10 ms·

Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

96 points by shandsaker 13y ago

StavrosK 13y ago
I only skimmed the article, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the article mistake correlation for causation big time? Students were asked to choose a topic, what if students who choose to write about values just don't care about other people's opinion, and thus perform better at it? What evidence is there to point to a causal relationship?
- astrieanna 13y ago
  The students were assigned to one of two groups. Each group was given the same list of values. One group was asked to write about the one most important to them. The other group (the control group) was asked to write about the least important one to them and why someone else might find it important. They were asked to choose a value, not a topic.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    Ah, thanks for the clarification. The wording makes it sound like they got to choose both.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
vitaminc 13y ago
Instead of supporting feminist policies that help privileged women at the expense of underprivileged men, why not push for underprivileged people to join the tech field?
- breadbox 13y ago
  Why "instead"? Why not both?
  - vitaminc 13y ago
    Why not add "underprivileged men" to make it a three-pronged approach?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- robertfw 13y ago
  I've often wondered if our "divide and conquer" approach to dealing with various inequalities is missing the point, and in pursuing specific, targeted policies, we're simply exacerbating the problem
- toasterlovin 13y ago
  What feminist policies are helping privileged women at the expense of underprivileged men?
alexanderh 13y ago
I work in an IT office that I would guess is over 65% women, with 80% women in senior and managerial roles. Depends on where you are I guess. I've definitely had my view changed on this working at my current job.
enraged_camel 13y ago
Being told that female students fair poorly in STEM subjects, or that the tech industry is lacking in female programmers, for instance, can reinforce those beliefs within women’s minds, leading them to confirm those stereotypes themselves. Beliefs? Stereotypes? Those are facts, dude. As things currently stand, women do perform more poorly than men in STEM, and their numbers are lacking in tech. And what are we supposed to do? Not tell women that, once they join the tech field, they will be viewed as anomalies, treated as sex objects and feel very lonely? Are we supposed to con women into joining tech? In order to improve the status quo, we first need to acknowledge it, openly and fearlessly. There's no way around that. Facts won't go anywhere just by refraining from stating them. For instance, this quote from Upstart: “Stereotypes remain a huge limiting factor for women, who are often seen as ”too aggressive“ when they succeed, Sandberg said. ”As men get powerful and successful, everyone likes them better.” But when women achieve success, “everyone likes them worse,” Huh, I thought we were trying to avoid generalizations and stereotypes here...
- jerrya 13y ago
  Can you provide a citation for your claim that women in the tech field more often feel treated as sex objects than women in other fields?
  - smtddr 13y ago
    I only have anecdotal experience, but I know I see more suggestive images with ladies as the subject in videogames and "hipster" tech companies than say... in AT&T. I mean, check the logo for this twitter page out for example: https://twitter.com/redistogo https://twitter.com/redistogo Do others on HN think that image is appropriate? I don't.
- btilly 13y ago
  Beliefs? Stereotypes? Those are facts, dude. It turns out that which facts you focus on affects your performance. Reminding women of all of the negatives makes them less likely to succeed. That's worth remembering. Speaking of which facts you focus on, did you notice that the article was not written by a dude?
codemac 13y ago
The goals of this post are noble, and I almost agree with the conclusion. How the post gets there seems to be based out of a very negative conflation. How is the lack of women in the tech industry, and the offensive notion that women fair poorly in STEM subjects for no other reason than they're women uttered in the same breath? They shouldn't be for the very same reasons as this post extolls. > Being told that female students fair poorly in STEM subjects, or that the tech industry is lacking in female programmers, for instance, can reinforce those beliefs within women’s minds, leading them to confirm those stereotypes themselves. Anyone who believes that women inherently do worse in STEM subjects needs to be called out, in the most negative of terms. No one should say it, period. However, the lack of women in tech is not a stereotype or a belief. It's a fact. I'm not reinforcing a stereotype by mentioning it, I'm pointing out something that needs to be called out at every step, to root out anyone continuing the above mentioned offensive discrimination against women. Gender-based discrimination being called out and gender based discrimination being committed must be considered different things.
- scoofy 13y ago
  >Anyone who believes that women inherently do worse in STEM subjects needs to be called out, in the most negative of terms. No one should say it, period. Outside of a university context, I would agree with you. Statements like this are the reason tenure is still needed in a university setting. No axiom should be sacred if we genuinely care about understanding the world and making the world a better place for everyone.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Outside of a university context, I would agree with you. So non-academics don't have the right to an inquiring mind? Also, what other lines of inquiry should be forbidden?
    - scoofy 13y ago
      Non-academics have a fairly well documented penchant for discrimination and ethnic violence.
cocoflunchy 13y ago
Wow, the average exam score is 60% lower for females than for males? What's this subject!? I hate bar graphs with a y-axis starting anywhere but at zero.
wfunction 13y ago
The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech. That's the real balance that we need to reach for -- and unlike what many people seem to think, this ratio is not necessarily 50%.
- codemac 13y ago
  Establishing what someone wants is based out of a massive social and cultural impression someone perceives their identity through. Thus, advertising. We're trying to fix the advertising.
- jackowayed 13y ago
  Why do you think this ratio is currently around 25%? Do you think it's because women are inherently much less interested in tech? Or do you think it's because our society imposes stereotypes and values on women, and gives very "macho" impressions (often based in reality) about what work in tech is like, which leads women who would otherwise want to study and work in tech not want to? Fixing the culture of tech and the role of gender in our society more broadly is a major part of what's needed to deal with these issues. And part of that is helping some women--and mean--realize that they want to be in tech despite false impressions they have about their abilities and what working in tech means.
  - wfunction 13y ago
    > Why do you think this ratio is currently around 25%? I don't know, I can only guess. You can see my guess below. > Do you think it's because women are inherently much less interested in tech? Or do you think it's because our society imposes stereotypes and values on women, and gives very "macho" impressions? It's probably a combination of both, I'm not ruling out either case (or even getting close to ruling out either case). I feel like too many people are ruling out the former entirely (or just not realizing it's a possibility altogether) which doesn't make sense. You have to keep both in mind, and realize that your goal isn't an absolute 50%, it's the natural ratio, which may of course change over time.
benologist 13y ago
Can we start complaining about all the startups blogging for HN instead?
nobodysfool 13y ago
What a poorly researched article. The author takes one study on test scores and extrapolates it out to the whole career field. And her whole solution is "be positive, don't be negative". Well, isn't that common sense?
samfisher83 13y ago
I thought tech mas about metocricity. Plus all the girls I know just want to be PMs.
- Blahah 13y ago
  Prime Ministers? Parlour Maids? Post Modernists?
  - iamdave 13y ago
    I'm going to take a huge leap here and assume Project Manager. A pretty common abbreviation in tech, the context should have tipped you off. --- edit: One startup I worked for that focused on improving federal regulation compliance in the banking sector had a team of 5 project managers, 1 was male. Our product management team was entirely female.
    - Blahah 13y ago
      I'm in academia - we don't have project managers (but post-modernists abound).
  - sukuriant 13y ago
    Product Managers
- derleth 13y ago
  > I thought tech mas about metocricity. I couldn't tell, at first, if the last word was supposed to be 'mediocrity' or 'meritocracy'.
king_jester 13y ago
> Recent posts on the problems of gender inequality in the tech and science fields have continued to reinforce the idea that women are subordinate to men. This seems to be one of the main points of this post, but I do not agree. By and large women are subordinate to men in the business world and women do encounter personal and institutionally oriented sexism in tech. Acknowledging and talking about living and dealing with that reality do not reinforce that sexism, that sexism already exists and is a prevalent force and women already know this because they live the experience. On that: > The sad thing is the effect of repeating these issues on those people who are already affected by the issues themselves, i.e. women who are struggling for equality in the tech and science industries. Hearing that this is a problem, that their field isn’t fair, that men are not including them in the industry the way they should… these negative sentiments are being drilled into the minds of people who could actually change this for the better. Isn't part of the problem that women are undermined in their attempts to make their working industry and business lives better? What efforts are taken and how they are hampered is directly linked to the current state of how people are treated in business and tech. Sharing that experience is one of the few ways that women can begin form the basis of action that changes communities for the better or creates communities for themselves. I totally agree with the OP's points of action. However, there are limitations that are externally imposed by women who entered in tech and they have a right to know that. Others have a right to criticize and call out others for sexist rhetoric. On this the OP says: > No more ‘calling people out’ for making mistakes unless we’re offering to help them fix it. Someone who is receiving unfair treatment has absolutely no obligation to the person treating them unfairly to be nice to them, so I do not believe this can every be helpful advice where there is a power imbalance. For folks who are peers or part of the same peer group, calling out sexism is an important part of not letting that sexism perpetuate.
danso 13y ago
A little off-topic...but I was just reading "Coders at Work" and of the 15 coders interviewed, only one was female (Fran Allen): http://www.codersatwork.com/fran-allen.html http://www.codersatwork.com/fran-allen.html Despite this, the author (Peter Seibel) begins his introduction by mentioning Ada Lovelace in the very first sentence. In the next sentence, he talks about the six women - Kay Antonelli, Jean Bartik, Betty Holberton, Marlyn Meltzer, Frances Spence, and Ruth Teitelbaum - who were called to be the first programmers of ENIAC. I don't know if this was explicitly intentional on Seibel's part, a sort of gender-balancing of the book given its one female interviewee, but it was a nice reminder of how, at one point in time, it wasn't strange at all that women were among the forefront of computer pioneers. Today, the numbers have receded to the point that some people just think that women are inherently not "built" for programming. Well, some clearly were...this isn't like arguing whether the Navy SEALs should let in a real life "G.I. Jane"...given the history of women in programming, it's still a strong possibility that the gender disparity is heavily influenced by social trends and stigma and is something that we can mitigate. (note: I'm not accusing Seibel of not having enough diversity in his book...it's very likely Fran Allen was the only woman available for his book and who played as interesting a part in history as Robert Knuth, Peter Norvig, and the other big names that Seibel interviews) Edit: Also, the Fran Allen interview is really interesting. I jumped to it to see her thoughts on the gender disparity, but most of the interview is on her thoughts about early programming, teaching scientists to code, and how C ruined the art of compilers
- mjn 13y ago
  Some of the depictions in the 1960s, interestingly, played up programming as a stereotypically "women's" occupation, complete with pop-psychology explanations of why women were particularly suited for it: http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/ http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/
  - snogglethorpe 13y ago
    The mother of a friend of my sister's was a programmer in the '60s (for some large company, IBM or the like), and to hear her tell it, the stereotypical programmer back then was more like traditional stereotypes of newspaper reporters than anything else: hard-drinking, chain-smoking, wise-cracking, cynical, etc. It was pretty funny imagining her—a petite artsy (actually she was a full-time artist at that point) grandmother type when I talked to her—knocking back shots of whisky with the boys but apparently that's what they all did...
btilly 13y ago
Here is the challenge. If you don't make men aware of the ways that we as an industry fail to be fair, there is no hope of changing it. But if we rub the unfairness of the industry in women's faces, we are creating barriers to fix the problems. The solution, put in positive terms, is that if you want things to be better, you need to encourage women to look on the positive side. In that light, I think that if http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/26/software-for-underserved-markets/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/26/software-for-underserved... gets taken to heart by people in the startup community, that will do more to address this issue than any 10 heartfelt rants about the inequity of the present situation. (For those who don't follow the link, it is patio11 pointing out that if you want to create a successful consumer business, the odds are very good that your primary customers will be women.)
Tichy 13y ago
There are only two ways the percentage of women in tech can get higher: 1) more women could enter tech. Safe for getting a sex change, men can't do much about that. 2) less men could enter tech, men already in tech could leave tech.
- roguecoder 13y ago
  3) Men can make it a more pleasant place for women who are already here, so exit rates fall.
patrickgzill 13y ago
What sane woman would get into tech, when being a lawyer or MBA is so much more lucrative?
- lsc 13y ago
  >What sane woman would get into tech, when being a lawyer or MBA is so much more lucrative? I would assume that a rational woman would go into tech for the same reason a man would; because those jobs depend on social skills in a way the tech jobs do not. I mean, this is changing, some; there are a lot of unemployed lawyers right now, but yeah; the set of people who could be both a good programmer and a good MBA? yeah... uh, that's a small (and very well-paid) set of people. (I mean, sure, most good businesspeople can and probably should learn a little bit of programming... just like most programmers should learn a little business. But for most of us? we can only be really good at one or the other.) Most of us? we're lopsided. We were born with traits that make it easier to succeed in one are than the other and/or we've been putting effort into one area rather than the other for most of our lives. This is true of most of the nerds I know, male and female. If you are good at everything? yeah, you get to write your own very expensive ticket. But most of us? well, we chose to focus on one or the other, or we don't and we end up being well-rounded but mediocre. The thing about this? we make this decision before we are old enough to understand the implications. If you are in college before you decide you want to work with computers, well, I've already spent half my life up to that time practicing. I mean, if you are that much better than me (and really hard working) you can catch up, but I've got a hell of a lead. This is my personal pet theory to explain the difference in interest; from an early age, boys are taught that they will be valued, mostly, based on what they can do; what they can make happen. I knew that if I could make myself useful, there would be a place for me, society would value me, even if nobody really liked me very much on a personal level, even if I was ugly or unpleasant to be around. Now, I wasn't a girl, so I don't know, but my impression is that this isn't what little girls are taught. (Now, obviously, I have limited perspective here. This is just what I observe in myself, and what I observe in my peers of both genders. Most nerds seem socially... a little bit broken. It seems to get better with age, but man, the socially optimized have a hell of a head start. I'm sure there are many other factors, but this is how I personally rationalized the decision to become a nerd.)
jscheel 13y ago
After a blow-up in my town a few months ago, I tried to encourage a few notable female tech proponents that negativity was not the way to win the fight. I was publicly lambasted, called denigrating names, had false information spread as far as cities 3000 miles away, and even had a meme made about me (containing incorrect info, imagine that). Negativity breeds nothing but negativity. I often fall into the trap myself, so it was pretty disheartening to see others fall into it so hard when I tried to warn them away. To be fair, I didn't handle the situation perfectly, but at least I know that and am willing to change. Effective communication starts with introspection. Tolstoy said it this way, "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself."
- joshguthrie 13y ago
  > negativity was not the way to win the fight Negativity is never the way to win [anything]. We didn't go to the moon with negativity and as people, we can't get over things with negativity. I recently got in a position similar to yours (oh well, no meme though) and I heartily agree: Negativity only begets more negativity. I would love to write paragraph upon paragraph about how negativity can change you and how "doers do" and other pretty zen philosophical quotes, but I have none under the hand and that would just be repeating myself. So I'll just say it straight: Be positive :)
  - toasterlovin 13y ago
    We can build or we can destroy. I believe in building, because, despite all those who would destroy and tear things asunder, we builders continue to make progress. Bit by it, piece by piece, the world is becoming a better place.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- christiansmith 13y ago
  Sadly, appeals to reason are not usually well received by an angry mob. Every time this subject comes up I remind myself of pg's "What You Can't Say" essay and then I keep my mouth shut. http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html
rayiner 13y ago
Negativity doesn't motivate, but litigation does, and so does bad press and public shaming. The carrot and the stick are both valid tools.
qiqing 13y ago
I would like to note that the STEM gender gap is much lower among new immigrants students (particularly from Asia and Eastern Europe) than their US-born counterparts, at least anecdotally. And I think this biases me towards the non-negativity approach argued for in the article. Much of the data about lower STEM performance from females in the U.S. comes from 1970's and 1980's data, when females also took fewer courses advanced courses. By 2000, female high school students were taking calculus at the same rate as males, though still lagged behind in physics. [1] Perceptions are generally not nuanced and often lag 10-15 years behind. If you take the interaction of gender and ethnicity into account, you actually see an interesting reversal at the 99th percentile for Asian Americans where there are where there are 1.37 F for every 1.25 M. There is another study that shows Asian females score higher on STEM subject exams when they had to write a short essay about being Asian prior to the exam, but scored lower when they had to write about being female. (I'll try to add the citation later when I find it.) Overall, I think the macro strategy of making female role models more visible is an effective one, and may well pay off in the next decade or so. Another reasonable strategy may well involve immigration reform with a special eye towards people who have focused on STEM subjects. Perhaps extra H1B slots for techie females? (I haven't thought this one through yet, but it may be worth exploring.) Side note: It is also interesting to note that there are a substantially higher percentage of female Iranian mathematicians, and some of those mathematicians have noted that some of this is due to the cultural perception that highly theoretical pursuits (including theoretical computer science and theoretical physics) are not "too masculine" and are less likely to be dissuaded from pursuing the field. 1. http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/hyde.pdf http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/hyde.pdf
mattchamb 13y ago
As someone who studied psychology before coming to tech, this phenomenon is fairly well documented. If you want, you can have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat I think it matches up well with what was discussed in this blog post.
minamea 13y ago
Assuming the industry is 80% men and 20% women, and that the kind of genitalia you have doesn't affect your intelligence or proficiency in CS, and that the best, most proficient people should be speakers on panels... doesn't that mean that panels should be, on average, about 80% men and 20% women? Anything more than that is over representation of women. This is just misandry I'm reading here.
elptacek 13y ago
I think two things after reading this. First, I wonder, do men generally experience more positive reinforcement for the acquisition of skills, particularly ones requiring high intelligence, all their lives? Second, I have never been asked to participate on a panel. Taken further, I've never felt welcome at any conference in this industry. For the most part, I assumed this was unique to me, especially since I wouldn't really enjoy this activity. Oh, and another thing: I am lesser than no one. I've always believed that. It galls me to be treated this way, but I haven't the slightest idea what I'm supposed to do when it happens.
orangethirty 13y ago
I offer a learning program called Protocademy (http://protocademy.com http://protocademy.com). The focus is to learn by building things from the start. Rather than endless reading about syntax, or simple hello world programs. In the current group, there are two young ladies who are doing very well. Their feedback has been very encouraging. But the best thing they told me was the following: "What we like is that there is no one here judging us for our gender. There is no pressure from men. Some of them feel very threatened when a woman is more skilled or even better at computers." That is quite the statement, and sadly, true. During all of my years as a programmer, I have come to suffer from such attitude. If you can't code a binary tree with your eyes closed while singing the Start Spangled Banner, then you suck. There is too much ego. Too much macho "I am better than you" stuff going on. Even in interviews, where you get technical leads showing off their knowledge, rather than allowing you to show off yours (isn't that the point?). I met one of the women in Protocademy while buying a MacBook. She saw my nerdy glases, saw the computer, and asked me about OSX. From there, we started talking about computers and then to video games. Turns out, she is a college student doing a major in IT. Her dream had always been to program, but could never come up with enough guts to do so at college. She is doing quite well these days. Python is like second nature. A good programmer. All she needed was some space to grow.
Kudzu_Bob 13y ago
The only practical, field-tested way to get more women into tech is to lower tech's prestige. Once that happens, men will flee to other careers, thereby creating vacancies that can be filled by women. Problem solved.
SPSteinbeck 13y ago
Rebecca J. Rosen’s suggestion that men take a pledge to appear only on panels that include at least one female speaker again reinforced the idea that women are underrepresented in this area. In fact, in pointing out that it’s unlikely no women are qualified for these panels, and yet there are still no women appearing on them, Rebecca is reinforcing the idea that this is an unfair and unexplainable issue for women to fight against The idea that no women on a conference panel implies the conference organizers believe no women are even "qualified" (whatever that means) to be on the panel and, ipso facto, sexism must be at play is on its face so stupid and devoid of meaning that it reads like a paragraph from a contrived newspaper used as a prop in a bad movie.
drakaal 13y ago
The lack on women in tech is much like the lack of women in gaming. Guys have pissing matches and are crude to each other. When they do that with women to it is not acceptable workplace behvior. It isn't acceptable when it is just men either, but legal gets involved when you treat a woman with the same level of disrespect. This is not mirrored in female dominated professions. There is a shortage of male teachers and nurses, but it isn't because the women are so disrespectful of the men.

96 points by shandsaker 13y ago

I only skimmed the article, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the article mistake correlation for causation big time? Students were asked to choose a topic, what if students who choose to write about values just don't care about other people's opinion, and thus perform better at it? What evidence is there to point to a causal relationship?

astrieanna 13y ago
The students were assigned to one of two groups. Each group was given the same list of values. One group was asked to write about the one most important to them. The other group (the control group) was asked to write about the least important one to them and why someone else might find it important. They were asked to choose a value, not a topic.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Ah, thanks for the clarification. The wording makes it sound like they got to choose both.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

vitaminc 13y ago

Instead of supporting feminist policies that help privileged women at the expense of underprivileged men, why not push for underprivileged people to join the tech field?

breadbox 13y ago
Why "instead"? Why not both?
- vitaminc 13y ago
  Why not add "underprivileged men" to make it a three-pronged approach?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
robertfw 13y ago
I've often wondered if our "divide and conquer" approach to dealing with various inequalities is missing the point, and in pursuing specific, targeted policies, we're simply exacerbating the problem
toasterlovin 13y ago
What feminist policies are helping privileged women at the expense of underprivileged men?

alexanderh 13y ago

I work in an IT office that I would guess is over 65% women, with 80% women in senior and managerial roles. Depends on where you are I guess. I've definitely had my view changed on this working at my current job.

enraged_camel 13y ago

Being told that female students fair poorly in STEM subjects, or that the tech industry is lacking in female programmers, for instance, can reinforce those beliefs within women’s minds, leading them to confirm those stereotypes themselves. Beliefs? Stereotypes? Those are facts, dude. As things currently stand, women do perform more poorly than men in STEM, and their numbers are lacking in tech. And what are we supposed to do? Not tell women that, once they join the tech field, they will be viewed as anomalies, treated as sex objects and feel very lonely? Are we supposed to con women into joining tech? In order to improve the status quo, we first need to acknowledge it, openly and fearlessly. There's no way around that. Facts won't go anywhere just by refraining from stating them. For instance, this quote from Upstart: “Stereotypes remain a huge limiting factor for women, who are often seen as ”too aggressive“ when they succeed, Sandberg said. ”As men get powerful and successful, everyone likes them better.” But when women achieve success, “everyone likes them worse,” Huh, I thought we were trying to avoid generalizations and stereotypes here...

jerrya 13y ago
Can you provide a citation for your claim that women in the tech field more often feel treated as sex objects than women in other fields?
- smtddr 13y ago
  I only have anecdotal experience, but I know I see more suggestive images with ladies as the subject in videogames and "hipster" tech companies than say... in AT&T. I mean, check the logo for this twitter page out for example: https://twitter.com/redistogo https://twitter.com/redistogo Do others on HN think that image is appropriate? I don't.
btilly 13y ago
Beliefs? Stereotypes? Those are facts, dude. It turns out that which facts you focus on affects your performance. Reminding women of all of the negatives makes them less likely to succeed. That's worth remembering. Speaking of which facts you focus on, did you notice that the article was not written by a dude?

codemac 13y ago

The goals of this post are noble, and I almost agree with the conclusion. How the post gets there seems to be based out of a very negative conflation. How is the lack of women in the tech industry, and the offensive notion that women fair poorly in STEM subjects for no other reason than they're women uttered in the same breath? They shouldn't be for the very same reasons as this post extolls. > Being told that female students fair poorly in STEM subjects, or that the tech industry is lacking in female programmers, for instance, can reinforce those beliefs within women’s minds, leading them to confirm those stereotypes themselves. Anyone who believes that women inherently do worse in STEM subjects needs to be called out, in the most negative of terms. No one should say it, period. However, the lack of women in tech is not a stereotype or a belief. It's a fact. I'm not reinforcing a stereotype by mentioning it, I'm pointing out something that needs to be called out at every step, to root out anyone continuing the above mentioned offensive discrimination against women. Gender-based discrimination being called out and gender based discrimination being committed must be considered different things.

scoofy 13y ago
>Anyone who believes that women inherently do worse in STEM subjects needs to be called out, in the most negative of terms. No one should say it, period. Outside of a university context, I would agree with you. Statements like this are the reason tenure is still needed in a university setting. No axiom should be sacred if we genuinely care about understanding the world and making the world a better place for everyone.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Outside of a university context, I would agree with you. So non-academics don't have the right to an inquiring mind? Also, what other lines of inquiry should be forbidden?
  - scoofy 13y ago
    Non-academics have a fairly well documented penchant for discrimination and ethnic violence.

cocoflunchy 13y ago

Wow, the average exam score is 60% lower for females than for males? What's this subject!? I hate bar graphs with a y-axis starting anywhere but at zero.

wfunction 13y ago

The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech. That's the real balance that we need to reach for -- and unlike what many people seem to think, this ratio is not necessarily 50%.

codemac 13y ago
Establishing what someone wants is based out of a massive social and cultural impression someone perceives their identity through. Thus, advertising. We're trying to fix the advertising.
jackowayed 13y ago
Why do you think this ratio is currently around 25%? Do you think it's because women are inherently much less interested in tech? Or do you think it's because our society imposes stereotypes and values on women, and gives very "macho" impressions (often based in reality) about what work in tech is like, which leads women who would otherwise want to study and work in tech not want to? Fixing the culture of tech and the role of gender in our society more broadly is a major part of what's needed to deal with these issues. And part of that is helping some women--and mean--realize that they want to be in tech despite false impressions they have about their abilities and what working in tech means.
- wfunction 13y ago
  > Why do you think this ratio is currently around 25%? I don't know, I can only guess. You can see my guess below. > Do you think it's because women are inherently much less interested in tech? Or do you think it's because our society imposes stereotypes and values on women, and gives very "macho" impressions? It's probably a combination of both, I'm not ruling out either case (or even getting close to ruling out either case). I feel like too many people are ruling out the former entirely (or just not realizing it's a possibility altogether) which doesn't make sense. You have to keep both in mind, and realize that your goal isn't an absolute 50%, it's the natural ratio, which may of course change over time.

benologist 13y ago

Can we start complaining about all the startups blogging for HN instead?

nobodysfool 13y ago

What a poorly researched article. The author takes one study on test scores and extrapolates it out to the whole career field. And her whole solution is "be positive, don't be negative". Well, isn't that common sense?

samfisher83 13y ago

I thought tech mas about metocricity. Plus all the girls I know just want to be PMs.

Blahah 13y ago
Prime Ministers? Parlour Maids? Post Modernists?
- iamdave 13y ago
  I'm going to take a huge leap here and assume Project Manager. A pretty common abbreviation in tech, the context should have tipped you off. --- edit: One startup I worked for that focused on improving federal regulation compliance in the banking sector had a team of 5 project managers, 1 was male. Our product management team was entirely female.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    I'm in academia - we don't have project managers (but post-modernists abound).
- sukuriant 13y ago
  Product Managers
derleth 13y ago
> I thought tech mas about metocricity. I couldn't tell, at first, if the last word was supposed to be 'mediocrity' or 'meritocracy'.

king_jester 13y ago

> Recent posts on the problems of gender inequality in the tech and science fields have continued to reinforce the idea that women are subordinate to men. This seems to be one of the main points of this post, but I do not agree. By and large women are subordinate to men in the business world and women do encounter personal and institutionally oriented sexism in tech. Acknowledging and talking about living and dealing with that reality do not reinforce that sexism, that sexism already exists and is a prevalent force and women already know this because they live the experience. On that: > The sad thing is the effect of repeating these issues on those people who are already affected by the issues themselves, i.e. women who are struggling for equality in the tech and science industries. Hearing that this is a problem, that their field isn’t fair, that men are not including them in the industry the way they should… these negative sentiments are being drilled into the minds of people who could actually change this for the better. Isn't part of the problem that women are undermined in their attempts to make their working industry and business lives better? What efforts are taken and how they are hampered is directly linked to the current state of how people are treated in business and tech. Sharing that experience is one of the few ways that women can begin form the basis of action that changes communities for the better or creates communities for themselves. I totally agree with the OP's points of action. However, there are limitations that are externally imposed by women who entered in tech and they have a right to know that. Others have a right to criticize and call out others for sexist rhetoric. On this the OP says: > No more ‘calling people out’ for making mistakes unless we’re offering to help them fix it. Someone who is receiving unfair treatment has absolutely no obligation to the person treating them unfairly to be nice to them, so I do not believe this can every be helpful advice where there is a power imbalance. For folks who are peers or part of the same peer group, calling out sexism is an important part of not letting that sexism perpetuate.

danso 13y ago

A little off-topic...but I was just reading "Coders at Work" and of the 15 coders interviewed, only one was female (Fran Allen): http://www.codersatwork.com/fran-allen.html http://www.codersatwork.com/fran-allen.html Despite this, the author (Peter Seibel) begins his introduction by mentioning Ada Lovelace in the very first sentence. In the next sentence, he talks about the six women - Kay Antonelli, Jean Bartik, Betty Holberton, Marlyn Meltzer, Frances Spence, and Ruth Teitelbaum - who were called to be the first programmers of ENIAC. I don't know if this was explicitly intentional on Seibel's part, a sort of gender-balancing of the book given its one female interviewee, but it was a nice reminder of how, at one point in time, it wasn't strange at all that women were among the forefront of computer pioneers. Today, the numbers have receded to the point that some people just think that women are inherently not "built" for programming. Well, some clearly were...this isn't like arguing whether the Navy SEALs should let in a real life "G.I. Jane"...given the history of women in programming, it's still a strong possibility that the gender disparity is heavily influenced by social trends and stigma and is something that we can mitigate. (note: I'm not accusing Seibel of not having enough diversity in his book...it's very likely Fran Allen was the only woman available for his book and who played as interesting a part in history as Robert Knuth, Peter Norvig, and the other big names that Seibel interviews) Edit: Also, the Fran Allen interview is really interesting. I jumped to it to see her thoughts on the gender disparity, but most of the interview is on her thoughts about early programming, teaching scientists to code, and how C ruined the art of compilers

mjn 13y ago
Some of the depictions in the 1960s, interestingly, played up programming as a stereotypically "women's" occupation, complete with pop-psychology explanations of why women were particularly suited for it: http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/ http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  The mother of a friend of my sister's was a programmer in the '60s (for some large company, IBM or the like), and to hear her tell it, the stereotypical programmer back then was more like traditional stereotypes of newspaper reporters than anything else: hard-drinking, chain-smoking, wise-cracking, cynical, etc. It was pretty funny imagining her—a petite artsy (actually she was a full-time artist at that point) grandmother type when I talked to her—knocking back shots of whisky with the boys but apparently that's what they all did...

btilly 13y ago

Here is the challenge. If you don't make men aware of the ways that we as an industry fail to be fair, there is no hope of changing it. But if we rub the unfairness of the industry in women's faces, we are creating barriers to fix the problems. The solution, put in positive terms, is that if you want things to be better, you need to encourage women to look on the positive side. In that light, I think that if http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/26/software-for-underserved-markets/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/26/software-for-underserved... gets taken to heart by people in the startup community, that will do more to address this issue than any 10 heartfelt rants about the inequity of the present situation. (For those who don't follow the link, it is patio11 pointing out that if you want to create a successful consumer business, the odds are very good that your primary customers will be women.)

Tichy 13y ago

There are only two ways the percentage of women in tech can get higher: 1) more women could enter tech. Safe for getting a sex change, men can't do much about that. 2) less men could enter tech, men already in tech could leave tech.

roguecoder 13y ago
3) Men can make it a more pleasant place for women who are already here, so exit rates fall.

patrickgzill 13y ago

What sane woman would get into tech, when being a lawyer or MBA is so much more lucrative?

lsc 13y ago
>What sane woman would get into tech, when being a lawyer or MBA is so much more lucrative? I would assume that a rational woman would go into tech for the same reason a man would; because those jobs depend on social skills in a way the tech jobs do not. I mean, this is changing, some; there are a lot of unemployed lawyers right now, but yeah; the set of people who could be both a good programmer and a good MBA? yeah... uh, that's a small (and very well-paid) set of people. (I mean, sure, most good businesspeople can and probably should learn a little bit of programming... just like most programmers should learn a little business. But for most of us? we can only be really good at one or the other.) Most of us? we're lopsided. We were born with traits that make it easier to succeed in one are than the other and/or we've been putting effort into one area rather than the other for most of our lives. This is true of most of the nerds I know, male and female. If you are good at everything? yeah, you get to write your own very expensive ticket. But most of us? well, we chose to focus on one or the other, or we don't and we end up being well-rounded but mediocre. The thing about this? we make this decision before we are old enough to understand the implications. If you are in college before you decide you want to work with computers, well, I've already spent half my life up to that time practicing. I mean, if you are that much better than me (and really hard working) you can catch up, but I've got a hell of a lead. This is my personal pet theory to explain the difference in interest; from an early age, boys are taught that they will be valued, mostly, based on what they can do; what they can make happen. I knew that if I could make myself useful, there would be a place for me, society would value me, even if nobody really liked me very much on a personal level, even if I was ugly or unpleasant to be around. Now, I wasn't a girl, so I don't know, but my impression is that this isn't what little girls are taught. (Now, obviously, I have limited perspective here. This is just what I observe in myself, and what I observe in my peers of both genders. Most nerds seem socially... a little bit broken. It seems to get better with age, but man, the socially optimized have a hell of a head start. I'm sure there are many other factors, but this is how I personally rationalized the decision to become a nerd.)

jscheel 13y ago

After a blow-up in my town a few months ago, I tried to encourage a few notable female tech proponents that negativity was not the way to win the fight. I was publicly lambasted, called denigrating names, had false information spread as far as cities 3000 miles away, and even had a meme made about me (containing incorrect info, imagine that). Negativity breeds nothing but negativity. I often fall into the trap myself, so it was pretty disheartening to see others fall into it so hard when I tried to warn them away. To be fair, I didn't handle the situation perfectly, but at least I know that and am willing to change. Effective communication starts with introspection. Tolstoy said it this way, "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself."

joshguthrie 13y ago
> negativity was not the way to win the fight Negativity is never the way to win [anything]. We didn't go to the moon with negativity and as people, we can't get over things with negativity. I recently got in a position similar to yours (oh well, no meme though) and I heartily agree: Negativity only begets more negativity. I would love to write paragraph upon paragraph about how negativity can change you and how "doers do" and other pretty zen philosophical quotes, but I have none under the hand and that would just be repeating myself. So I'll just say it straight: Be positive :)
- toasterlovin 13y ago
  We can build or we can destroy. I believe in building, because, despite all those who would destroy and tear things asunder, we builders continue to make progress. Bit by it, piece by piece, the world is becoming a better place.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
christiansmith 13y ago
Sadly, appeals to reason are not usually well received by an angry mob. Every time this subject comes up I remind myself of pg's "What You Can't Say" essay and then I keep my mouth shut. http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html

rayiner 13y ago

Negativity doesn't motivate, but litigation does, and so does bad press and public shaming. The carrot and the stick are both valid tools.

qiqing 13y ago

I would like to note that the STEM gender gap is much lower among new immigrants students (particularly from Asia and Eastern Europe) than their US-born counterparts, at least anecdotally. And I think this biases me towards the non-negativity approach argued for in the article. Much of the data about lower STEM performance from females in the U.S. comes from 1970's and 1980's data, when females also took fewer courses advanced courses. By 2000, female high school students were taking calculus at the same rate as males, though still lagged behind in physics. [1] Perceptions are generally not nuanced and often lag 10-15 years behind. If you take the interaction of gender and ethnicity into account, you actually see an interesting reversal at the 99th percentile for Asian Americans where there are where there are 1.37 F for every 1.25 M. There is another study that shows Asian females score higher on STEM subject exams when they had to write a short essay about being Asian prior to the exam, but scored lower when they had to write about being female. (I'll try to add the citation later when I find it.) Overall, I think the macro strategy of making female role models more visible is an effective one, and may well pay off in the next decade or so. Another reasonable strategy may well involve immigration reform with a special eye towards people who have focused on STEM subjects. Perhaps extra H1B slots for techie females? (I haven't thought this one through yet, but it may be worth exploring.) Side note: It is also interesting to note that there are a substantially higher percentage of female Iranian mathematicians, and some of those mathematicians have noted that some of this is due to the cultural perception that highly theoretical pursuits (including theoretical computer science and theoretical physics) are not "too masculine" and are less likely to be dissuaded from pursuing the field. 1. http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/hyde.pdf http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/hyde.pdf

mattchamb 13y ago

As someone who studied psychology before coming to tech, this phenomenon is fairly well documented. If you want, you can have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat I think it matches up well with what was discussed in this blog post.

minamea 13y ago

Assuming the industry is 80% men and 20% women, and that the kind of genitalia you have doesn't affect your intelligence or proficiency in CS, and that the best, most proficient people should be speakers on panels... doesn't that mean that panels should be, on average, about 80% men and 20% women? Anything more than that is over representation of women. This is just misandry I'm reading here.

elptacek 13y ago

I think two things after reading this. First, I wonder, do men generally experience more positive reinforcement for the acquisition of skills, particularly ones requiring high intelligence, all their lives? Second, I have never been asked to participate on a panel. Taken further, I've never felt welcome at any conference in this industry. For the most part, I assumed this was unique to me, especially since I wouldn't really enjoy this activity. Oh, and another thing: I am lesser than no one. I've always believed that. It galls me to be treated this way, but I haven't the slightest idea what I'm supposed to do when it happens.

orangethirty 13y ago

I offer a learning program called Protocademy (http://protocademy.com http://protocademy.com). The focus is to learn by building things from the start. Rather than endless reading about syntax, or simple hello world programs. In the current group, there are two young ladies who are doing very well. Their feedback has been very encouraging. But the best thing they told me was the following: "What we like is that there is no one here judging us for our gender. There is no pressure from men. Some of them feel very threatened when a woman is more skilled or even better at computers." That is quite the statement, and sadly, true. During all of my years as a programmer, I have come to suffer from such attitude. If you can't code a binary tree with your eyes closed while singing the Start Spangled Banner, then you suck. There is too much ego. Too much macho "I am better than you" stuff going on. Even in interviews, where you get technical leads showing off their knowledge, rather than allowing you to show off yours (isn't that the point?). I met one of the women in Protocademy while buying a MacBook. She saw my nerdy glases, saw the computer, and asked me about OSX. From there, we started talking about computers and then to video games. Turns out, she is a college student doing a major in IT. Her dream had always been to program, but could never come up with enough guts to do so at college. She is doing quite well these days. Python is like second nature. A good programmer. All she needed was some space to grow.

Kudzu_Bob 13y ago

The only practical, field-tested way to get more women into tech is to lower tech's prestige. Once that happens, men will flee to other careers, thereby creating vacancies that can be filled by women. Problem solved.

SPSteinbeck 13y ago

Rebecca J. Rosen’s suggestion that men take a pledge to appear only on panels that include at least one female speaker again reinforced the idea that women are underrepresented in this area. In fact, in pointing out that it’s unlikely no women are qualified for these panels, and yet there are still no women appearing on them, Rebecca is reinforcing the idea that this is an unfair and unexplainable issue for women to fight against The idea that no women on a conference panel implies the conference organizers believe no women are even "qualified" (whatever that means) to be on the panel and, ipso facto, sexism must be at play is on its face so stupid and devoid of meaning that it reads like a paragraph from a contrived newspaper used as a prop in a bad movie.

drakaal 13y ago

The lack on women in tech is much like the lack of women in gaming. Guys have pissing matches and are crude to each other. When they do that with women to it is not acceptable workplace behvior. It isn't acceptable when it is just men either, but legal gets involved when you treat a woman with the same level of disrespect. This is not mirrored in female dominated professions. There is a shortage of male teachers and nurses, but it isn't because the women are so disrespectful of the men.