the thread, rather than all the formal-logic-obsessed debate-club navel-gazing currently sitting there.
  - shallowwater 15y ago
    Thank you for your kind words. I confess that I am completely taken aback that in 2012 there are still people postulating that women are not capable of or inclined toward intellectually rigorous or difficult work. Oh those ladies and their feeble, overheating lady-brains!
lancewalton 15y ago
I want more competent people in all jobs regardless of their genetic and cultural makeup. In software development, we seem to be beset by an astonishing array of incompetence. The bar is so low that nobody should argue that any particular sub-group of the population would, by nature, be worse. However, I am always intrigued that when people talk about "diversity", they always look to balance the high end of the spectrum, and never the low end. For example: Between 2003 and 2008, over 39 out of every 40 deaths in (US) military operations in Iraq were men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance? Who is in prison, the world over as criminals or political prisoners? The vast majority are men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance? In the US, most homeless people are men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance? Over 90% of people killed while performing their job are men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance? Men on average die three of four years younger than women. Where's all the research into finding out why? Why on the news, when reporting exam results, is it a triumph that girls have outperformed boys for the last several years? I read an article once that said that two industries showing the greatest gender imbalance were "programming" and janitoring. The article then went on to talk about systematic gender discrimination in the software field (yes... "geeks" and "nerds" came into it a lot). But why did the article make no more mention of the need to get more women into janitoring?
mlncn 15y ago
http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-explain-the-low-numbers-of-women-in-cs-hint-it-doesnt http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-explain-t...
- davidadsit 15y ago
  Since is it fairly common to hear mention of Asperger's syndrome in reference to software developers, I went out and found this study: http://www.la-press.com/gender-ratios-in-autism-asperger-syndrome-and-autism-spectrum-disorder-article-a1900 http://www.la-press.com/gender-ratios-in-autism-asperger-syn... It turns out that there is a 12:1 ratio of males to females with the Asperger's diagnosis. I wonder if the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in males contributes to behaviors that might give one an advantage in the software development field? It only takes a quick reading of the characteristics of the disorder to see that many of them are common among software developers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome Of course, there are exceptions and I don't mean to imply that one cannot create good software without these characteristics. I only suggest that perhaps these characteristics provide some advantage in a field that is young and constantly changing.
ngzax 15y ago
I have been programming since the 70's. I have hired at least 100 programmers, either full-time or contract, over those years and have always sought to hire women. As a matter of fact, I give preference to women candidates. This is because, in my experience, teams with both women and men perform better than those with only men. Unfortunately, my experience is has always been that there are far fewer women to choose from. If anything, I agree that it is worse today than 10 years ago. Anecdotally, I have 2 teenage children, a boy and a girl. I would say that in terms of computer _usage_ they are approximately equal. However, while my son loves to program, my daughter has no interest at all even though she does well in and enjoys both Math and Science in school and I have urged her to learn. Go figure.

73 points by skormos 15y ago

"Girls aren't supposed to get involved in robotics" was the answer I got from a high school girl on why more girls weren't in the robotics club. All the stats about girls not doing well in math etc. just tell me that gender stereotyping is alive and well.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to. here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence. But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence constitute "evidence"? Aside from direct observation, what other definition of "evidence" would you use? Or are you assuming that because one ratio exists in one set (the general population of humans) it must exist in any subset? This would require that the subset have no defining characteristics, which effectively prevents it from being a subset. (A bit loose with my language, but you get the gist) Then his sheer audaciousness when he calls observation of the data circular logic! If I there are 20% blue trees in the world, and I see a lot with 40% blue trees, is it not natural to conclude there is some agency at work here? The question becomes one of intelligent design -- was there a external intelligent agent causing the blue tree delta? With complex systems, this is as much a religious question as anything else. We simply don't know. Very intelligent people could creatively speculate on all sorts of prime movers, natural or not. Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software? As far as I'm concerned this shoddy history should make us doubly wary of the any suggestion that a diversity imbalance is natural. I'm really not sure what to do with this. Is he arguing that since a certain type of rhetoric has been used to ill purpose in the past that it should be looked upon extra critically now? If so, how would I go about picking and choosing which methods of reasoning might be better or worse to use? It seems to me that he's arguing that based on some conclusion to the argument (there might be a natural difference) that we should hold the methods of reasoning suspect. But if we got a different conclusion using the same methods, that would be okay? This is like a generic ad hominem -- don't trust that reasoning because it's been faulty in the past! Well sure, all kinds of ways of reasoning have been faulty in the past. This has nothing to do with anything. That is, given we have a unnatural imbalance, is it a problem that's sufficiently serious to spend energy on fixing it? But he hasn't shown an unnatural imbalance at all, he's just made broad statements about how he feels about certain kinds of tools being used in the discussion. Lack of diversity is itself a problem. Different people think differently, and consequently come up with different ways to solve problems. If you have a bunch of people with the same background, they miss lots of ideas - leading to inefficiencies and lack of innovation. A diverse group is usually more effective. See here I completely agree with him -- a lack of various backgrounds, opinions, and personalities hurts small groups. But he seems to be saying that these good qualities -- opinions, backgrounds, personalities -- are inherently part of being a female, being a Norwegian, or of being black. So it's okay for him to say that in general being Norwegian is cause to make you so different you have value as a team member, at the same time he's saying that there are no natural differences to account for the difference in observed ratios? Huh? Who is using circular logic again? Fowler seems like a nice guy, and I'm sure he likes puppies and ice cream and all of that, but this is tripe. I am a firm believer in having as much possible diversity as possible in my teams as long as we can hold the group together. So count me in as being a huge proponent of diversity. But diveristy is all about things that you can't see -- not bullshit like your skin color, how tall you are, or your gender. Lots of teams fail because nobody on the team had good empathy skills. Nobody fails because there wasn't a person on there wearing glasses. Don't confuse the true greatness of diversity with some kind of flavor-of-the-week political bullshit. Here it is: nobody knows. It's a complex system full of individuals all acting in their best interests, not something you can perform a logical proof on. The variables and systems involved are legion. If you would like to discuss the story of just one person, we could do that with some clarity. But if you start waving your hands around and claiming you already know the answer -- whether you want it to be a natural ratio or whether you see prejudice in the world -- we're not going to get very far. I can assure you that whatever happening is natural, but by "natural" I mean it might be that the society at large has major problems that need to be fixed. Or maybe not. Beats me. This is a topic for moral discussion, not logical discussion, and bringing these kinds of logic tools to the table only makes things worse, not better. Must be in angry-old-guy mode again today. Sorry about that. I'm just really disappointed that Fowler couldn't see the errors of his own thinking and then presumes to lecture us about it. Man I find that really annoying.

andrewcooke 15y ago
the difference here is on the meaning of "natural". you're taking it to mean something like "what we have" and then your argument makes sense: we see what we have because of some process that exists (is natural). but fowler is using "natural" in a sense more like "unbiased by historical accident" or "what we would get if a bunch of people were suddenly created out of nothing and formed a society from zero". so there's nothing new here. grumpy, indignant old men (self aware or not) believe the status quo (which only incidentally favours them) to be natural. people like fowler do not. [edit: i've removed fowler's superlatives to be less unpleasant (sorry - in my defense i have been configuring maven all day...); the grumpy old man characterisation is from the parent post]
- DanielBMarkham 15y ago
  Great comment. Thanks. Yes, you are correct. I made an edit to that effect. If I observe something, it is occurring, correct? Or I could not have observed it. The question becomes why is it occurring? We can observe "simple" things like trees and rocks and disagree on the reasons happen the way they do. I'm not trying to argue from ignorance here. Certainly you could ask each and every person and draw some general conclusions. But that kind of approach is very fluffy and you could spin the results to say just about anything you wanted. If you have a master's degree in computer science and decided to be stay-at-home dad, is that because the system is flawed? Perhaps you just prefer being with your kids? Most people don't make those kinds of decisions for any one reason. It's complex. Like I said, I love diversity. I think my biggest problem is this continuing thing we do where we define diversity as external characteristics. It's the internet age. I could care less what your sexual organs are or skin color is. EDIT: Just to be sure I am advancing the discussion, the moral question is this: Assume I run a company with 100 employees. Only 20 of them are a member of a sub-group that is 30% in the larger population. Is it the moral thing for me to do to hire another 10 people of this subgroup, even if it means not hiring people of another group that might be better qualified just so the ratios match up? If the answer to that question is "yes", then I have two follow-up questions. One, how many kinds of subgroups do I need to track? One-armed people? People who have beards? Who gets to decide what subgroups are special or not? Two, is it moral for a voter to make somebody do something because they personally find that it has a moral outcome? If I wanted people to be nicer in the world, could I pass a law that required all of them to give 10% to charity? Does something I feel morally outraged about automatically mean I should go mucking around with somebody else's freedom? If so, where's the stopping point? As for Jim Crow laws, please note that I am not saying that society shouldn't evolve. I'd argue that some degree of legislating morality is necessary for society to move along -- even though I find it most distasteful. But there should be time limits on these things. That's why I bring up the internet. I really don't need grandpa's generation telling me how I should think. This is something each generation needs to settle for itself.

mc32 15y ago

>Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software? True. But are underrepresented groups being actively denied access as was the case in the example above? Apple and oranges. Not saying there isn't a problem, just saying it's a different problem. I think in this case more passive cultural than active cultural problem. There are imbalances everywhere. Line cooks. Where are the women line cooks? Photography. Where are the women in professional photography -how many women street photographers do we know, other than Vivian Maier? Where are the straight people in fashion? I think, at least in some cases, there is self selection going on. Different airports have different pluralities of ethnicities doing lots of the service work. SFO is different from JFK is different from BOS, in that regard.

godares79 15y ago

I feel like this imbalance is going to correct itself over the coming decades. As people become more connected, and are introduced to computers at a younger age, the diversity of those interested in them to the point of wanting to work with them as a career will increase. The stereotype of the white pasty male computer nerd is vanishing. With it is the pressure for those who don't fit that stereotype to choose a different field (Fowler mentioned this). I feel like this lack of diversity was almost purely societal and as society changes this will. You are already seeing the enrollment of women at universities increase from its post-bubble years. It will probably keep going up. I don't think it will ever be on par, but it will get closer.

lindseybieda 15y ago
The overall trend right now shows the opposite: http://rarlindseysmash.com/images/entries/degrees.png http://rarlindseysmash.com/images/entries/degrees.png this isn't an issue that is going to self correct and people trying to take steps to remedy a problem should not be lambasted by the community.

funkah 15y ago

> A diverse group is usually more effective. Does this mean the problem will take care of itself? That is, if it is true that a diverse group is usually more effective, the products and startups that succeed should have teams which tend to be more diverse than the ones that fail. And as that happens, founders interested in succeeding would pay more attention to the diversity of their firms.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
There's also the problem of confounding variables. All else being equal, a diverse group is usually better. However, if you have to fudge those other factors in order to get a diverse group then perhaps you've completely erased that advantage.
jdp23 15y ago
Not necessarily, because it's starting from inequality. Here's a simple example. Assume hypothetically that due to historical differences the vast majority of investment decisions are made by a non-diverse demographic who prefer to invest in people like themselves. So even though the diverse groups outperform, it may not be enough to overcome the "unfair advantage" of easier access to capital.
MartinCron 15y ago
The bottleneck to success isn't simply the effectiveness of implementation groups. You've heard the old line of it being about who you know instead of what you know? There are (real and perceived) barriers to entry, entrenched good-old-boys networks, gatekeepers, stereotypes, etc. Even if it's more like a minor obstacle than a brick wall, those tiny disparities add up can make a huge difference.

te_platt 15y ago

He talks about diversity of sex and race being necessary to have a diversity of viewpoints. If that is true doesn't that imply that that different sexes and races have fundamental differences based on those attributes? If so shouldn't we expect a diversity imbalance in every occupation. That is, people with fundamental differences will tend to want to do different things. If it's not true then why care about diversity of sex or race. Also I disagree with this line from the article: "A diversity imbalance suggest that there are many women, who would have good careers as programmers, who are not getting the opportunity to do so." If women are denied opportunities as programmers there will be an imbalance. An imbalance can be caused by any number of other factors.

nsxwolf 15y ago

I don't get this. Maybe it's because I'm a white male, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why is there such a resistance to the idea that there might be differences in what groups of people are interested in at any given time? Not an issue of genetics or competence, but a complicated web of social influences that make people less likely to be interested in one path or the other? If there are truly unjust and discriminatory barriers, then by all means let's remove them. But if we succeed, and it doesn't change the numbers much, does it matter? If certain groups really think it's a problem then let them do the work of encouraging their group members (alert, this feels condescending - who says they'll even self-identify with that group) to get into tech. It's certainly not my fault. I'm a cheerleader for tech careers. The more, the merrier. But if you're not into it, then you're not into it. There's a lot of things I'm not into, either. Whose fault is that? And why should it matter?

puls 15y ago
I think his entire point is to call out that complicated web of social influences as the problem.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  Why is it a problem?
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    It's only a problem if you care about things like injustice, inefficiency, and wasted potential.
    - nsxwolf 15y ago
      It's only wasted potential if you're sure that a career in technology is superior to any other career or goal in life. That's certainly not true. I'd be curious to see the reaction of you telling a woman who is satisfied with her life that she's wasted her potential.

ArbitraryLimits 15y ago

I was under the impression that most people had accepted that the reason more men than women do software development is that more men find it interesting than women do, not because women are less intelligent or because there's a conspiracy to keep them out. Too bad, I guess not. As an aside, my boss at the moment is a woman, and a few years ago she had to staff up significantly and hired several young women at the junior level. The interesting thing is that her team hasn't really changed because of "the diversity" since it turns out that women who like programming act pretty much like the men who like programming: they're kind of socially awkward, have sometimes unreasonable expectations that the world will be a meritocracy, make a fetish out of liking cartoons and movies that most people don't, and so on.

roguecoder 15y ago
No. At least, I've certainly seen no research suggesting that is true; you may believe it but "most" people don't and if they did they haven't provided evidence for that belief. If your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain the massive variation over time in gender gap even just in the United States? (citation: http://phrogram.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.00.12.14/Computer-Science-in-Crisis.JPG http://phrogram.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityS...)
- ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
  If you're talking about the sharp decline in computer science degrees granted to women around 1984, I have a couple of guesses. First, no one really knew what kind of career path getting a computer science degree entailed until around then anyway, and once women had figured it out they decided they didn't want it. Second, in my opinion women are much more sensitive to their career's stability and predictability than men are, for the simple reason that they're the ones who have to plan out when to have children. You'll notice that the drop-off more or less coincided with the first (or second, or maybe third - I forget which) big bust in the PC industry in the 80s. Mainframes and even microcomputers did not have boom-and-bust cycles like PCs did in the 80s, although individual companies might blow up the industry as a whole was relatively stable. College students looking for stability around that time might sensibly decide "computing" wasn't for them any more. My favorite reference in this discussion (well, about women in science and engineering as a whole) is Philip Greenspun's article (http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science) who basically makes the argument that the median scientist who doesn't win Noble Prizes actually has a pretty crappy career and that women are smart enough to stay away.

datashaman 15y ago

Reprocussions is a word?

phuff 15y ago
No. It's repercussions.
- warmfuzzykitten 15y ago
  Having been dinged by PG for rewriting the title of a posted link - common practice on HN - it particularly annoys me when it's done by people who can't spell.

bitops 15y ago

Amazing, but unsurprising, that the first slew of comments are all about tearing down the post.

jdp23 15y ago
As Martin says "Personally I find it troubling when software professionals, who ought to be good at logical thinking, can reach so easily for such circular logic."
- bitops 15y ago
  I don't mind the downvotes, but I think my comment was misunderstood. Of course, whenever there is any type of gender-related article on HN, it gets pretty nasty pretty quickly. HN, for all the good things I can say about it, is firmly entrenched in the mindset that Martin is writing against.
  - roguecoder 15y ago
    And yet, still better than slashdot!

jkr124 15y ago

Some people bring a cult-like mentality to the discussion of diversity and related issues. Dissent is not welcome, unpleasant facts and observations explained away often in contrived ways. Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species?

MartinCron 15y ago
Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species? The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of "meaningful group variations within the human species". Without hard science, it's a scary and dangerous place.
- jkr124 15y ago
  "The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of 'meaningful group variations within the human species'." That is an extremely strong statement to make without justification. It sounds like a forbidden knowledge-type of argument. Science should decide if there are statistically significant intergroup variations. But right now, that is strictly verboten by the type of arguments you just gave me. This strikes me as an echo of the resistance to understanding human evolution, but by a group that considers itself to be rational and scientific. It seems some people literally have taken the notion of universal human equality as a revealed truth in the religious sense. These people are hostile to inquiry into the matter because it would literally upset their entire worldview.
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    That's why I said that without hard science it's a scary and dangerous place. With hard science, you can do things like determine that some ethnic groups are more likely to develop particular kinds of illnesses or respond differently to some kinds of medications. That's great! But looking at the status quo and saying "I guess women just aren't any good at this whole programming business" isn't hard science, it's ex-post-facto rationalization.

plinkplonk 15y ago

Edward de Bono once talked about how words become loaded with emotional connotations and value judgements to the point where it is hard to argue for or against certain positions. Eg: You can make an argument for or against a mixture of two things in differing ratios, but the moment you use the words "balanced" and "unbalanced" to represent the two states, the it is harder to argue for the "unbalanced" side. Likewise for "core" vs "surface" (de Bono's example) Who would want to argue against balance, 'core', or in this case, "diversity"?(What are you, some kind of bigot?). "Diversity" is automatically assumed to be a positive, before the argument on whether it is desirable begins, and there isn't a value neutral or value positive word that is its opposite. Specifically in this post, there are plenty of value laden words - 'diversity', 'meritocracy' etc put together to slant in a particular direction. Not much solid argument or content there - the power of the argument comes instead from the values attached to the specific words used, which makes it a bit iffy - Martin is a gifted writer and clear thinker - this just isn't one of his better efforts. [Due Disclosure: I know Martin from my days at ThoughtWorks. I respect him immensely and think he is a very impressive person, who has given me a lot of very useful advice on many occasions.]

queensnake 15y ago
re: "little solid argument" - he does say that diversity means a wider variety of thinking, and /more programmers/.
- plinkplonk 15y ago
  "/more programmers/", as long as the new set has a different and "better" distribution ratio among its members than exists presently. Just reinforces my point. As to "wider variety of thinking" this is immeasurable and is sufficiently vague so you can take it to mean anything you want it to mean. Fwiw, I am not saying Martin is wrong - he is a smart guy and he is a probably right. I am just saying his argument uses subtle tricks of rhetoric to, essentially, circle back to his assumptions.

tomjen3 15y ago

Why are we having this debate? Shouldn't we focus on developing awesome software?

duality72 15y ago
That is exactly why we are having this debate.

mhartl 15y ago

Although it's easy to become accustomed to it, it's pretty obvious the child care world has some serious issues in diversity. By this I mean that it has some notable differences in proportions of people compared to the general population. One of the most obvious differences is the low proportion of men, which is true all over the world. In the US, where I spend a good chunk of my time, the over-representation of Latinos is also obvious. One point of view I hear fairly regularly is that these diversity imbalances are natural - because men don't have the aptitude or inclination for child care. The big flaw here is a simple one of evidence. There are (roughly) 50% men in the world, so we should expect the ratio for men in child care to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural. This waste hurts our society, too. We need more and better child care to nurture and support the next generation. By not bringing enough men into the profession, we are handicapping ourselves. How can we say we are hiring the best people when we ignore significant chunks of our population?

dgabriel 15y ago
Your rewrite is completely valid. Were you expecting it to be absurd? It's not. The same interesting questions arise. I'm sure you can come up with reasons why men may choose not to make their living caring for children, even though they'd prefer to do so. Is this not a problem we should attempt to fix?
- robobenjie 15y ago
  In fact, my wife works in Early Childhood education at the Laboratory School at Stanford, and they do think and worry about exactly those kinds of things.
- bermanoid 15y ago
  Your rewrite is completely valid. Were you expecting it to be absurd? It's not. The same interesting questions arise. I think the point is, that when "women in tech" comes up, the default assumption that people (particularly feminists) tend to jump to is that sexism is keeping women out of tech. More specifically, that sexist guys in tech are keeping women out. Even when not stated explicitly, this accusation has been made many, many times, and underlies every discussion about this topic. But the immediate assumption when it comes to nursing is almost never that women in nursing programs mistreat men. In fact, I've almost never heard that accusation, even though it's considered the null hypothesis when it comes to "women in tech". People are much quicker to look for other explanations, for instance that men are more likely to be bothered by the working conditions, pay, autonomy, etc. than women are. I'm sure you can come up with reasons why men may choose not to make their living caring for children, even though they'd prefer to do so. Is this not a problem we should attempt to fix? Absolutely, we should address these problems. First we need to know what they are, though, and I think the discussion about this topic has been much more productive in nursing than it has been in tech, because sexism is not considered the null hypothesis there.

CoderDude1 15y ago

I wonder if Nurses, Social Workers, and Daycare teachers are writing these same articles about how there are not enough men in their fields.

dgabriel 15y ago
Yes. In nursing: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/06/health/main521057.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/06/health/main521057.... http://www.lpn-to-rn.net/articles/men-nursing.php http://www.lpn-to-rn.net/articles/men-nursing.php In social work: http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/092310p32.shtml http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/092310p32.shtml http://www.prlog.org/11694478-men-in-social-work.html http://www.prlog.org/11694478-men-in-social-work.html In teaching/day care: http://www.menteach.org/ http://www.menteach.org/ http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ484021&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ484021 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_...

Morendil 15y ago

Recommended reading on this topic: Ensmenger's "The Computer Boys Take Over", or the more scholarly "Gender Codes" edited by Thomas Misa. The latter in particular gives lots of detail, not just in describing the situation (the imbalance isn't the same everywhere, in every company or in every job description) but also in in explaining how (historically) and why (causally) the situation became what it is today.

dudeguy999 15y ago

Martin says that we are turning away qualified female candidates right now. That's not the case. Only one female candidate comes through my door for every 7 or 8 males. We are meritocrats like Martin and would be happy to hire females. But first they have to show up.

brianprogrammer 15y ago
I don't believe he said anything close to that. Part of the reason posts like this get people fired up is that they assume that they are being accused of shutting women out unfairly. He left open the possibility that women (for example) select themselves out of programming careers for whatever reason. Imagine if you threw a party and invited half men, and half women, but only the men showed up. Wouldn't you be displeased with those results and conclude that you need to do something different to make your party more appealing to women? I know I would.

queensnake 15y ago

I thought someone would have mentioned this by now, but in other cultures (my sample: India, China, Ukraine), there /are/ more women programmers. At least, I've worked with proportionately more women from the above nations, than white American women. Meaning it's culture and not ability or /native/ inclination, at least.

loumf 15y ago

It's fun to take apart the logic, rhetoric, and nitpick on every word of this post. We could argue the premise all day long -- and 5 years from now there will be fewer women, minorities, etc, than there are now. Instead I prefer to take constructive action to change this, without worrying if (1) it is natural or unnatural or (2) it would be better. I accept that the current state is unnatural and a more balanced population would be better. If you agree, please post replies here with what you think can/should be done (or what you are already doing). If you disagree, please reply to one of the other threads.

mc32 15y ago
I agree with you. Not sure about the "unnatural" qualifier though. That presumes an active agent present. What can be done. I think that's difficult. It has to be something pervasive, insidious in the culture. Via TV, internet, radio, entertainment, education, propagated by not only peers but all via all media. Everywhere. There needs to cease the archetyping of human roles. Something on that scale could happen, but it would take a generation or two. Kind of like the deprogramming of National socialism in Germany, or deprogramming of Religion in (soviet) Russia. 100% success isn't necessary, just enough to overcome the momentum or steady state. Very vast, very pervasive with both incentives and punishment. Piecemeal I don't think would result in fast enough turn-around in attitude. To me the problem is cultural. It's not men or women, it's the whole body of the culture which results in the skewed numbers.
- loumf 15y ago
  What I am doing is trying to bring up the conversation with as many people as I can -- saying I think it's worth solving and asking for ideas. We need more software developers, and this is an untapped pool. If we increase it a little, we'll have a lot more programmers. I have also noticed behaviors that work to systematically lower participation by women, and I have worked to reverse them. For example -- noting that invitations to speak at a tech conference included no women, even though there were many qualified choices (I gave the conference organizers a list). I think the issue was that we invite who we know -- we need to break out of that -- our networks are probably overwhelmingly male. I suggest more discussion (not here -- everywhere) -- but focused on ideas to increase the number of women in programming -- not meta-discussions. Try to notice when the ratio is bad and comment on it -- insist on something being done. And --- if you notice behaviors that work against changing the ratio -- do something about it. And, I don't think it's very constructive to keep meta-arguing about it. If you want to, go ahead, but it's starting to sound a little silly. Almost all of these arguments were used to stop women from becoming lawyers 100 years ago. When, instead, we started working to include women -- their numbers grew to half the profession. 100 years from now, many of these arguments will seem outdated, especially the ones arguing natural aptitude.

greggman 15y ago

I'm having a problem with this as well. I'm sure I get the bozo bit flipped on me but... Let's pick some other topics. What's the percentage of men vs women that knit as a hobby? Crochet? Cross Stitch? Scrapbook? Ok, those are hobbies. But I'll bet if you asked most programmers, at least the good ones, they got started programming as a hobby and that happened to end up leading to a career. How about nurses? In the USA is 93% women. 7% men (or was 14 years ago, not sure about today) Are you going to argue that 50% of the participants of all those things should be men and that something is wrong because they are not at 50%? I 100% want to see more women programmers but I'm at a loss on how to get more women interested in being a programmer. Should we try to do more? Of course! But there's a part of me that feels it's like saying "I wish more people didn't like pop music". I can wish all I want but if the biggest problem is culture it's going to take some serious concentrated effort to change. I'm talking like every 5th Hollywood movie and every 4th TV show needs to start showing women as programmers and in positive light the same way in the 70s they all started making anti-discrimination stories and girls can do anything stories. It's going to take women's magazines running articles on how awesome programming every month for years. It's not enough just to say women can do anything. If you want to change culture it's going to take a lot more than just a few words on a blog or a few more male geeks being aware of things they do that drive women off.

Kathy 15y ago
As noted above, the lack of men in nursing is something that the nursing community worries about. What I do think anyone who wants to see more women programmers can do is this: if you hear that women (or a woman) is discouraged from X for reason Y do not dismiss their concern. First, reason Y is probably a symptom not the main reason. Second, dismissal is in itself a discouragement, as it implies that their opinion is not worth anything. It would better to reflect on what the main reason might be (or what assumption are you making that may be false).

lifeisstillgood 15y ago

For a given value of true, Programming is just normal human language literacy with slightly stricter syntax rules. As such I say there should be as many good women programmers to good male programmers as there are good women writers.

lancewalton 15y ago
Programming is just writing lines of code with correct syntax?
- mc32 15y ago
  As much as writing a novel is just writing sentences with correct syntax.
  - lancewalton 15y ago
    My point exactly.

Tichy 15y ago

"But making statements with inclination is little better than with aptitude - there's still no evidence and it has just the same shoddy history" Sorry, but that is just bullshit. Everybody who is in IT and has talked to a bunch of women in his life has collected some evidence on this. When would Fowler accept it as evidence? If you have asked 100 women, or one million, or one billion, if they are inclined to go into IT? What do you suppose would be the result if we asked everybody on HN "what percentage of women you know have an inclination to go into IT"? I think there would be thousands of samples with a fairly obvious result. Why there is little inclination is another question, but the logic Fowler employs here is simply bullshit. It matters because I don't think he'll be able to sway people's opinions if he simply dismisses the evidence they personally collected for themselves. Who are people supposed to trust, if they can't even trust themselves? Also, if he deals with evidence like that, I can not trust his argumentation because it seems as if he only wants to see or accept "evidence" that supports his viewpoint.

xbryanx 15y ago

My argument for improved diversity (racial, gender, economic, et al.) in the software world is simple and wildly unscientific. It would be lots more fun. Every time I've worked on diverse technology teams it's been more enjoyable and I feel like I've done better work. I know this is a facile argument, but it's definitely the driving reason I work for this change in the software world.

theprogrammer 15y ago

Diversity is a good thing. That's been stated as axiomatic on these discussions and it's probably true. But what kind of diversity will have the greatest effect? I posit that there are far greater kinds of diversity that will have a bigger impact than gender: language, culture, education. I would also be interested in studies in why girls aren't as interested in science and computing as boys. When I started no one around me knew what a computer was. I'm kind of puzzled why I was interested at the age of 11. I was also discouraged from doing it at school, but it didn't stop me. I take issue with te while geek thing. It may be true of some devs, but most I know don't fit into that stereotype, they have a wide range of other interests. I wish people would drop it.

daniel_solano 15y ago

This footnote drew my interest: Although female programmers are rare now, that wasn't the case in the 70's. That shift is another argument against the natural balance hypothesis. I am too young to know, but is this the experience of others as well? Again, this is based purely on anecdotal experience, but I wonder if women programmers tend to concentrate into particular industries (for whatever reason). My wife was a programmer at a contractor for a large government agency, and it struck me that there was a higher concentration of women there than in other industries or in the start-up scene. If this is generally the case, I am not sure to what extent this would support any given hypothesis.

ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
Back in the day I think the popular perception of programmers was kind of an extension of a secretary (it's just typing on toggle panels instead of a typewriter, right?) so there were lots of women stuck in secretarial positions who tried it out.
- pmb 15y ago
  ...and those secretaries were good at it. And so were the women math PhDs who could not get jobs elsewhere. And so were the women who had female mentors, and therefore failed to be chased away. All of which dumps water on the "innate abilities" trope that people keep bringing up as the null hypothesis which must be disproved, instead of the claim which requires proof. It genuinely weirds me out how many white males in tech see no conflict or even feel a shiver of historical echoes when they argue the premise that they (white men) are intrinsically genetically gifted in ways which other groups are not, and that is why they are superior (at technology). Every other time it has ever been argued, it has been false. Unless the argument was that white men are better at the combination of having penises, privilege, and low amounts of melanin --- we have that hat trick down.
  - ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
    I wasn't arguing the "women aren't good at programming" position. My personal opinion is that the most important reason there are few women programmers, next to which any other factor fades into insignificance, is that women are simply less interested in doing it. Now that I think about it, the fact that there used to be many more women programmers when women's career options were more limited is pretty strong evidence that this is true: Now that women have more options, there are fewer women programmers.

nsxwolf 15y ago

Also: This sentiment that women should be interested in programming jobs, but aren't because they've been damaged by the patriarchy in some way, and now it's up to (predominantly) men to fix this for them - strikes me as a bit sexist. We could potentially take the Avatar/Dances With Wolves approach. A really awesome superstar male programmer could start dressing in drag and lead female programmers to victory. Or at least 50% representation.

lindseybieda 15y ago
It's up to everyone in the community to fix this. No matter what their sex or race. It's just a matter of being a more open and welcoming community. I'm sure there are fellow female (and other minority) programmers reading the comments on this article feeling completely unwelcome in the programming community.
- shallowwater 15y ago
  I'm one of those lady-types reading the comments here and getting the message loud and clear that no matter how interested I may be, or how talented I may become, I am not a welcome addition to this community.
  - nsxwolf 15y ago
    What led you to that conclusion? No, seriously, I want to know. Why don't you feel welcome?
    - Kathy 15y ago
      How about comments like "Women getting their panties in a bunch about something as minor as that is the reason they aren't taken seriously in the workplace (to the extent they aren't, I mean)"? Not even so much the message as the way it was said.
      - nsxwolf 15y ago

shallowwater 15y ago

[reads all the comments about how no one wants ladies in their field anyway] And people wonder why the ladies don't want to hang out with you kids all day. Could it be that ladies are smart enough to figure out when and where they are unwelcome? UNPOSSIBLE signed, a lady who is interested in programming

jcoglan 15y ago
This needs to be at the top of the thread, rather than all the formal-logic-obsessed debate-club navel-gazing currently sitting there.
- shallowwater 15y ago
  Thank you for your kind words. I confess that I am completely taken aback that in 2012 there are still people postulating that women are not capable of or inclined toward intellectually rigorous or difficult work. Oh those ladies and their feeble, overheating lady-brains!

lancewalton 15y ago

I want more competent people in all jobs regardless of their genetic and cultural makeup. In software development, we seem to be beset by an astonishing array of incompetence. The bar is so low that nobody should argue that any particular sub-group of the population would, by nature, be worse. However, I am always intrigued that when people talk about "diversity", they always look to balance the high end of the spectrum, and never the low end. For example: Between 2003 and 2008, over 39 out of every 40 deaths in (US) military operations in Iraq were men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance? Who is in prison, the world over as criminals or political prisoners? The vast majority are men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance? In the US, most homeless people are men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance? Over 90% of people killed while performing their job are men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance? Men on average die three of four years younger than women. Where's all the research into finding out why? Why on the news, when reporting exam results, is it a triumph that girls have outperformed boys for the last several years? I read an article once that said that two industries showing the greatest gender imbalance were "programming" and janitoring. The article then went on to talk about systematic gender discrimination in the software field (yes... "geeks" and "nerds" came into it a lot). But why did the article make no more mention of the need to get more women into janitoring?

mlncn 15y ago

http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-explain-the-low-numbers-of-women-in-cs-hint-it-doesnt http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-explain-t...

davidadsit 15y ago
Since is it fairly common to hear mention of Asperger's syndrome in reference to software developers, I went out and found this study: http://www.la-press.com/gender-ratios-in-autism-asperger-syndrome-and-autism-spectrum-disorder-article-a1900 http://www.la-press.com/gender-ratios-in-autism-asperger-syn... It turns out that there is a 12:1 ratio of males to females with the Asperger's diagnosis. I wonder if the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in males contributes to behaviors that might give one an advantage in the software development field? It only takes a quick reading of the characteristics of the disorder to see that many of them are common among software developers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome Of course, there are exceptions and I don't mean to imply that one cannot create good software without these characteristics. I only suggest that perhaps these characteristics provide some advantage in a field that is young and constantly changing.

ngzax 15y ago

I have been programming since the 70's. I have hired at least 100 programmers, either full-time or contract, over those years and have always sought to hire women. As a matter of fact, I give preference to women candidates. This is because, in my experience, teams with both women and men perform better than those with only men. Unfortunately, my experience is has always been that there are far fewer women to choose from. If anything, I agree that it is worse today than 10 years ago. Anecdotally, I have 2 teenage children, a boy and a girl. I would say that in terms of computer _usage_ they are approximately equal. However, while my son loves to program, my daughter has no interest at all even though she does well in and enjoys both Math and Science in school and I have urged her to learn. Go figure.