I'm not arguing against the problem or trying to find solutions, but I saw nothing new or interesting in the linked post. "Same tired discussion" is right, every discussion on the topic here on HN plays out the exact same way and goes nowhere. It's the religion or politics equivalent of HN discussions.
I'm not arguing against the problem or trying to find solutions
But you are arguing against the discussion, no? Instead of using this article (as much as you may feel it lacks substance) as an opportunity to discuss the problem further, and propose solutions or suggestions... Instead, you label it a circle jerk.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but you haven't done much to change that.
No, I haven't - because I still see nothing of substance in the article, and past experience gives me little faith that the discussion is going anywhere interesting. I don't see what I - or anyone - can contribute beyond "Sexism is bad, don't do it!". I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Anyway, I've said my piece, I see no reason to clutter up the thread with more meta discussion from me.
The most worrying thing to me is that despite the frequent discussions on HN, there are people in this thread who would rather assume that there is no problem, and this is just the way things are. Until blatant ignorance and misconceptions like this are dispelled, we need to have more discussions.
Disclaimer: I'm male, studying STEM education and the gender gap.
This post isn't starting discussion it's just whining about unfounded generalities and cherry-picking jokes like G-boobs-le which is not offensive and any so-called feminist who gets worked up about it should re-think her priorities.
The only remotely new point is the comment about Asperger's not being an excuse for sexist behavior.
So yes, the article lacks substance. There's essentially none. If I want to have a discussion about the role of women in IT and web development, this particular post is a horrible starting point. Resulting discussion will almost certainly be ill-informed and a complete waste of my time. Given the amount of work I would have to do to drag the discussion into productivity, I am better off writing my own blog.
EDIT: it is a serious issue/question, tho, in my opinion, that bears discussing. So we're "not finding solutions." Does that mean we should a) forget about it, it's unsolvable/not a problem or b) Keep discussing it until we are coming up with solutions?
Another important point is context. Is it OK to make a joke about women in the kitchen with your female BFF? Sure, if she's OK with it and knows you're joking. Is it OK to make the same joke in a public/professional forum? Pretty much always "no." Just because your black friend "thinks your joke is hilarious" doesn't mean you should whip it out at an industry conference.
If you are struck with a revelation that hasn't had its rehashes rehashed, write it up and submit that. Please don't post crap articles just because you feel the topic is important. Fighting breast cancer is important, but I wouldn't submit somebody's tweet saying "i oppose breast cancer, cuz i like boobs lol." It does not move the issue forward at all. If anything, spamming an issue makes people wary of it as they perceive somebody has an axe to grind.
To give a positive example, I loved Jolie O'Dell's article on this topic. Rather than the usual samey tirade, it was smart and different and enlightening. I felt like I was in a different place after reading it. If you find an article like that, please submit it. But don't submit articles just because they're on the same topic.
How is this a problem not faced by any other industry in the world? I have never seen evidence that shows that IT industry people are any more sexist than people in any other field.
So someone goes to a conference and there was a slide with something inappropriate on it. That means one asshole was immature and unprofessional enough to publicly shoot himself in the foot. It doesn't mean there are aren't plenty of other sexist people in other careers though. They're just smart enough not to be sexist in the middle of their speech.
Very often, people push the hypothesis that women avoid the software industry because of sexist behavior. (This particular article did not, but many similar articles in this genre do.)
If IT is no more sexist than any other field (as peterwwillis hypothesized), this would refute the hypothesis that women avoid IT due to sexism.
this would refute the hypothesis that women avoid IT due to sexism.
No, it wouldn't refute anything. For instance, in the medical field, we've had a hundred years to correct the gender imbalance, and people have fought hard, both in education and in hiring practices, to get it where it is. So, while the medical field may have as many sexist jerks, there have been failsafes put into place to correct for their behavior.
IT has no such procedures. So we can either change our culture to be less sexist than other fields, or we can put in those hiring and education procedures.
And to be honest, I don't consider it much of a reason to pat ourselves on the back if we're less sexist than, say, the financial industry.
If we are less sexist than the financial industry, but finance has more women, it strongly suggests that sexism isn't what's scaring women away.
As for "failsafes" and "procedures", could you tell me how these procedures prevent sexism in JP Morgan Prime Brokerage operation, but not in JP Morgan IT? Or if you want to push things back to the college level, how they prevent sexism in Biology 101 but not in CS 101?
The conversation is getting posed like there's this tidal wave of sexism just barreling over the horizon with the word "COMPUTER GEEK" on it. Like in every company there's a huge conspiracy of evil sexist men plotting to objectify and terrorize the lone geek girl who happens to wander into their cube. I'm not saying there are no sexist people in the industry. However, I do think that the level at which the fingers are pointed and this is echoed through the tech blogs is out of proportion with the actual rate of offense. The end result is every man in IT gets a reputation for being sexist because "it's just rampant in that industry." Well I don't believe it.
I don't have figures, or examples, or any way to prove how sexist our industry may be. But neither does anyone else. So before you go around saying "the tech industry is sexist", please consider the harm by association to those of us who are not sexist. You may have seen tons of sexist behavior in your career - I have not. No one person's experience defines an industry.
Also, if there is indeed some secret cult of disgusting pig men in the industry, let's deal with it like fucking adults, OK? First of all we can have the modern-day equivalent of sensitivity training. Have a frank discussion with your teammates about what is and isn't appropriate behavior for the workplace. Remind them that even if there's no women around, you still can't go objectifying or making jokes about them, just like you wouldn't do the same to people about race or religion or sexual orientation.
Have your team agree that whenever someone says something sexist by accident that someone will say something to the guy and remind him that's not appropriate behavior and ask him to apologize. If he doesn't, inform his manager. Pretty simple - this is called holding someone accountable for their actions.
This next part is important, too: don't let women be sexist either. Towards their own sex or others. I know women who will gladly joke around with the guys and make misogynist comments because to them it's funny. Well, this is only reinforcing in the guys that it's OK to make those comments. Stop them and make them apologize too so we can stop this behavior from perpetuating.
In terms of how people perceive "the industry" as sexist, why do you think it happens that in very public places people say very stupid sexist things? My impression is that our industry is not very professional - especially the startup community. There's a very romantic idea that you should just wander into work with shorts, a t-shirt and sandals, living some bohemian genius programmer lifestyle with cubes that look more like playgrounds than work spaces. That's very nice. It also sets up the environment to be one where non-appropriate behavior can easily thrive.
At the last company I worked at it began as a startup and grew into a big company. The attitude of many, many of the employees was still more of joking around than getting work done. It was really annoying, frankly, and I definitely heard a sexist comment or two when women were not around (except for the call center people; they were animals). Fast forward to a more business casual financial IT company and things are a lot different. I've never met a bunch of nicer, non-sexist guys. My theory is it's because the work environment is just relaxed enough that business is on people's minds and acting like a sexist buffoon would not even occur to them. A slightly less educated theory is because we have a very diverse mix of cultural backgrounds (probably 40% indian, 10% asian, 10% russian, the rest a mix of a bunch of other backgrounds) where the typical white american male culture might be more quick to be openly sexist.
The conversation is getting posed like there's this tidal wave of sexism
A constant grind of sexism is more dangerous to the well-being of any social group than a tidal wave. That's the problem, nothing alienates more than the constant grind of bullshit.
please consider the harm by association to those of us who are not sexist.
If people don't want to be harmed by association, then they should take an actively anti-sexist stance, and push for that within the industry.
If people don't want to be harmed by association, then they should take an actively anti-sexist stance, and push for that within the industry.
You're saying I have to become an outspoken feminist for people to not call me sexist. Not only is that unfair (saying I have to become a part of your movement just so i'm not falsely accused myself, tantamount to blackmail) it's unrealistic. People don't generally win fighting for causes they do not represent. When people want rights or to be treated fairly they have to stand up and demand it because nobody is going to just hand it to them.
If there really is rampant sexism in the IT industry, women need to organize and force the system to change. Blog posts will not do anything.
I'm sorry my post was too long to read, but I specifically mentioned speaking up several times. Pushing for change within the industry is different than just speaking up when an asshat makes a sexist comment.
I read your post, which is why I was confused about your knee-jerk reaction, which was based on an over-interpretation of what I was advocating.
If someone is defensive, or even just stays silent, when sexist and alienating behavior occurs, then that person can't complain much if people see them as complicit. If they don't want to be tarred with that brush, then they should speak out against it, and work to make the social group more welcoming.
Therein lies the problem. I haven't seen sexism in the workplace. I'd certainly condemn it if I did, but I haven't. Is that still not enough? Should I carry around a placard denouncing the sexists everywhere I go?
Should I just take the word of someone who got burned by something that there's a huge problem, without anything beyond anecdotal evidence to back up the claim?
Should I do the same for racists? How about homophobes? How about bullies? How about people who leave stuff to rot in the communal fridge?
Am I anti-gay because I don't attend gay rallies? Am I complicit in animal cruelty because I don't volunteer for the SPCA? Am I anti-veteran because I don't help out at the local homeless shelter?
Come to my workplace and point out the sexism, and I'll act to stop it. Otherwise, don't paint me with your brush.
This whole "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" attitude is getting old.
Are you not involved in communities such as Hacker News? You don't exactly have to hunt for places where working against sexism could be helpful, you can do it from the comfort of your own home. We live in an online world, and in our industry, our culture is reflected and built online as much as in real life. You don't have to wait for things to show up on your doorstep.
Most importantly, though, just because you haven't seen sexism in the workplace, doesn't mean it hasn't existed. A little bit of education never hurts anyone, and being able to better identify what is problematic might show you that things are not as squeaky clean as you thought.
That's my point. There are a million different causes I can become a part of. What makes sexism so special that I must pay special attention to it?
Every example given so far has been rather obvious to recognize as inappropriate behavior. Like any other inappropriate behavior, I'll deal with it as it comes. But I'm certainly not going to champion the cause, and you certainly have no right to criticize me for refusing to do so.
When it comes to deciding whether to champion someone's cause or not, yes.
How would you feel if someone started criticizing you for not getting on a plane to Darfur to rebuild war torn villages?
How about your choice not to get on a boat to blockade tankers?
How about your choice not to hand out flyers for the SPCA?
How about your choice not to partake in attempts to pierce Gaza blockades?
I could name many more causes you're guilty of not partaking in.
The question actually is: Are YOU justified in criticizing others who don't share your zeal in a particular cause? Because by judging others, so too are you judged.
So someone goes to a conference and there was a slide with something inappropriate on it.
Go to a few conferences that aren't directly IT-related and see how often that happens. In my experience - and I'm prepared to be proven wrong on this - it pretty much well only happens at IT-related conferences.
Absolutely, and I wholeheartedly participate in the discussion. However, my participation shows me that this is not the forum to hash it out. All reasonable points are bombed with pea-shooter arguments that hide all the real content of the thread.
And before everyone starts bashing feminism by lumping them all in with Dworkin and the most extreme examples, please try getting to know one first. Their views are usually pretty reasonable.
You make it sound as if feminists are some kind of weird cult ;) But your basic point is true: just because a woman is a feminist doesn't mean that she thinks all penetrative sex is rape, such as Dworkin believed.
"Asking a girl out for a cup of coffee" isn't perceived as an attempt to rape.
Flirting with a woman in an environment where they feel uncomfortable -- say, oh, for example, early in the morning in a confined space -- isn't perceived as an attempt to rape, but it does make the flirter an insensitive jerk at best.
1. Woman does a presentation where she talks about objectification of women in a male dominated social group.
2. Woman gets hit on in an elevator in a foreign country after leaving a bar at 4am. She declines.
3. Woman mentions incident as a "What Not To Wear" style off-hand comment in a video blog about the conference, before going on to more important things.
4. Richard Dawkins flips his shit.
5. Some men think this situation means politely asking a woman out for coffee will get you accused of rape.
RW said that being hit on in an elevator @ 4AM made her feel uncomfortable. That's it, and if people were able to muster up a shred of empathy and think "gee, if this makes people feel uncomfortable, I shouldn't do it", elevatorgate wouldn't have happened.
Instead, men came out of the woodwork left and right trying to defend their right to flirt on women in any situation, irrelevant of how it might make the woman feel.
As much as I disagree (strongly, at points) with a lot of Dworkin's work, she really has become a sort of punching bag for anti-feminism. She isn't nearly the caricature that her detractors make her out to be.
In the interest of fairness it should probably be pointed out that Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her work.
Which is fair enough. At the same time, she did write things like:
Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women
Or:
A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body.
Personally I think she was backpeddling, but please have a read of what she wrote:
Excuse me? I did not said a word about feminism nor about equality. Actually, knee-jerk reaction to my post without even trying to understand what I mean is pretty good indicator where we are headed, I am just curious how will that end.
Here's a tip - most laws are reasonable. Besides, no-one is likely to accuse you of harassment unless they actually feel harassed, and want to really screw you over.
Are we talking about a boss frequently asking an employee on a date, despite the power difference, and the employee saying no several times? A co-worker making crude and embarrassing remarks, using sleazy pick-up lines, pulling pranks, and other crap? Or is it like asking someone, "hey, so ... would you like to go on a date sometime? I'm free this Saturday, would you like coffee" once or twice. One of these things is not like the others.
You are allowed to ask a co-worker on a date, in most jurisdictions. Even if you aren't, you are only likely to be accused of anything if someone feels really pissed off at you. You aren't allowed to behave in a way that is making someone feel harassed.
I think that in practice, you don't need to be psychic. I think the judge will ask "would a reasonable person know this behavior, in this context, would be likely to cause offense?". The reason for it being dependent on the other persons feelings is that you can't just say "sure, I know she's a prude, but most women wouldn't take offense to that".
Like I said, the law tries to be reasonable. Will a judge or jury say "Your behavior was that of a reasonable person, and there's no way you could have known that asking her out would cause a flashback to (whatever), but it's her feelings that matter, not yours"?
I skimmed the comments on Tom's boob pic. Most of the women also thought it was funny. Only a few women were loudly critical. Do we solve sexism only when 100% of women are satisfied? That's going to take a while.
You're getting voted down for not going with the group-think. For some reason, some people think that if even 1 women is offended, then it's sexist. They couldn't be more wrong.
Anyhow, if all humor that made fun of someone or something were banned, there wouldn't be much left. That's the basis of most of it, and they continue to find it funny to make fun of some things, but not others.
Everyone should stop being offended on behalf of people who aren't like them. Seriously. If you're offended because it affects you, I'm all ears. If you're offended because it's rude to do that to someone else, but you have no stake in it... Shut up. You're making the situation WORSE.
So, if I get offended because I see someone shout out at an Indian woman crossing the street "Fuck off back to pakiland you dirty paki", I've made the situation worse? Can you explain what I should do in such a situation, or even better, what would you do?
That's an verbal attack, not just an offensive statement. It's quite a different category than taking a picture with a woman using her boobs as O's in a logo.
The woman in the photo obviously wasn't offended. Most other women apparently aren't, either. But for some reason, MEN feel the need to make a big deal out of this situation.
If a female blogger were writing to say she was offended by this situation, I'd be paying a lot more heed.
People talk about equality and all, but when it comes down to it, the people defending 'women' from this are actually worse than the people that supposedly caused an offense!
Wrap your head around this: Why are men getting up in arms about this? Because they think women need their protection. They are playing right into the sexism by thinking women can't handle this on their own.
If women can't handle this on their own, they're welcome to say so, and I'll jump on a white horse myself. They aren't saying that here. Or ANYWHERE that I've seen lately.
I'm apparently one of the few men out there that actually believe a woman can handle things. They aren't inferior; They don't -need- my help.
So everyone should heed their own advice and back off.
So, if I hear 3 people making a whole load of racist comments in a bus, but not directed at a specific person, should I ignore it?
I'm Indian by birth, and have lived through a lot of racism. I'm not inferior, and I would never have gone begging for help, but I'd sure have appreciated people intervening at times, even when I wasn't under direct attack.
In the UK, women are typically paid 15% less than men for equivalent jobs. Should I say nothing about this?
I think the how you see the context of the photo has a lot to do with how offensive it is - if it's a just a random photo from a party, then it's something I'd shake my head at and sigh.
If it were something on an official Google page (which seems to be how some people in the comments are taking it), it would be downright offensive.
As something in a "serious" article - it bothers me - not enough to be 'outraged', but it is indicative of a lot of the issues women have in technology. There are times where it's just not appropriate. It's fine to like looking a big breasted + attractive women, but also realize that women are made uncomfortable when they're put into environments where they feel like who we are/what we can do is second to what we are. Photos like that create such an environment - and take away from the article.
I understand that age (lower in this case) is not a barrier to talent and that we in general seek talent. That said, why do we allow misogynist behavior? If these wunderkind were our children (of any age) these sort of actions would be curbed as best as might be possible. Children of all ages push boundaries---when there are no boundaries, there are no limits to behavior.
I'm glad someone called Tom out on that image he posted. It's minor in the entire scheme of things, but what irritates me are the casual comments and reactions like "That's ok.. haha, very funny!" It's like there's this cognitive dissonance happening: people believe in equality between sexes, and treating women like regular humans with respect... yet we also make casual comments that treat females as just objects. It's not just engineers of course, it's most men. And I'm being very very strict here. I'm talking about saying things like "Check that ass out." or "Damn, I'll do that" when you're with your buddies.
I may sound like a downer that can't have fun, but when the vast majority of humans on this world end up cheating on their spouses, you have to be somewhat serious about this.
Why is this on HN? I'd bet that < 10% of the population were offended by that photo. If it were a picture of Fabio with his shirt off (gasp) there would be < 2% offended. Yes, there are men who say "check that ass out" and there are also women. Generalizations suck.
Isn't there a difference between that picture and what's common? I mean, if there's anyone objectifying women in that picture it's the woman! And I don't see how is it wrong for people to objectify themselves.
Frankly, that picture is a bad example of the rampant mysogyny which does actually exist in our field.
I'm more on the web marketing side, and it's nearly every 1-2 weeks where I see someone write an article or give a presentation likening customer acquisition and conversion to "tricking hawt chicks into hooking up with you." It's absurd. Real men operate with respect, not misogyny.
reddit/stackoverflow style voting on badges. some way of tagging someone at a conference or whatnot as being an ass, or cool, that way you get a warning that this person is a douche. i'm bettin the same people who are creeps are the same people i wouldn't want to bother talking to anyway.
the only problem is someone of course is going to hack it...
Note: I really would like an answer for the first question. What's the reason that everyone seems obsessed over getting more women into programming?
Why do people care so much about having lots of women work in the software industry?
Seriously, there seems to be this desire to get women into programming. If women really were into programming they would get into it despite the 'sexist creeps'. It might surprise all the people here but a lot of industries (like real estate and sales) have a LOT more sexist creeps than programmers.
There are lots of areas where people are sexist and racist and jerks - it doesn't stop the people who want to get into those areas from getting into them.
Perhaps women just don't want to get into computer science. And no amount of bending over backwards and trying to appeal to female programmers will get us to a situation of 50% female developers.
The first question people going on and on about 'ratios in the software industry' need to answer is -
Are there really that many women interested in becoming a software developer?
Is their interest a lukewarm type of interest where the minute they see one sexist programmer jerk they run off?
We are talking about the same women who fought tooth and nail for things like the right to vote and who do lots of really tough things like raise a family (often alone). Are we to believe that a few sexist programmers scare off these same women?
Final Question: Is the presence of some percentage of sexist jerk programmers the real reason there are far fewer women in programming? Is that really what differentiates programming from fields with more social interaction (like sales) or fields with more of a human aspect (like health care and medicine)?
...and the point is? a) Many of the leading abolitionists in America and Europe were white and b) if we're in agreeance that the majority of comsci professionals are men, and that comsci professionals make up much of HN, then it's not surprising that this discussion, or any discussion on HN, was initiated by a male.
But the point isn't that there's no discrimination, just that we're not necessarily having this discussion because "women are fighting to get more respect and representation in computer programming."
Perhaps women just don't want to get into computer science.
And no amount of bending over backwards and trying to
appeal to female programmers will get us to a situation of
50% female developers.
Or perhaps they do want to get into computer science and there are a number of obstacles stopping them. Most people would agree with this.
If you're going come up a controversial answer, you better have some solid evidence backing you up.
What are these obstacles? Employers are dying to hire female programmers. Universities are dying for females to enter CS programs. Right now, a women that sets her mind on programming has an easier chance of landing a job than any given guy.
Basically, women just aren't interested. I'm not sure it's an obstacle.
Why aren't we just as concerned that there are far fewer male hairdressers than female?
You have ignored the 18 years leading up to the university.
Infants: Pink clothes (ok, no biggie)
Toddler: dolls, playing mommy and dressup
Preschool: more of toddler, perhaps getting into TV now. Oh look, none of the women on TV are into science or tech. Maybe I shouldn't be either.
School: Come on Carly, let's play with dolls. But I wanna play on the computer. LOSER.
Teenager: What kind of a nerd plays with electronics and gadgets, lets go shopping!
So society is completely geared towards beating it out of them. As the father of a pre-teen who has probably solved more software bugs than most her age and is deeply into robotics, it is a constant, constant battle even though she loves the field.
Let's not forget all the aunties, grandmas and neighbours who don't encourage tech curiosity for girls. "Hey, here's another shitty fashion toy for your birthday" meanwhile, the girl is thinking "I really wanted a gizmo... oh well." Even though dad specifically sent around suggestions for the next robot she wants to build.
Your universities can want females all they want, but society... I want to punch it sometimes.
Edit: I should mention that TV is getting a little better with this. There are a couple of female leads in shows that are technically oriented.
Society does push both genders toward and away from particular careers; look at the imbalance in nurses or teachers for the other side. However, this has nothing to do with sexism in the workplace. It's not sexism in the software industry that causes society to push women away from the sciences. (That's not to say that sexism doesn't exist in the software industry or that it's not a problem.)
As I recall from my own primary and secondary education, being a nerd who likes reading about science and math, and spends most of his time after school on his computer is not exactly encouraged by society either. Your parents want to cut down on your time spent in front of the computer, your dad wants you to go outside and play sports, the jocks at school give you shit, the girls pay no attention to you.
Girls interested in computers may be portrayed as losers and antisocial and outcasts, but guys interested in computers have been portrayed as and treated by society as antisocial outcast losers for as long as there has been such a thing as a computer geek.
Given that amount of social pressure and shaming and exclusion faced by young computer nerds, one wonders why anyone would go into tech. But more boys do and fewer girls do.
Girls interested in computers may be portrayed as losers and antisocial and outcasts, but guys interested in computers have been portrayed as and treated by society as antisocial outcast losers for as long as there has been such a thing as a computer geek.
Popularity and clique mentality tends to be much more of an issue in female circles than with males. I would say that, if one were to assume either sex will get untold amounts of hell for dabbling in tech early on, a female will probably get it worse.
You also have to note that culturally, there is the "nerd" phenomenon backing guys being interested in tech. If a young woman decides to get into tech, she doesn't get the same label as a guy does, she's often labeled by her peers (which can be fairly brutal) as a loser, outcast, or just "not one of the girls".
Now, given that last point, take a female developer who's young and just trying to get into things: you'll never quite be "one of the guys", and by choosing this vocation you're throwing up a flag that states you're fine to never be "one of the girls". That's not a fun combination to go through your youth with.
Ah, appreciate you saying that. There was a part of me that was hesitant to post it as I'm not a female, but just going on what I see with siblings/friends. Glad to know I'm not totally off base.
You seem to be placing the blame for girls not going into to tech on other girls. Are girls' peer groups really the ones holding back girl in IT?
I don't see the "nerd phenomenon backing guys being interested in tech." It's a negative stereotype, not a positive one. Negative social stereotypes don't encourage people to take on an identity/vocation. No one sits at home, looking at the stereotype nerds on TV shows saying, "Gosh, I'd like to be a weakling with no style, no charisma, no popularity, no girlfriends, but a really sweet nitrogen cooling system for my computer."
Here's my view on this as a young female computer nerd: even with all the negative stereotypes attached to the male computer nerd, the fact remains that (a) he is typically male, and (b) he is not the only one of his ilk.
Let's consider the perfectly realistic scenario where society has only just recently realized that women are good for more than making sandwiches and childbearing, and can are capable of doing professional jobs as well as any man. Thanks, society! But since this change just happened recently, it is not unreasonable for there to still be fields that are male-dominated, despite the fact that women are just as able to work successfully in these fields. This is what gives us (a).
However, now that the floodgates have opened, women would really like to get into tech! But first, there's everything that cheez mentioned -- society's subtle socialization of women into their proper gender role. Boys are expected to tinker with and possibly break their toys, girls should be combing doll hair. And later, the boys who are nerds almost always find a nerd clique...which is almost entirely comprised of other boys. And the girl who wants to bond with somebody over her nerddom? All the boys are scared of her, for she is GIRL, a separate and incomprehensible breed from BOY. And there's condition (b).
Personal anecdote time: all of my friends (which is stretching it) in high school were guys because the other girls at my school thought computers and programming and video games were "a guy thing". and even among this group, I only had one who truly respected me (who brought me into the circle in the first place) -- to the rest, I was the token female to be awkward around and bounce sexist jokes off of. During that time, I was a huge tomboy and a huge jerk -- not because I don't like doing typically femme-y things, like wearing makeup and dresses, but because I felt like I'd be more accepted if I wore guy clothes and made dick jokes and, yes, sometimes even objectified women and acted homophobic (but only for men, because lesbians are hot, har har) for the sake of humor. Even being more "guy-like", though, never really earned me any respect -- even if I laughed at their jokes about "dumb bitches" and made my own, the fact remained that I was still born without a penis and could therefore never really relate. It was only after I got to college that I was able to recognize my disgusting attitude for what it was and realize that it was possible to be both femme and a CS major, though that would have earned me no love from most of my HS "friends".
tldr, men do have to overcome the barrier of being socialized to like sports and fast cars and what-have-you, but once they do, they've at least found more of their kind. Women, on the other hand, face that barrier two-fold -- both from outside and within the community, and that really, really sucks.
But I'm so glad that this conversation is happening, because I really do think that making the tech industry more welcoming to women is important -- and if it turns out that you're right, that at the end of the day more boys and few girls go into tech anyway, at least we're still a kinder, better, more accepting community. What do we have to lose from that?
I think the narrative you're constructing is inaccurate. Even given that society only just recently realized that women could be equal members of the workforce, I don't think that tech fields were especially male dominated when they started out. In fact, there was an article recently arguing that women used to comprise about 40% of the IT field. Computing used to be seen as somewhat clerical work, so the inclusion of women into it was natural early on—it wasn't a field that women had to fight as hard to get into.
I know several women in their 60s now, friends of my mother, who were early systems analysts for IBM or otherwise involved in the tech field. IT is a field that women have left, not that they have been excluded from.
Second, taking from my mother's experience, she did have to fight her way into a field that was male dominated: graphic design. But that field is no longer dominated by males. Look at graphic design degrees awarded and you can see that women outnumber men now. Is graphic design somehow fundamentally different from IT? Are people in IT inherently more sexist than people in graphic design? They both use computers to do their jobs. But graphic design sees growth in the number of women, while IT sees a decline.
I just don't buy the early socialization argument, because there are just as strong pressures on boys to not be nerds. Simply because there are more male losers doesn't make having a 'clique' of losers an advantage over a loser girl. It's still discouraging whether or not you have a bunch of other negative charisma, zero social skill geeks to be miserable with.
As for your personal anecdote, I don't see how that's unique to tech at all. It sounds just like everyone else's shitty high school experience: you endure shitty fucked up social situations in order to fit in. Would have been no different had you been interested in other things and been in a different clique. If it hadn't been guys saying retarded fucked up shit, it would have been girls saying retarded fucked up shit.
You're definitely right. I know there are women who got into the field when it was just starting because it was considered clerical.
I was chatting with a school headmistress last weekend and she said that she was into computers but once she had the kids and tried to come back, technology had moved so fast that she had to change careers to education. Somehow, I get the feeling she would have done fine anyway but that's another anecdote. Places with paternity leave probably also have similar problems in high tech fields.
My sister is an excellent IT project manager but I don't think she has ever talked to me about how it was for her as a kid. What I do remember is that she had very few friends and those who she did hang around with were techno geeks.
I think female involvement in graphic design can be neatly explained by society's gentle nudging. It's "creative" work. It's drawing. It's art. Stuff women are "supposed" to be good at.
I disagree with much of what you say, but because I don't think continued debate will get either of us anywhere at this point, I'd like to return to the last point I made, which was: at the end of the day, does it matter whether or not gender binaries and socialization and sexism is the reason there aren't more women in tech? It sure as hell is a reason the women who ARE in tech are dissatisfied. Does it matter that sexism isn't unique to the tech field and therefore can't a barrier to entry, so nothing needs to be done about it? I still hold that it's a barrier to entry, though one that will hopefully be torn at just as it was in other fields (do you think feminists in those communities didn't also have these conversations?), but even if it wasn't, does that mean it's perfectly okay for these attitudes to continue?
The answer is no, so this debate is moot. If we fix the sexism problem and women keep shying away from CS/the tech industry, then a point to you. As for me, I'll just be happy that we all respect each other more from it.
We should be careful not to associate women in computer science with popular ideas of feminism.
It's more fair to say "woman" as that encompasses all their experiences and does not advocate any one particular political philosophy.
It's also not about rights at this point. I've never been on a software team that would not love to have more women. We code all day long, how else should we meet smart women? Trust me, the library doesn't work ;-)
Right now, the problem is society's filter leading up to professional work.
I'm confident it will be solved in the next few decades as more women gain positions of authority.
Once they can reproduce without input from a man, then it's over. Hopefully they'll remember how much it sucked to be powerless!
I saw your comment last night and it bothered me, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why.
I think it's because it doesn't actually respond to my link, evidence, or argument. You acknowledge that I made a comment, but then reassert your prior point of view, and attempt to silence further discussion by declaring your position correct, making the point moot, and implying that I'm too recalcitrant to be swayed by debate with you.
If you're not willing to engage people in discussion, and not willing to entertain an alternate narrative on the basis of evidence, perhaps you're right that continued debate won't get us anywhere. Because you're not engaging in debate: you're not adding anything new in our back-and-forth, but rather declaring it pointless given that your original position was obviously correct.
I could say the same things (in general) about guys who are deeply interested in science and tech:
Toddler/Preschool: Gifts of balls, sports cards, action figures, etc.
School/Teenager: Come on bro, get off the computer and play some sportsball! Don't be a nerd! Come on bro, lets watch football and drink beer!
Even on TV, when they show engineers and scientists, they are almost never cool or desirable.
Basically, I seriously doubt that anyone becomes an engineer because it's the "cool" thing to do, or in any way socially optimal; it seems to be based more on a child's innate proclivities, and a lot to do with the type of parents they have. To me, this seems to be the same problem that has many asking "Why aren't there more black engineers?" Well, in many cases, it's simply because the parents of kids who would become engineers don't have the resource, interest, or knowledge of how to foster these abilities.
I applaud you on encouraging your daughter's interests. With more parents like you, we'll surely see the a more diverse field in the future.
Imagine you are going to class of 100 students, 99 of which are women. It is fairly awkward, like walking into a men's club. Because I am generally quiet, mostly the guys pretended I wasn't there (definitely, better than the alternative.) They would talk about things I had no interest listening to - rated various women, and more innocent things like football. Anyway, every time I walked into that room I felt like I was intruding.
And I think if you were to walk into a room with 99 women you would feel awkward as well.
From my perspective, as a woman software engineer - there is no "perhaps" about it.
...I don't know how to put this more clearly than uncr3ative already did, but both of the responses to that post have basically demonstrated exactly why we feel the way we do when we walk into a classroom dominated by men.
It's not embarrassment. It's the fact that you walk in and you are already seen as the "other", different from them. The fact that they can be talking about you as if you're an The fact that they will be talking about their interests which might not coincide with yours (but oftentimes coincide with you and people of your sex), and so you're not sure how to broach conversation with them. The fact that you feel like an intruder, unwanted or invisible, because you're not in ~the clique~ and therefore shouldn't be there.
The fact that somebody would respond to this, and put quotes around "obstacle", because how could any of those things be an obstacle at all?
I'm sorry that your level of privilege has never allowed you to savor the harsh taste of true intimidation at some point in your life.
Yes, because the comment you made that I responded to on the first place struck me as bafflingly insensitive to the point that was being made: that this intimidation is an obstacle in and of itself. If such a situation sounds like an entirely foreign experience to you, I am inclined to believe that you have never found yourself or can imagine yourself in a similar situation, thereby belying a high measure of privilege.
Then I can only be similarly baffled by your level of naivete, or..., and I suspect this is more likely; you're simply trolling, and actually are nowhere near as baffled as you say you are, and are just using hyperbole to make a point.
rated various women. From my experience women rate other women even more so then we do (so you are different in this manner), and most women I talk to know shit more about sports than I ever will. Awkwardness isn't an obstacle, it's an inconvenience. You are here, so other women can do the same.
Sorry, I obviously wasn’t clear. I never intended to say that I was "embarrassed by my gender" as Michael seemed to believe and I don’t think that the guys in that classroom were participating in offensive sexist behavior (most of the time they weren’t.)
And women of course rate other women and men, both sexually and just with stereotypes. However, all that doesn’t change that slight feeling of intrusion, and isolation. I’ve worked in various companies now, and on every team I’ve been on (even teams as large 30 developers) I was the only woman, so it was good practice walking into that classroom in the university. Sometimes, it is still a little lonely.
But here I am coding at a prestigious gaming company, and I agree, a lot of other women could do the same. But, if I wasn’t so determined– if during university I didn’t think that programming starcraft was the definition of cool – I might have decided it wasn’t worth it to go into that room every day. I could have gone to study biology or architecture or psychology and not felt the least bit awkward. And I had girl friends who I would convince that programming is “dead useful” by automating something for them. I would try to convince them they should sign up to some programming class and they would say “nah, too much testosterone.”
I’m really not trying to make men into “villains” or “creeps” with this monolog. In fact, I’m trying to say that before we get to the sexist creeps who assume I can’t code because “you’re a girl” or that I won’t be able to understand what they are talking about because I’m not the type who can do math… Before all that, you have to walk into a room where you are different and alone. I realize that this is what it feels like to be a minority. As a white woman it isn’t something I’m used to feeling, but every time I stepped into a CS classroom I definitely did. Obviously none of these are obstacles that are impossible to overcome, and if women had no choice in the university – I’m sure most of them would be perfectly capable of walking into a room full of guys and getting a degree in CS. Some of them might even enjoy it.
PS thanks thricedotted for explaining the intruder/invisible feeling better
I sympathize with you. What needs to be done is help these women be more confident and know they have every right to be where they are.
You think women are minority. Try being Black, from Africa, with an accent, and without a college degree. So believe when I say I feel you.
There are dicks everywhere. However I learned very early that 99% of what's holding people is within themselves and not the rest of the world. That goes for you, me, and every other minority.
I agree that instilling confidence that they have a right to be where they are and the ability to learn and be what they want is key.
I don't think women are generally a minority - I only ever feel like one when I start working with new teams at work or classrooms in the university. But being a minority everywhere you go -ugh- that sense of isolation sounds really tough :(
I don't think we need to get to 50% - I would just like it so that women don't feel like they're pushed out - some of it is cultural (it's easier to believe that you can't do something as well as the next person when the messages around you reinforce that this isn't the right field to you) - but some of it is a negative atmosphere created by the sexist jerks.
And it's not most, or even many of the guys I've worked with, but it just takes one or two to complete ruin an environment. Had a had a child when I had planned to, I can almost guaranteeing that I wouldn't have bothered returning to software development.
It's better now - I don't know if it's because I work in a different city, with different people, or maybe I'm just older and the younger women deal with the same old crap. It'll still pop up from time to time - and I'm getting better at seeing the warning signs that someone is going to be that person, deal with it before it saps any of the remaining enjoyment I have for the field.
That's a great point. The HN community's a great microcosm. There are a few sexist jerks, and a number of guys who routinely defend sexist jerks. Of course there are also plenty of guys who speak out about sexism, and then there's what seems like the the vast majority: guys who would rather not talk about it. The net result, my women friends tell me, is that the overall feel is hostile to women.
Amen. As a lady dev, I think this is a universal truth. I don't think this particular male-dominated field is probably any more sexist than other male-dominated fields, though.
IMHO: What holds some women back more than anything is unwillingness to be a potential lighting rod everywhere you go. I have kind of a pioneering spirit, and am willing to fight the sometimes daily battle to be recognized more for my merit than my high heels. But I absolutely understand why another woman would find that kind of effort exhausting and unworthy of her time.
Some people are happy standing out in a crowd and others are not. Most people are crowd people. It's not good or bad, just a preference.
> "Is that really what differentiates programming from fields with more social interaction (like sales) or fields with more of a human aspect (like health care and medicine)?"
If you're implying that programming just isn't work that most women are interested in, you'll have to more-precisely indicate what it is about programming that puts them off, given that accounting has no such problems.
Every accounting department I've ever seen is at least half female and many have a female majority.
Surely there are different skills involved, but many overlap in type [1] and it's a bit of a stretch to imply accounting is any closer to stereotypical female-dominated fields like social work, sales or health-care.
[1] Technical, precise, largely impersonal -- there's even database, script and simple application work
Job stability? Reasonable hours? Promotion prospects, without working like a maniac?
Women tend to value those things, often more than men.
Also, women in IT are often undervalued. A boss will assume they have no real talent, for some reason. While a guy who shows any ability will often be seen as a genius. People just don't assume that girls are hardcore hackers, while they assume that any guy who talks the talk (and wears are really bad t-shirt) is. I know I think that way, but I'm aware of it, so I can consciously compensate.
Still depends on your boss. I used to work for a bank and my head of department dislike people who goes home before 7pm. Our official working hours is 9am - 6pm. I was called into the room once for going home at 6:15pm.
* > A boss will assume they have no real talent, for some reason. While a guy who shows any ability will often be seen as a genius. People just don't assume that girls are hardcore hackers, while they assume that any guy who talks the talk (and wears are really bad t-shirt) is.*
IMHO, promotion is rarely done based on merit. Welcome to corporate life.
(Also, you have to actually show your boss you are a hardcore hacker. My boss will assume I have no talent too unless I demonstrate it)
"We are talking about the same women who fought tooth and nail for things like the right to vote and who do lots of really tough things like raise a family (often alone). Are we to believe that a few sexist programmers scare off these same women?"
Just because we can fight doesn't mean we should have to...
Bear in mind that the author is not a computer scientist, and views narrow-minded geekery with some distaste. But he raises quite a few interesting points. I quote:
>“Underrepresentation” is an insulting concept. Who exactly gets to decide how many women should hold down jobs in a certain field? Who then gets to decide when too few women hold down those jobs? In short, who says women are underrepresented in technology? Who sets the quota?
I don’t exactly hear complaints that men are underrepresented in kindergarten teaching and nursing. (Actually, there are men in nursing, but many of them are gay. So are lots of male teachers. Perhaps that explains why this is a topic women’s advocates do not want to discuss.)
>“Merit” is a misnomer. Hence “women[’s] being unable to compete on merit” means nothing. But the airy dismissal of merit as a real issue incurs collateral damage. There isn’t any dispute that typical female brains differ from typical male brains, though the extent of the differences is disputed. Susan Pinker, in The Sexual Paradox, characterizes the differences as significant, while Lise Eliot, in Pink Brain, Blue Brain, argues that within-sex differences dwarf between-sex differences.
There's no single reason why there are fewer women than men in programming, so asking if sexism is "the real reason" is asking the wrong question. Instead, you should ask, "is it a real reason" why there are fewer women in programming?
I think that the answer there is probably yes, and I think that if you talk to enough female engineers, they'll tell you that the sexism and insensitivity is a turnoff to them. It obviously doesn't push every woman out of the field, but it's pretty hard to imagine that it doesn't discourage at least some women from pursuing a career in software.
Getting to 50/50 gender equality isn't the goal; the goal is to not have women discouraged from doing a job that they'd want to do because of the (often unconscious) sexism of their potential coworkers. If we did that and the field was still 70% male, then okay, but can anyone say we're honestly at that point yet, and that no one is turned off by this stuff?
Great point. NCWIT has a good summary of the various factors leading to underrepresentation of women at http://www.ncwit.org/thefacts and the book "Unlocking the clubhouse" goes into a lot more detail.
One of the most disgusting things I read when this conversation comes up are the remarks and arguments from the apologists. Their common thread is that "we shouldn't be offended." It's a completely asinine position to take and any reason they offer for why is equally laughable. The problem is that as these ideas persist, they reinforce gender stereotypes and contribute to the aforementioned problem of young girls having to choose between being stereotypical girls (and thus accepting all the baggage that entails) or being smart (and accepting all the baggage that entails).
Such a choice is a hard one to make. That it persists is one of the great injustices of the world that women suffer. And the great tradgedy is that ignorant male assholes who want to avoid being pegged as a sexist ignoramus will argue blindly that women are equal, that it's okay to objectify them, that everyone should relax, that maybe women just don't like tech otherwise there would be more of them in it.
>"What's the reason that everyone seems obsessed over getting more women into programming?"
Because a greater diversity of life experience leads to better design, usability, and implementation. Women are users, too, and when women devs have input into interfaces intended to be used by women, the product can be much better for it. Obviously there are other ways to incorporate women, children, the elderly with user acceptance testing and usability reviews, but why wouldn't you want that kind of diversity and insight on your team?
So I read the original post (well, I skimmed it) and then your response. My first impulse was to decide you're an asshole blah blah, and I start discussing the topic with my wife who is doing grant-funded research on this topic (she's a social psychologist).
So the big obstacles to women in a lot of professions are social norms (like sexist behavior, people refusing to hire you because you're not the kind of person they expect, or career structures that force women to choose between work and having children) and stereotype threat (fear of one's conduct reflecting badly on the group to which one belongs).
To take the real estate agent example: the business may have a lot of sexist jerks (I imagine they're better at pretending not to be though, since they are selling stuff) but there are plenty of good norms (e.g. real estate agents generally have very flexible schedules). And there's no problem with stereotype threat -- women aren't widely considered to be bad at talking to people and selling houses.
TV shows have a huge impact on stereotype threat (and probably norms as well). E.g. there are plenty of shows on TV that show women being successful doctors and lawyers without failing socially. (These are also, to some extent, professions involving helping people and communicating -- which women are stereotypically good at.) The same cannot be said for software development (which isn't portrayed much on TV, and when it is stretches credulity).
I think that there's one thing I can say for certain: the reason sexist jerks are prominent in the software business is that they're allowed to be. There's no question that if more women were in the industry there would be less tolerance of sexist jerks, but getting women into the industry is probably as much a problem of addressing stereotype threat, tokenism, etc. as it is combating norms.
Meanwhile, sexist jerks aren't helping. So call them on it.
The reason why people care about getting more women into programming is the same reason why we will never get rid of the creeps: there simply aren't that many people with the ability to write software. A job applicant that can write a function that implements bubble sort and comes for the interview on time and wearing clean clothes is already way above the median. I'm not thinking of any specific example here, but a key developer of a successful open source project can be a total jerk and still get plenty of job offers and even a few speaking invitations.
I have seen precisely zero evidence of any "sexism" in the software industry. Maybe I'm going to the wrong conferences but this bullshit is getting old.
What is it about Google+ that brings out the sexism debate? Not too long ago, the public display of a person's gender was going to enpower stalkers and rapists.
The same boorish nonsense goes on in other contexts, but doesn't seem to attract the same level of drama.
For the same reason that we tolerate trolls and a-holes of all races and genders. Which is that most people dont care.
We happen to have 80% men in the industry. Since 'male sexists' seem for some reason to be more common among the male population, we do have a bit more of them than other branches with a more balanced male-female ratio.
I've yet to see a study proving that we have in proportion more sexist men than other fields.
If you're wondering why a field once roughly equal in its gender balance is now male-dominated, perhaps some real quotes from the hiring manager at this company will shed some light.
"Oh, a female applicant!" (Tone: Surprise)
"He's male which immediately places him above [the female applicant]" (Tone: Joking... but inappropriately sandwiched between comments relevant to their ability to do the job, imo)
Argument ensued as I pushed to see how serious he was being... had an interesting 5 minutes of biting my tongue while the owner of the company justified not hiring women, at length. The usual stuff, maternity leave etc. Plenty of anecdotes.
Most interesting part was right after the surprise at a female applicant, though...
"I've only known one female developer that was any good... now, you might say that there just aren't that many female developers full stop, and that's true, but there must be a reason for that"
I passed the conversations on, as verbatim as I can, to the relevant governmenty people but they can do nothing and I can do nothing. The only person that can do anything is a female applicant, if they don't get accepted, and it's shown that this is due to discrimination.
Pretty sure there's nothing more I can do at this point :( Very, very angry and feeling utterly powerless.
1) She can only bring a discrimination case if she doesn't get hired and can show it's because she was female. If they hire a better male applicant, there is no case.
2) If she brings action against them which fails, I am then wide open to libel and / or slander.
Oh, I completely realize there are problems. Just pointing out what else could be done. Also, she doesn't have to bring a case against them, nor do you need to present yourself and leave yourself open. Not sure if just letting her know anonymously would do anything for her. Personally, I'd want to avoid working in such a place.
I met with a Director at a local consulting firm a couple of days ago and while discussing the growing mobile practice at his firm and talking of the team in charge of it, he referred to the lady who held the reins in growing the practice, and how effective she is and how hungry she is, in growing it.
And then he made the comment that she being all that, is also "easy on the eyes". I flinched, but held my tongue and it bothered me afterwards enough to think why he felt compelled to put that out there, especially to someone he just met.
I agree the problem is pervasive, whether its against women, minorities or the guy down the hallway.
I don't see this as necessarily a problem. The fact is, men judge how women look and will comment on it when among other men; so do women. There's nothing inherently sexist about saying a woman is good looking. It was probably more his attempt to relate to you on a personal level.
There are different situations where commenting on looks is appropriate and when it isn't.
If the two know each other well as friends then that's just guys commenting on a woman's looks. The line between professional and friendly discussion in blurred anyway. Like you said, women do the same thing when amongst friends.
If they didn't know each other that well then all discussion should stay mostly professional. If a comment like this is made then it either indicates that the Director considers women's looks part of a professional appraising of their abilities or he is awkward at making conversation.
Actually, I work with a load of men (and a chunk of women), and this kind of conversation never comes up in the office, because it is understood to be deeply inappropriate for a work environment.
The picture is not offensive to anyone who matters, honestly if you are offended you should probably go build a sexless utopia and die off in a generation.
There hasn't been any sexism at the developer conferences I've attended. At all.
However, I've heard personal accounts from friends who have attended conferences of other circles (say, a linux-centered conf), and the account is quite different.
It really depends on the culture of the group.
--
I don't think Tom's photo is sexist. It's inappropriate, perhaps (depending on the audience), but not an attack on equality.
I was at a tech meetup a couple of weeks back and I walked in to see a lot of women. It was really refreshing.
Fast-forward a little bit and you can hear guys snickering when the women went up.
I don't understand it but I fucking hate it. My sister is great at her job (IT project management) and my daughter loves programming. I can't wait for her to show some guy how to do the job.
Some of the women made the best presentations, maybe because they're women but probably because they're just smart.
I wish I could punch all of those insecure, sexist guys in the mouth.
Violence will most certainly not solve the issue and seems ironically to be a typical male response.
Where these men were truly snickering at the fact women were speaking? Correlation does not always mean causation.
I don't know what would be snicker-worthy of women speaking. I can think of several reasons why attendees might snicker at a speaker regardless of their sex.
I'm saddened (but not surprised) at the negative reaction to the google boob picture. The fact is, there's nothing bad about that picture at all, and Tom is not a misogynist for posting it.
Take a close look. There are 3 people in that photo. All three are smiling. All three are having fun. What exactly is wrong with that photo?
Is it bad because it portrays the woman as a sex object? Why is that bad? Does it means that all women are sex objects? Obviously not. Does it mean that the woman in the photo is ONLY good for sex? Obviously not.
So what's wrong with the photo? Is it because it encourages men to think of all women that way? Has any such sort of causal link been found? How many men at your office slap you on the ass on a daily basis? How many of them take you right there, on the office desk, just like in a pornographic magazine's depiction? What percentage of men behave like creeps? 1%? Do you honestly think that the only thing keeping the other 99% from going on a rape orgy is that they haven't been fed enough sexist propaganda? Do you think that the 1% would magically stop if you could just remove all material you find objectionable from the world?
Who is to blame for the inappropriate behavior of these creeps? Licentious media? Just like violent video games turn our children into vicious killers? Just like marijuana turns people into psychopaths? If someone stabs someone with a kitchen knife, do you blame Henkel? If someone steals a car, do you blame Grand Theft Auto? If someone rapes a woman, do you blame pornography?
Blaming someone else for a person's bad behavior is naive, childish, and dangerous. The person to correct is the person who committed the act.
So what's wrong with that photo? Is it because its sexual nature offended some people? Some people are offended by a picture of two guys kissing. Should we condemn that too?
Do you believe in the possibility of some women actually ENJOYING being treated like a sex object? If not, your objection becomes very understandable. It's fairly common to wrongly assume that everyone else thinks the same way as you do. If the thought of being treated that way disgusts you, then you'd probably assume that nobody in their right mind would enjoy it. You'd probably go through a laundry list of reasons why someone would participate:
* She was coerced into it
* She's not in her right mind
* She was drugged or drunk
The problem is that this line of thinking leads to the misogynistic view that women are somehow incapable of making their own decisions (we see this already in legislation that excuses the woman for having sex while drunk, but not the man). Suddenly, woman is a poor, defenseless creature who must be protected from everybody, especially herself.
So what's wrong with that photo? All three members are consenting and enjoying themselves. Who are you to criticize their choice?
Has there been a well defined study, interviews of women in the industry as to what do they want? What do they think and go through and what would they like changed?
I'm guessing a lot of people haven't worked in other industries. Like on a mfg floor, or at a lumber mill, or on a fishing boat. Or as part of a custodial staff.
The sexist creep ratio in the SW industry is lower than most. The SW Industry appears much more sensitive to the issue, however.
176 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 245 ms ] threadI'm not arguing against the problem or trying to find solutions, but I saw nothing new or interesting in the linked post. "Same tired discussion" is right, every discussion on the topic here on HN plays out the exact same way and goes nowhere. It's the religion or politics equivalent of HN discussions.
But you are arguing against the discussion, no? Instead of using this article (as much as you may feel it lacks substance) as an opportunity to discuss the problem further, and propose solutions or suggestions... Instead, you label it a circle jerk.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but you haven't done much to change that.
Anyway, I've said my piece, I see no reason to clutter up the thread with more meta discussion from me.
The only remotely new point is the comment about Asperger's not being an excuse for sexist behavior.
So yes, the article lacks substance. There's essentially none. If I want to have a discussion about the role of women in IT and web development, this particular post is a horrible starting point. Resulting discussion will almost certainly be ill-informed and a complete waste of my time. Given the amount of work I would have to do to drag the discussion into productivity, I am better off writing my own blog.
(just kidding! :p)
EDIT: it is a serious issue/question, tho, in my opinion, that bears discussing. So we're "not finding solutions." Does that mean we should a) forget about it, it's unsolvable/not a problem or b) Keep discussing it until we are coming up with solutions?
Another important point is context. Is it OK to make a joke about women in the kitchen with your female BFF? Sure, if she's OK with it and knows you're joking. Is it OK to make the same joke in a public/professional forum? Pretty much always "no." Just because your black friend "thinks your joke is hilarious" doesn't mean you should whip it out at an industry conference.
To give a positive example, I loved Jolie O'Dell's article on this topic. Rather than the usual samey tirade, it was smart and different and enlightening. I felt like I was in a different place after reading it. If you find an article like that, please submit it. But don't submit articles just because they're on the same topic.
So someone goes to a conference and there was a slide with something inappropriate on it. That means one asshole was immature and unprofessional enough to publicly shoot himself in the foot. It doesn't mean there are aren't plenty of other sexist people in other careers though. They're just smart enough not to be sexist in the middle of their speech.
Sure, but we are in this industry, and pointing fingers at other industries does not get us off the hook.
If IT is no more sexist than any other field (as peterwwillis hypothesized), this would refute the hypothesis that women avoid IT due to sexism.
No, it wouldn't refute anything. For instance, in the medical field, we've had a hundred years to correct the gender imbalance, and people have fought hard, both in education and in hiring practices, to get it where it is. So, while the medical field may have as many sexist jerks, there have been failsafes put into place to correct for their behavior.
IT has no such procedures. So we can either change our culture to be less sexist than other fields, or we can put in those hiring and education procedures.
And to be honest, I don't consider it much of a reason to pat ourselves on the back if we're less sexist than, say, the financial industry.
This is our house, let's clean it.
As for "failsafes" and "procedures", could you tell me how these procedures prevent sexism in JP Morgan Prime Brokerage operation, but not in JP Morgan IT? Or if you want to push things back to the college level, how they prevent sexism in Biology 101 but not in CS 101?
If you'll re-read my comment, I was talking about failsafes and procedures in the medical field.
I don't have figures, or examples, or any way to prove how sexist our industry may be. But neither does anyone else. So before you go around saying "the tech industry is sexist", please consider the harm by association to those of us who are not sexist. You may have seen tons of sexist behavior in your career - I have not. No one person's experience defines an industry.
Also, if there is indeed some secret cult of disgusting pig men in the industry, let's deal with it like fucking adults, OK? First of all we can have the modern-day equivalent of sensitivity training. Have a frank discussion with your teammates about what is and isn't appropriate behavior for the workplace. Remind them that even if there's no women around, you still can't go objectifying or making jokes about them, just like you wouldn't do the same to people about race or religion or sexual orientation.
Have your team agree that whenever someone says something sexist by accident that someone will say something to the guy and remind him that's not appropriate behavior and ask him to apologize. If he doesn't, inform his manager. Pretty simple - this is called holding someone accountable for their actions.
This next part is important, too: don't let women be sexist either. Towards their own sex or others. I know women who will gladly joke around with the guys and make misogynist comments because to them it's funny. Well, this is only reinforcing in the guys that it's OK to make those comments. Stop them and make them apologize too so we can stop this behavior from perpetuating.
In terms of how people perceive "the industry" as sexist, why do you think it happens that in very public places people say very stupid sexist things? My impression is that our industry is not very professional - especially the startup community. There's a very romantic idea that you should just wander into work with shorts, a t-shirt and sandals, living some bohemian genius programmer lifestyle with cubes that look more like playgrounds than work spaces. That's very nice. It also sets up the environment to be one where non-appropriate behavior can easily thrive.
At the last company I worked at it began as a startup and grew into a big company. The attitude of many, many of the employees was still more of joking around than getting work done. It was really annoying, frankly, and I definitely heard a sexist comment or two when women were not around (except for the call center people; they were animals). Fast forward to a more business casual financial IT company and things are a lot different. I've never met a bunch of nicer, non-sexist guys. My theory is it's because the work environment is just relaxed enough that business is on people's minds and acting like a sexist buffoon would not even occur to them. A slightly less educated theory is because we have a very diverse mix of cultural backgrounds (probably 40% indian, 10% asian, 10% russian, the rest a mix of a bunch of other backgrounds) where the typical white american male culture might be more quick to be openly sexist.
A constant grind of sexism is more dangerous to the well-being of any social group than a tidal wave. That's the problem, nothing alienates more than the constant grind of bullshit.
please consider the harm by association to those of us who are not sexist.
If people don't want to be harmed by association, then they should take an actively anti-sexist stance, and push for that within the industry.
You're saying I have to become an outspoken feminist for people to not call me sexist. Not only is that unfair (saying I have to become a part of your movement just so i'm not falsely accused myself, tantamount to blackmail) it's unrealistic. People don't generally win fighting for causes they do not represent. When people want rights or to be treated fairly they have to stand up and demand it because nobody is going to just hand it to them.
If there really is rampant sexism in the IT industry, women need to organize and force the system to change. Blog posts will not do anything.
If someone is defensive, or even just stays silent, when sexist and alienating behavior occurs, then that person can't complain much if people see them as complicit. If they don't want to be tarred with that brush, then they should speak out against it, and work to make the social group more welcoming.
Should I just take the word of someone who got burned by something that there's a huge problem, without anything beyond anecdotal evidence to back up the claim?
Should I do the same for racists? How about homophobes? How about bullies? How about people who leave stuff to rot in the communal fridge?
Am I anti-gay because I don't attend gay rallies? Am I complicit in animal cruelty because I don't volunteer for the SPCA? Am I anti-veteran because I don't help out at the local homeless shelter?
Come to my workplace and point out the sexism, and I'll act to stop it. Otherwise, don't paint me with your brush.
This whole "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" attitude is getting old.
Most importantly, though, just because you haven't seen sexism in the workplace, doesn't mean it hasn't existed. A little bit of education never hurts anyone, and being able to better identify what is problematic might show you that things are not as squeaky clean as you thought.
Every example given so far has been rather obvious to recognize as inappropriate behavior. Like any other inappropriate behavior, I'll deal with it as it comes. But I'm certainly not going to champion the cause, and you certainly have no right to criticize me for refusing to do so.
On the contrary, I have every right to criticize you for doing so. Why wouldn't I have that right?
This is either:
1. Someone facetiously arguing semantics.
2. Someone who believes that their pet cause trumps all others.
Either way, it's a discussion ender.
How would you feel if someone started criticizing you for not getting on a plane to Darfur to rebuild war torn villages?
How about your choice not to get on a boat to blockade tankers?
How about your choice not to hand out flyers for the SPCA?
How about your choice not to partake in attempts to pierce Gaza blockades?
I could name many more causes you're guilty of not partaking in.
The question actually is: Are YOU justified in criticizing others who don't share your zeal in a particular cause? Because by judging others, so too are you judged.
Go to a few conferences that aren't directly IT-related and see how often that happens. In my experience - and I'm prepared to be proven wrong on this - it pretty much well only happens at IT-related conferences.
You make it sound as if feminists are some kind of weird cult ;) But your basic point is true: just because a woman is a feminist doesn't mean that she thinks all penetrative sex is rape, such as Dworkin believed.
Flirting with a woman in an environment where they feel uncomfortable -- say, oh, for example, early in the morning in a confined space -- isn't perceived as an attempt to rape, but it does make the flirter an insensitive jerk at best.
Honestly, if that is a regular problem for you, I would suggest you work on your interpersonal skills.
2. Woman gets hit on in an elevator in a foreign country after leaving a bar at 4am. She declines.
3. Woman mentions incident as a "What Not To Wear" style off-hand comment in a video blog about the conference, before going on to more important things.
4. Richard Dawkins flips his shit.
5. Some men think this situation means politely asking a woman out for coffee will get you accused of rape.
RW said that being hit on in an elevator @ 4AM made her feel uncomfortable. That's it, and if people were able to muster up a shred of empathy and think "gee, if this makes people feel uncomfortable, I shouldn't do it", elevatorgate wouldn't have happened.
Instead, men came out of the woodwork left and right trying to defend their right to flirt on women in any situation, irrelevant of how it might make the woman feel.
Which is fair enough. At the same time, she did write things like:
Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women
Or:
A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body.
Personally I think she was backpeddling, but please have a read of what she wrote:
http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/dworkin.html
Are we talking about a boss frequently asking an employee on a date, despite the power difference, and the employee saying no several times? A co-worker making crude and embarrassing remarks, using sleazy pick-up lines, pulling pranks, and other crap? Or is it like asking someone, "hey, so ... would you like to go on a date sometime? I'm free this Saturday, would you like coffee" once or twice. One of these things is not like the others.
You are allowed to ask a co-worker on a date, in most jurisdictions. Even if you aren't, you are only likely to be accused of anything if someone feels really pissed off at you. You aren't allowed to behave in a way that is making someone feel harassed.
You don't think it's a problem that the definition of legal behavior is dependent on another person's feelings?
Like I said, the law tries to be reasonable. Will a judge or jury say "Your behavior was that of a reasonable person, and there's no way you could have known that asking her out would cause a flashback to (whatever), but it's her feelings that matter, not yours"?
Anyhow, if all humor that made fun of someone or something were banned, there wouldn't be much left. That's the basis of most of it, and they continue to find it funny to make fun of some things, but not others.
Everyone should stop being offended on behalf of people who aren't like them. Seriously. If you're offended because it affects you, I'm all ears. If you're offended because it's rude to do that to someone else, but you have no stake in it... Shut up. You're making the situation WORSE.
The woman in the photo obviously wasn't offended. Most other women apparently aren't, either. But for some reason, MEN feel the need to make a big deal out of this situation.
If a female blogger were writing to say she was offended by this situation, I'd be paying a lot more heed.
People talk about equality and all, but when it comes down to it, the people defending 'women' from this are actually worse than the people that supposedly caused an offense!
Wrap your head around this: Why are men getting up in arms about this? Because they think women need their protection. They are playing right into the sexism by thinking women can't handle this on their own.
If women can't handle this on their own, they're welcome to say so, and I'll jump on a white horse myself. They aren't saying that here. Or ANYWHERE that I've seen lately.
I'm apparently one of the few men out there that actually believe a woman can handle things. They aren't inferior; They don't -need- my help.
So everyone should heed their own advice and back off.
So, if I hear 3 people making a whole load of racist comments in a bus, but not directed at a specific person, should I ignore it?
I'm Indian by birth, and have lived through a lot of racism. I'm not inferior, and I would never have gone begging for help, but I'd sure have appreciated people intervening at times, even when I wasn't under direct attack.
In the UK, women are typically paid 15% less than men for equivalent jobs. Should I say nothing about this?
If it were something on an official Google page (which seems to be how some people in the comments are taking it), it would be downright offensive.
As something in a "serious" article - it bothers me - not enough to be 'outraged', but it is indicative of a lot of the issues women have in technology. There are times where it's just not appropriate. It's fine to like looking a big breasted + attractive women, but also realize that women are made uncomfortable when they're put into environments where they feel like who we are/what we can do is second to what we are. Photos like that create such an environment - and take away from the article.
I may sound like a downer that can't have fun, but when the vast majority of humans on this world end up cheating on their spouses, you have to be somewhat serious about this.
Frankly, that picture is a bad example of the rampant mysogyny which does actually exist in our field.
Secondly there is no issue with treating women with respect in the workplace and have fun with them after.
reddit/stackoverflow style voting on badges. some way of tagging someone at a conference or whatnot as being an ass, or cool, that way you get a warning that this person is a douche. i'm bettin the same people who are creeps are the same people i wouldn't want to bother talking to anyway.
the only problem is someone of course is going to hack it...
Why do people care so much about having lots of women work in the software industry?
Seriously, there seems to be this desire to get women into programming. If women really were into programming they would get into it despite the 'sexist creeps'. It might surprise all the people here but a lot of industries (like real estate and sales) have a LOT more sexist creeps than programmers.
There are lots of areas where people are sexist and racist and jerks - it doesn't stop the people who want to get into those areas from getting into them.
Perhaps women just don't want to get into computer science. And no amount of bending over backwards and trying to appeal to female programmers will get us to a situation of 50% female developers.
The first question people going on and on about 'ratios in the software industry' need to answer is -
Are there really that many women interested in becoming a software developer? Is their interest a lukewarm type of interest where the minute they see one sexist programmer jerk they run off?
We are talking about the same women who fought tooth and nail for things like the right to vote and who do lots of really tough things like raise a family (often alone). Are we to believe that a few sexist programmers scare off these same women?
Final Question: Is the presence of some percentage of sexist jerk programmers the real reason there are far fewer women in programming? Is that really what differentiates programming from fields with more social interaction (like sales) or fields with more of a human aspect (like health care and medicine)?
But the point isn't that there's no discrimination, just that we're not necessarily having this discussion because "women are fighting to get more respect and representation in computer programming."
If you're going come up a controversial answer, you better have some solid evidence backing you up.
I doubt it. And I don't really find his answer controversial at all.
Would he not need solid evidence if he were pushing the politically correct answer?
You might want to provide some support for this before you start demanding evidence from other people.
Basically, women just aren't interested. I'm not sure it's an obstacle.
Why aren't we just as concerned that there are far fewer male hairdressers than female?
Infants: Pink clothes (ok, no biggie)
Toddler: dolls, playing mommy and dressup
Preschool: more of toddler, perhaps getting into TV now. Oh look, none of the women on TV are into science or tech. Maybe I shouldn't be either.
School: Come on Carly, let's play with dolls. But I wanna play on the computer. LOSER.
Teenager: What kind of a nerd plays with electronics and gadgets, lets go shopping!
So society is completely geared towards beating it out of them. As the father of a pre-teen who has probably solved more software bugs than most her age and is deeply into robotics, it is a constant, constant battle even though she loves the field.
Let's not forget all the aunties, grandmas and neighbours who don't encourage tech curiosity for girls. "Hey, here's another shitty fashion toy for your birthday" meanwhile, the girl is thinking "I really wanted a gizmo... oh well." Even though dad specifically sent around suggestions for the next robot she wants to build.
Your universities can want females all they want, but society... I want to punch it sometimes.
Edit: I should mention that TV is getting a little better with this. There are a couple of female leads in shows that are technically oriented.
> Basically, women just aren't interested. I'm not sure it's an obstacle.
I was pointing out that even if they are interested in science or computers, the deck is stacked against them from the time they are born.
Girls interested in computers may be portrayed as losers and antisocial and outcasts, but guys interested in computers have been portrayed as and treated by society as antisocial outcast losers for as long as there has been such a thing as a computer geek.
Given that amount of social pressure and shaming and exclusion faced by young computer nerds, one wonders why anyone would go into tech. But more boys do and fewer girls do.
Popularity and clique mentality tends to be much more of an issue in female circles than with males. I would say that, if one were to assume either sex will get untold amounts of hell for dabbling in tech early on, a female will probably get it worse.
You also have to note that culturally, there is the "nerd" phenomenon backing guys being interested in tech. If a young woman decides to get into tech, she doesn't get the same label as a guy does, she's often labeled by her peers (which can be fairly brutal) as a loser, outcast, or just "not one of the girls".
Now, given that last point, take a female developer who's young and just trying to get into things: you'll never quite be "one of the guys", and by choosing this vocation you're throwing up a flag that states you're fine to never be "one of the girls". That's not a fun combination to go through your youth with.
I don't see the "nerd phenomenon backing guys being interested in tech." It's a negative stereotype, not a positive one. Negative social stereotypes don't encourage people to take on an identity/vocation. No one sits at home, looking at the stereotype nerds on TV shows saying, "Gosh, I'd like to be a weakling with no style, no charisma, no popularity, no girlfriends, but a really sweet nitrogen cooling system for my computer."
Let's consider the perfectly realistic scenario where society has only just recently realized that women are good for more than making sandwiches and childbearing, and can are capable of doing professional jobs as well as any man. Thanks, society! But since this change just happened recently, it is not unreasonable for there to still be fields that are male-dominated, despite the fact that women are just as able to work successfully in these fields. This is what gives us (a).
However, now that the floodgates have opened, women would really like to get into tech! But first, there's everything that cheez mentioned -- society's subtle socialization of women into their proper gender role. Boys are expected to tinker with and possibly break their toys, girls should be combing doll hair. And later, the boys who are nerds almost always find a nerd clique...which is almost entirely comprised of other boys. And the girl who wants to bond with somebody over her nerddom? All the boys are scared of her, for she is GIRL, a separate and incomprehensible breed from BOY. And there's condition (b).
Personal anecdote time: all of my friends (which is stretching it) in high school were guys because the other girls at my school thought computers and programming and video games were "a guy thing". and even among this group, I only had one who truly respected me (who brought me into the circle in the first place) -- to the rest, I was the token female to be awkward around and bounce sexist jokes off of. During that time, I was a huge tomboy and a huge jerk -- not because I don't like doing typically femme-y things, like wearing makeup and dresses, but because I felt like I'd be more accepted if I wore guy clothes and made dick jokes and, yes, sometimes even objectified women and acted homophobic (but only for men, because lesbians are hot, har har) for the sake of humor. Even being more "guy-like", though, never really earned me any respect -- even if I laughed at their jokes about "dumb bitches" and made my own, the fact remained that I was still born without a penis and could therefore never really relate. It was only after I got to college that I was able to recognize my disgusting attitude for what it was and realize that it was possible to be both femme and a CS major, though that would have earned me no love from most of my HS "friends".
tldr, men do have to overcome the barrier of being socialized to like sports and fast cars and what-have-you, but once they do, they've at least found more of their kind. Women, on the other hand, face that barrier two-fold -- both from outside and within the community, and that really, really sucks.
But I'm so glad that this conversation is happening, because I really do think that making the tech industry more welcoming to women is important -- and if it turns out that you're right, that at the end of the day more boys and few girls go into tech anyway, at least we're still a kinder, better, more accepting community. What do we have to lose from that?
http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/
I know several women in their 60s now, friends of my mother, who were early systems analysts for IBM or otherwise involved in the tech field. IT is a field that women have left, not that they have been excluded from.
Second, taking from my mother's experience, she did have to fight her way into a field that was male dominated: graphic design. But that field is no longer dominated by males. Look at graphic design degrees awarded and you can see that women outnumber men now. Is graphic design somehow fundamentally different from IT? Are people in IT inherently more sexist than people in graphic design? They both use computers to do their jobs. But graphic design sees growth in the number of women, while IT sees a decline.
I just don't buy the early socialization argument, because there are just as strong pressures on boys to not be nerds. Simply because there are more male losers doesn't make having a 'clique' of losers an advantage over a loser girl. It's still discouraging whether or not you have a bunch of other negative charisma, zero social skill geeks to be miserable with.
As for your personal anecdote, I don't see how that's unique to tech at all. It sounds just like everyone else's shitty high school experience: you endure shitty fucked up social situations in order to fit in. Would have been no different had you been interested in other things and been in a different clique. If it hadn't been guys saying retarded fucked up shit, it would have been girls saying retarded fucked up shit.
I was chatting with a school headmistress last weekend and she said that she was into computers but once she had the kids and tried to come back, technology had moved so fast that she had to change careers to education. Somehow, I get the feeling she would have done fine anyway but that's another anecdote. Places with paternity leave probably also have similar problems in high tech fields.
My sister is an excellent IT project manager but I don't think she has ever talked to me about how it was for her as a kid. What I do remember is that she had very few friends and those who she did hang around with were techno geeks.
I think female involvement in graphic design can be neatly explained by society's gentle nudging. It's "creative" work. It's drawing. It's art. Stuff women are "supposed" to be good at.
The answer is no, so this debate is moot. If we fix the sexism problem and women keep shying away from CS/the tech industry, then a point to you. As for me, I'll just be happy that we all respect each other more from it.
It's more fair to say "woman" as that encompasses all their experiences and does not advocate any one particular political philosophy.
It's also not about rights at this point. I've never been on a software team that would not love to have more women. We code all day long, how else should we meet smart women? Trust me, the library doesn't work ;-)
Right now, the problem is society's filter leading up to professional work.
I'm confident it will be solved in the next few decades as more women gain positions of authority.
Once they can reproduce without input from a man, then it's over. Hopefully they'll remember how much it sucked to be powerless!
I think it's because it doesn't actually respond to my link, evidence, or argument. You acknowledge that I made a comment, but then reassert your prior point of view, and attempt to silence further discussion by declaring your position correct, making the point moot, and implying that I'm too recalcitrant to be swayed by debate with you.
If you're not willing to engage people in discussion, and not willing to entertain an alternate narrative on the basis of evidence, perhaps you're right that continued debate won't get us anywhere. Because you're not engaging in debate: you're not adding anything new in our back-and-forth, but rather declaring it pointless given that your original position was obviously correct.
Toddler/Preschool: Gifts of balls, sports cards, action figures, etc.
School/Teenager: Come on bro, get off the computer and play some sportsball! Don't be a nerd! Come on bro, lets watch football and drink beer!
Even on TV, when they show engineers and scientists, they are almost never cool or desirable.
Basically, I seriously doubt that anyone becomes an engineer because it's the "cool" thing to do, or in any way socially optimal; it seems to be based more on a child's innate proclivities, and a lot to do with the type of parents they have. To me, this seems to be the same problem that has many asking "Why aren't there more black engineers?" Well, in many cases, it's simply because the parents of kids who would become engineers don't have the resource, interest, or knowledge of how to foster these abilities.
I applaud you on encouraging your daughter's interests. With more parents like you, we'll surely see the a more diverse field in the future.
Huh. After all these years I find women really are the weaker sex.
What's the next one?
It's not embarrassment. It's the fact that you walk in and you are already seen as the "other", different from them. The fact that they can be talking about you as if you're an The fact that they will be talking about their interests which might not coincide with yours (but oftentimes coincide with you and people of your sex), and so you're not sure how to broach conversation with them. The fact that you feel like an intruder, unwanted or invisible, because you're not in ~the clique~ and therefore shouldn't be there.
The fact that somebody would respond to this, and put quotes around "obstacle", because how could any of those things be an obstacle at all?
I'm sorry that your level of privilege has never allowed you to savor the harsh taste of true intimidation at some point in your life.
> I'm sorry that your level of privilege has never allowed you to savor the harsh taste of true intimidation at some point in your life.
Seriously?
But here I am coding at a prestigious gaming company, and I agree, a lot of other women could do the same. But, if I wasn’t so determined– if during university I didn’t think that programming starcraft was the definition of cool – I might have decided it wasn’t worth it to go into that room every day. I could have gone to study biology or architecture or psychology and not felt the least bit awkward. And I had girl friends who I would convince that programming is “dead useful” by automating something for them. I would try to convince them they should sign up to some programming class and they would say “nah, too much testosterone.”
I’m really not trying to make men into “villains” or “creeps” with this monolog. In fact, I’m trying to say that before we get to the sexist creeps who assume I can’t code because “you’re a girl” or that I won’t be able to understand what they are talking about because I’m not the type who can do math… Before all that, you have to walk into a room where you are different and alone. I realize that this is what it feels like to be a minority. As a white woman it isn’t something I’m used to feeling, but every time I stepped into a CS classroom I definitely did. Obviously none of these are obstacles that are impossible to overcome, and if women had no choice in the university – I’m sure most of them would be perfectly capable of walking into a room full of guys and getting a degree in CS. Some of them might even enjoy it.
PS thanks thricedotted for explaining the intruder/invisible feeling better
You think women are minority. Try being Black, from Africa, with an accent, and without a college degree. So believe when I say I feel you.
There are dicks everywhere. However I learned very early that 99% of what's holding people is within themselves and not the rest of the world. That goes for you, me, and every other minority.
I don't think women are generally a minority - I only ever feel like one when I start working with new teams at work or classrooms in the university. But being a minority everywhere you go -ugh- that sense of isolation sounds really tough :(
Why does this barrier prevent women from entering CS, math and physics only?
Keep in mind when looking for the cause of the lopsided male-female split that it happens well before they even start university.
> If you're going come up a controversial answer, you better have some solid evidence backing you up.
I find these 2 statements, back to back, presented in a serious context about the most amusing thing I've seen in a long, long time.
And it's not most, or even many of the guys I've worked with, but it just takes one or two to complete ruin an environment. Had a had a child when I had planned to, I can almost guaranteeing that I wouldn't have bothered returning to software development.
It's better now - I don't know if it's because I work in a different city, with different people, or maybe I'm just older and the younger women deal with the same old crap. It'll still pop up from time to time - and I'm getting better at seeing the warning signs that someone is going to be that person, deal with it before it saps any of the remaining enjoyment I have for the field.
People seem to forget this. All it takes it the complacency of most men to let those one or two blowhards create a hostile environment.
IMHO: What holds some women back more than anything is unwillingness to be a potential lighting rod everywhere you go. I have kind of a pioneering spirit, and am willing to fight the sometimes daily battle to be recognized more for my merit than my high heels. But I absolutely understand why another woman would find that kind of effort exhausting and unworthy of her time. Some people are happy standing out in a crowd and others are not. Most people are crowd people. It's not good or bad, just a preference.
If you're implying that programming just isn't work that most women are interested in, you'll have to more-precisely indicate what it is about programming that puts them off, given that accounting has no such problems.
Every accounting department I've ever seen is at least half female and many have a female majority.
Surely there are different skills involved, but many overlap in type [1] and it's a bit of a stretch to imply accounting is any closer to stereotypical female-dominated fields like social work, sales or health-care.
[1] Technical, precise, largely impersonal -- there's even database, script and simple application work
Women tend to value those things, often more than men.
Also, women in IT are often undervalued. A boss will assume they have no real talent, for some reason. While a guy who shows any ability will often be seen as a genius. People just don't assume that girls are hardcore hackers, while they assume that any guy who talks the talk (and wears are really bad t-shirt) is. I know I think that way, but I'm aware of it, so I can consciously compensate.
There are plenty of corporate programming jobs with those attributes.
IMHO, promotion is rarely done based on merit. Welcome to corporate life.
(Also, you have to actually show your boss you are a hardcore hacker. My boss will assume I have no talent too unless I demonstrate it)
Just because we can fight doesn't mean we should have to...
My fundamentalism is better than your fundamentalism http://blog.fawny.org/2010/07/28/stubbornella/
Bear in mind that the author is not a computer scientist, and views narrow-minded geekery with some distaste. But he raises quite a few interesting points. I quote:
>“Underrepresentation” is an insulting concept. Who exactly gets to decide how many women should hold down jobs in a certain field? Who then gets to decide when too few women hold down those jobs? In short, who says women are underrepresented in technology? Who sets the quota? I don’t exactly hear complaints that men are underrepresented in kindergarten teaching and nursing. (Actually, there are men in nursing, but many of them are gay. So are lots of male teachers. Perhaps that explains why this is a topic women’s advocates do not want to discuss.)
>“Merit” is a misnomer. Hence “women[’s] being unable to compete on merit” means nothing. But the airy dismissal of merit as a real issue incurs collateral damage. There isn’t any dispute that typical female brains differ from typical male brains, though the extent of the differences is disputed. Susan Pinker, in The Sexual Paradox, characterizes the differences as significant, while Lise Eliot, in Pink Brain, Blue Brain, argues that within-sex differences dwarf between-sex differences.
I think that the answer there is probably yes, and I think that if you talk to enough female engineers, they'll tell you that the sexism and insensitivity is a turnoff to them. It obviously doesn't push every woman out of the field, but it's pretty hard to imagine that it doesn't discourage at least some women from pursuing a career in software.
Getting to 50/50 gender equality isn't the goal; the goal is to not have women discouraged from doing a job that they'd want to do because of the (often unconscious) sexism of their potential coworkers. If we did that and the field was still 70% male, then okay, but can anyone say we're honestly at that point yet, and that no one is turned off by this stuff?
It's more likely that they learn not to like it from an early age due to sexist gender stereotyping.
http://www.7wonderlicious.com/2/post/2010/12/girls-stem-and-...
One of the most disgusting things I read when this conversation comes up are the remarks and arguments from the apologists. Their common thread is that "we shouldn't be offended." It's a completely asinine position to take and any reason they offer for why is equally laughable. The problem is that as these ideas persist, they reinforce gender stereotypes and contribute to the aforementioned problem of young girls having to choose between being stereotypical girls (and thus accepting all the baggage that entails) or being smart (and accepting all the baggage that entails).
Such a choice is a hard one to make. That it persists is one of the great injustices of the world that women suffer. And the great tradgedy is that ignorant male assholes who want to avoid being pegged as a sexist ignoramus will argue blindly that women are equal, that it's okay to objectify them, that everyone should relax, that maybe women just don't like tech otherwise there would be more of them in it.
Wake up.
Because a greater diversity of life experience leads to better design, usability, and implementation. Women are users, too, and when women devs have input into interfaces intended to be used by women, the product can be much better for it. Obviously there are other ways to incorporate women, children, the elderly with user acceptance testing and usability reviews, but why wouldn't you want that kind of diversity and insight on your team?
So the big obstacles to women in a lot of professions are social norms (like sexist behavior, people refusing to hire you because you're not the kind of person they expect, or career structures that force women to choose between work and having children) and stereotype threat (fear of one's conduct reflecting badly on the group to which one belongs).
To take the real estate agent example: the business may have a lot of sexist jerks (I imagine they're better at pretending not to be though, since they are selling stuff) but there are plenty of good norms (e.g. real estate agents generally have very flexible schedules). And there's no problem with stereotype threat -- women aren't widely considered to be bad at talking to people and selling houses.
TV shows have a huge impact on stereotype threat (and probably norms as well). E.g. there are plenty of shows on TV that show women being successful doctors and lawyers without failing socially. (These are also, to some extent, professions involving helping people and communicating -- which women are stereotypically good at.) The same cannot be said for software development (which isn't portrayed much on TV, and when it is stretches credulity).
I think that there's one thing I can say for certain: the reason sexist jerks are prominent in the software business is that they're allowed to be. There's no question that if more women were in the industry there would be less tolerance of sexist jerks, but getting women into the industry is probably as much a problem of addressing stereotype threat, tokenism, etc. as it is combating norms.
Meanwhile, sexist jerks aren't helping. So call them on it.
The same boorish nonsense goes on in other contexts, but doesn't seem to attract the same level of drama.
I've yet to see a study proving that we have in proportion more sexist men than other fields.
"Oh, a female applicant!" (Tone: Surprise)
"He's male which immediately places him above [the female applicant]" (Tone: Joking... but inappropriately sandwiched between comments relevant to their ability to do the job, imo)
Argument ensued as I pushed to see how serious he was being... had an interesting 5 minutes of biting my tongue while the owner of the company justified not hiring women, at length. The usual stuff, maternity leave etc. Plenty of anecdotes.
Most interesting part was right after the surprise at a female applicant, though...
"I've only known one female developer that was any good... now, you might say that there just aren't that many female developers full stop, and that's true, but there must be a reason for that"
I passed the conversations on, as verbatim as I can, to the relevant governmenty people but they can do nothing and I can do nothing. The only person that can do anything is a female applicant, if they don't get accepted, and it's shown that this is due to discrimination.
Pretty sure there's nothing more I can do at this point :( Very, very angry and feeling utterly powerless.
1) She can only bring a discrimination case if she doesn't get hired and can show it's because she was female. If they hire a better male applicant, there is no case.
2) If she brings action against them which fails, I am then wide open to libel and / or slander.
And then he made the comment that she being all that, is also "easy on the eyes". I flinched, but held my tongue and it bothered me afterwards enough to think why he felt compelled to put that out there, especially to someone he just met.
I agree the problem is pervasive, whether its against women, minorities or the guy down the hallway.
If the two know each other well as friends then that's just guys commenting on a woman's looks. The line between professional and friendly discussion in blurred anyway. Like you said, women do the same thing when amongst friends.
If they didn't know each other that well then all discussion should stay mostly professional. If a comment like this is made then it either indicates that the Director considers women's looks part of a professional appraising of their abilities or he is awkward at making conversation.
I SO wish more posts contained sexy images (of any gender) than your repressed, frustrated, fearful and boringly unfunny drivel.
However, I've heard personal accounts from friends who have attended conferences of other circles (say, a linux-centered conf), and the account is quite different.
It really depends on the culture of the group.
--
I don't think Tom's photo is sexist. It's inappropriate, perhaps (depending on the audience), but not an attack on equality.
Naming a project 'Pantyshot' and 'Upskirt' is.
Fast-forward a little bit and you can hear guys snickering when the women went up.
I don't understand it but I fucking hate it. My sister is great at her job (IT project management) and my daughter loves programming. I can't wait for her to show some guy how to do the job.
Some of the women made the best presentations, maybe because they're women but probably because they're just smart.
I wish I could punch all of those insecure, sexist guys in the mouth.
Where these men were truly snickering at the fact women were speaking? Correlation does not always mean causation.
I don't know what would be snicker-worthy of women speaking. I can think of several reasons why attendees might snicker at a speaker regardless of their sex.
I wouldn't have remembered otherwise.
Take a close look. There are 3 people in that photo. All three are smiling. All three are having fun. What exactly is wrong with that photo?
Is it bad because it portrays the woman as a sex object? Why is that bad? Does it means that all women are sex objects? Obviously not. Does it mean that the woman in the photo is ONLY good for sex? Obviously not.
So what's wrong with the photo? Is it because it encourages men to think of all women that way? Has any such sort of causal link been found? How many men at your office slap you on the ass on a daily basis? How many of them take you right there, on the office desk, just like in a pornographic magazine's depiction? What percentage of men behave like creeps? 1%? Do you honestly think that the only thing keeping the other 99% from going on a rape orgy is that they haven't been fed enough sexist propaganda? Do you think that the 1% would magically stop if you could just remove all material you find objectionable from the world?
Who is to blame for the inappropriate behavior of these creeps? Licentious media? Just like violent video games turn our children into vicious killers? Just like marijuana turns people into psychopaths? If someone stabs someone with a kitchen knife, do you blame Henkel? If someone steals a car, do you blame Grand Theft Auto? If someone rapes a woman, do you blame pornography?
Blaming someone else for a person's bad behavior is naive, childish, and dangerous. The person to correct is the person who committed the act.
So what's wrong with that photo? Is it because its sexual nature offended some people? Some people are offended by a picture of two guys kissing. Should we condemn that too?
Do you believe in the possibility of some women actually ENJOYING being treated like a sex object? If not, your objection becomes very understandable. It's fairly common to wrongly assume that everyone else thinks the same way as you do. If the thought of being treated that way disgusts you, then you'd probably assume that nobody in their right mind would enjoy it. You'd probably go through a laundry list of reasons why someone would participate:
* She was coerced into it
* She's not in her right mind
* She was drugged or drunk
The problem is that this line of thinking leads to the misogynistic view that women are somehow incapable of making their own decisions (we see this already in legislation that excuses the woman for having sex while drunk, but not the man). Suddenly, woman is a poor, defenseless creature who must be protected from everybody, especially herself.
So what's wrong with that photo? All three members are consenting and enjoying themselves. Who are you to criticize their choice?
You encounter this anywhere dominated by one sex or the other. It's not at all unique to the software industry.
The sexist creep ratio in the SW industry is lower than most. The SW Industry appears much more sensitive to the issue, however.