3 ms·

What we think and what there's evidence for are diff things. Obviously everybody's entitled to their opinions. There is research that suggests, however… * pri

What we think and what there's evidence for are diff things. Obviously everybody's entitled to their opinions. There is research that suggests, however… * priming people to remind them that they belong to a stereotyped group actually causes people to perform worse (stereotypically) -- this is called stereotype threat, lots available if you googles * guilting people about their culture's bad behavior / their personal bad behavior actually causes them to dig in their heels, not to feel bad and then change (because feeling bad is an identity threat (irony)) -- the study I'm thinking of for this one took young Germans and primed them to think about the abuses perpetrated by nazis (before they were ever born) and then polled them on attitudes towards Jews and found that the people who were exposed to the priming were less sympathetic, not more; the researchers had reason to believe this was due to the emotional knee-jerk reaction to guilt And on and on. The research suggests that the furor is probably paradoxically counter-productive. Furthermore, people who speak about "women in x" presume to speak for everyone, but they sure don't speak for me or most of my female friends. But they are painting us with the same brush because we've got the same genitals. Bothersome. As for pg's opinions about startup-women-with-young-kids, it fits well with his other writing (programmers aren't just programmers, they're hackers; hackers are artists; nerds are unpopular in high school because they're way too awesome, etc) which is all about reinforcing identity. And of course he runs a business which depends on extraordinary (I would say over-)involvement with, and (over-)commitment to work. He also says he won't work with people who won't or can't move, too -- a non-gendered but identical outcome based on "devotion," not body parts or reproductive status.

tptacek 14y ago
The people who consciously choose to believe that women are inferior to men in software development, either due to misguided beliefs about genetics or intractable upbringing issues, aren't going to be persuaded by angry blog posts or anything else. They're already dug in to their positions. The people who benefit from alertness to privilege, culture, and bias issues are the ones running or helping influence the operation of development shop who don't understand the problem. They're the ones who think "avoid hiring women with small children in early startups" is an innocent enough statement --- after all, they won't have enough time to put in. They're the ones who ask women at interviews how they're going to handle picking up their children after school. They're the ones who think if you spend 8-10 of your 14-16 working hours a day at work, it's only natural that you'd try to find dating partners at work. I believe you when you say that stereotype threat is a real problem with "angry blog posts". Personally, I think the overt bias problem is so bad right now that we can probably set stereotype threat aside until we cut back the active prejudice a bit. But it's also worth pointing out that the mitigation strategies for stereotype threat aren't "pretend the stereotype isn't a problem".
- ahoyhere 14y ago
  > Personally, I think the overt bias problem is so bad right now See, that's where we disagree. I have watched many more men get torn down in violent fashion, neglected, and excluded, than women. I think the overall tech culture sucks period, I don't think it's got nearly so much to do with sexism as you do. Like my example about the guy who mocks women speakers for being women -- and turns around and mocks another speaker for writing Java. That's a sex-related expression of general douchenuggetry. Remember that time Yehuda Katz interrupted a speaker at a meetup, said everything the speaker said was bullshit, and took over his talk? Yeah… nobody else does either. Cuz it was a man who was done wrong. My husband actually is on the receiving end of way more vitriol than me even though I'm at least 300% as visible. And I know I've sometimes received extra consideration and protection because I'm a woman. I'm not saying "Somebody pity the poor men." I'm also not saying women haven't suffered. Please don't think I am saying that. I'm questioning the root of the bad behavior, not how it feels to be on the receiving end. Since bias is all in the interpretation of data, I'd love it if there was some hard data we could compare. I don't believe there is, though. > after all, they won't have enough time to put in The best way to solve this problem isn't by writing blog posts about how women with small kids can swim with the fishes, but by killing the culture of overwork. By starving it, of men and women, by showing them that A) it's harmful to them, and B) that it's unnecessary for their goals. Laws would be nice, too. I'd bet you any amount of money that this indirect approach is better, because nobody gets their hackles up OR STEREOTYPED if you tell them, "You can achieve what you want with 40 hours a week. Here's how." Instead of attacking bad behavior, you support good behavior. Instead of attacking identity and trying to change people, you show people who are already motivated (they want something) how to achieve their dreams. Nobody likes being lectured, but everybody wants to achieve something. And, bonus, it's totally non-gendered… you help both men and women with the same stroke. (The downside is it's not as sensationalistic. But I consider that an upside.) If you've ever read my blog, you know that I practice what I preach here. I don't attack VCs or startups -- even though they richly "deserve" it -- I don't ever address anything to them, hoping they'll change. I go for their supply, the grist for their mill. Where I can actually hurt them… in the economics. This is deliberate, not accidental. I've been doing the same thing since I started teaching marginalized visual thinkers how to code. Based on the emails I've received over the years, I probably helped more women get into Rails than any Rails For Women endeavor, not to mention non-neckbeard-types who were male, simply by delivering information in a way that supported a different learning style. I don't think "shrink it and pink it" is a good way to sell products, and equally I don't believe that making general issues a women's issue is an effective way to create change. EDIT: If you find the above approach interesting, consider reading Obliquity by John Kay. Here's an essay that sums up the book (the book is still worth reading): http://www.johnkay.com/2004/01/17/obliquity http://www.johnkay.com/2004/01/17/obliquity
joshguthrie 14y ago
And here I was, thinking my girlfriend was the "odd one" just because she was (genuinely) laughing when a male coworker made a sexy(ist?) joke at her expense just ten minutes ago and never felt threatened of her own worth as a person in our male-dominated school (maybe 50 girls for about 5000 students). Though I do resent you a bit now, I was really thinking I had found "the one" but you've taken a part of what made her unique and made it appear mundane :(
- ahoyhere 14y ago
  Nobody is unique. If you only love her because she's unique, that's a… wait for it… identity problem.

tptacek 14y ago

The people who consciously choose to believe that women are inferior to men in software development, either due to misguided beliefs about genetics or intractable upbringing issues, aren't going to be persuaded by angry blog posts or anything else. They're already dug in to their positions. The people who benefit from alertness to privilege, culture, and bias issues are the ones running or helping influence the operation of development shop who don't understand the problem. They're the ones who think "avoid hiring women with small children in early startups" is an innocent enough statement --- after all, they won't have enough time to put in. They're the ones who ask women at interviews how they're going to handle picking up their children after school. They're the ones who think if you spend 8-10 of your 14-16 working hours a day at work, it's only natural that you'd try to find dating partners at work. I believe you when you say that stereotype threat is a real problem with "angry blog posts". Personally, I think the overt bias problem is so bad right now that we can probably set stereotype threat aside until we cut back the active prejudice a bit. But it's also worth pointing out that the mitigation strategies for stereotype threat aren't "pretend the stereotype isn't a problem".

ahoyhere 14y ago
> Personally, I think the overt bias problem is so bad right now See, that's where we disagree. I have watched many more men get torn down in violent fashion, neglected, and excluded, than women. I think the overall tech culture sucks period, I don't think it's got nearly so much to do with sexism as you do. Like my example about the guy who mocks women speakers for being women -- and turns around and mocks another speaker for writing Java. That's a sex-related expression of general douchenuggetry. Remember that time Yehuda Katz interrupted a speaker at a meetup, said everything the speaker said was bullshit, and took over his talk? Yeah… nobody else does either. Cuz it was a man who was done wrong. My husband actually is on the receiving end of way more vitriol than me even though I'm at least 300% as visible. And I know I've sometimes received extra consideration and protection because I'm a woman. I'm not saying "Somebody pity the poor men." I'm also not saying women haven't suffered. Please don't think I am saying that. I'm questioning the root of the bad behavior, not how it feels to be on the receiving end. Since bias is all in the interpretation of data, I'd love it if there was some hard data we could compare. I don't believe there is, though. > after all, they won't have enough time to put in The best way to solve this problem isn't by writing blog posts about how women with small kids can swim with the fishes, but by killing the culture of overwork. By starving it, of men and women, by showing them that A) it's harmful to them, and B) that it's unnecessary for their goals. Laws would be nice, too. I'd bet you any amount of money that this indirect approach is better, because nobody gets their hackles up OR STEREOTYPED if you tell them, "You can achieve what you want with 40 hours a week. Here's how." Instead of attacking bad behavior, you support good behavior. Instead of attacking identity and trying to change people, you show people who are already motivated (they want something) how to achieve their dreams. Nobody likes being lectured, but everybody wants to achieve something. And, bonus, it's totally non-gendered… you help both men and women with the same stroke. (The downside is it's not as sensationalistic. But I consider that an upside.) If you've ever read my blog, you know that I practice what I preach here. I don't attack VCs or startups -- even though they richly "deserve" it -- I don't ever address anything to them, hoping they'll change. I go for their supply, the grist for their mill. Where I can actually hurt them… in the economics. This is deliberate, not accidental. I've been doing the same thing since I started teaching marginalized visual thinkers how to code. Based on the emails I've received over the years, I probably helped more women get into Rails than any Rails For Women endeavor, not to mention non-neckbeard-types who were male, simply by delivering information in a way that supported a different learning style. I don't think "shrink it and pink it" is a good way to sell products, and equally I don't believe that making general issues a women's issue is an effective way to create change. EDIT: If you find the above approach interesting, consider reading Obliquity by John Kay. Here's an essay that sums up the book (the book is still worth reading): http://www.johnkay.com/2004/01/17/obliquity http://www.johnkay.com/2004/01/17/obliquity

joshguthrie 14y ago

And here I was, thinking my girlfriend was the "odd one" just because she was (genuinely) laughing when a male coworker made a sexy(ist?) joke at her expense just ten minutes ago and never felt threatened of her own worth as a person in our male-dominated school (maybe 50 girls for about 5000 students). Though I do resent you a bit now, I was really thinking I had found "the one" but you've taken a part of what made her unique and made it appear mundane :(

ahoyhere 14y ago
Nobody is unique. If you only love her because she's unique, that's a… wait for it… identity problem.