3 ms·

>I liked it because it was hard, and considered hard. >And I didn’t even notice that I was the only female in the >class— a lack of awareness that persisted we

>I liked it because it was hard, and considered hard. >And I didn’t even notice that I was the only female in the >class— a lack of awareness that persisted well into >university. I took programming classes in high school, and assumed that the hugely skewed gender ratio was just my school being weird. It wasn't until people were surprised/impressed that I was planning to major in CS that I started googling, and discovered that the gender ratio is a thing. > I simple never fit in with “the girls”. > Because girls don’t do things that I like. I often feel more uncomfortable at women in CS events than just plain CS ones. Partially, it's because the actual activities are less interesting; I'm there because it's "for women", despite the less interesting/ less technical content. Partially, it's because, after 4 years of CS courses, I feel like I'm in the wrong place when more than 35%-ish of the people in a room are female. Partially, it's because I tend to feel more out of place among women. I don't dress like they do - no makeup, unisex tshirts, more interested in coding than parties - and when I'm in a room full of normal women who happen to do CS, I feel more alone than in a group of CS people. If I'm in the group of people who are supposed to be my minority demographic or whatever, and I feel like I _really_ don't fit in with them, then doesn't that mean I don't fit at all? I tend to like unpopular/strange pieces of programming (sometimes partially because "it [i]s hard, and considered hard"). I'm used to having different technical interests than the CS/tech people I hang out with. I just feel that a lot more when I'm at a women-in-tech event. Either there's a bigger disconnect or I care more deeply that I don't fit. I view it mostly as a personal insecurity, but I really long for the emotional validation of meeting someone who's female, doesn't care about clothes, and has vaguely similar technical/programming interests. Normal CS groups of sufficient size include people who fit on everything but gender; in my experience, women-in-cs groups provide examples that match only on gender.

rachelbythebay 14y ago
I don't wear unisex t-shirts. They tend to "gap" and just hang all wrong on me. Makeup? Eh. It depends. More interested in coding than parties? Nope. I'd much rather be at a party, assuming party means "a group of friends having food and drinks, talking and laughing late into the night". People are far more interesting than these computers. I don't like "because it's there" as a reason to do something. You expressed it as "it is hard and considered hard", but I think it's the same basic idea. I build things because I need the result to solve a problem of mine, or a problem for someone I care about. Where does that leave me? I don't know. I hope these things wouldn't exclude me from a conversation you were having at a conference.
- astrieanna 14y ago
  I'm kind of confused by your last sentence about being excluded from a conversation. My points of similarity were about wanting to find someone with this arbitrary, absurd set of surface-level similarities because it would make me feel less different/unique. You don't fit them, which is totally cool, and really doesn't mean anything. Your post sounded a little bit defensive (as I read it), and I'm sorry if I made you feel excluded or anything by listing properties that we happen to differ on. I guess we just disagree on reasons to do things. The process of solving problems tends to be what interests me, more than the final product. Needing the solution is a good way to make sure a project actually gets finished, but its the process of solving/building that is more interesting to me. If a tool/language/etc is considered hard, then I want to use it because that might mean it's more powerful or it's mind-expanding in some way (for the right kind of hard). I wouldn't phrase it as "because it's there", but I guess that's also reasonable.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    > but its the process of solving/building that is more interesting to me. I'm with you on that one. I got into programming because I saw it as solving problems distilled down to its purest form. Whether the result of what I'm working on is interesting or useful in its own right was a distant concern. Its the process of exercising your creative capacity and coming up with fresh insights that motivates me (coming up with a novel elegant solution is better than any drug). I often feel out of place on HN because of the huge focus on thing that's being built, rather than the process itself. It's completely foreign to me to think of the programming aspect as a means to an end. But I see that sentiment around here all the time. Just goes to show that there are many reasons to get into CS. Unfortunately those that do it for the sheer enjoyment of solving problems (whether useful or the project euler variety) seem to be a dying breed.

rachelbythebay 14y ago

I don't wear unisex t-shirts. They tend to "gap" and just hang all wrong on me. Makeup? Eh. It depends. More interested in coding than parties? Nope. I'd much rather be at a party, assuming party means "a group of friends having food and drinks, talking and laughing late into the night". People are far more interesting than these computers. I don't like "because it's there" as a reason to do something. You expressed it as "it is hard and considered hard", but I think it's the same basic idea. I build things because I need the result to solve a problem of mine, or a problem for someone I care about. Where does that leave me? I don't know. I hope these things wouldn't exclude me from a conversation you were having at a conference.

astrieanna 14y ago
I'm kind of confused by your last sentence about being excluded from a conversation. My points of similarity were about wanting to find someone with this arbitrary, absurd set of surface-level similarities because it would make me feel less different/unique. You don't fit them, which is totally cool, and really doesn't mean anything. Your post sounded a little bit defensive (as I read it), and I'm sorry if I made you feel excluded or anything by listing properties that we happen to differ on. I guess we just disagree on reasons to do things. The process of solving problems tends to be what interests me, more than the final product. Needing the solution is a good way to make sure a project actually gets finished, but its the process of solving/building that is more interesting to me. If a tool/language/etc is considered hard, then I want to use it because that might mean it's more powerful or it's mind-expanding in some way (for the right kind of hard). I wouldn't phrase it as "because it's there", but I guess that's also reasonable.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  > but its the process of solving/building that is more interesting to me. I'm with you on that one. I got into programming because I saw it as solving problems distilled down to its purest form. Whether the result of what I'm working on is interesting or useful in its own right was a distant concern. Its the process of exercising your creative capacity and coming up with fresh insights that motivates me (coming up with a novel elegant solution is better than any drug). I often feel out of place on HN because of the huge focus on thing that's being built, rather than the process itself. It's completely foreign to me to think of the programming aspect as a means to an end. But I see that sentiment around here all the time. Just goes to show that there are many reasons to get into CS. Unfortunately those that do it for the sheer enjoyment of solving problems (whether useful or the project euler variety) seem to be a dying breed.