Born for it – How the image of software developers came about
martinfowler.com
martinfowler.com
My 2 cents about why women are underrepresented in software industry is that not too many of them are interested in the beginning.
One big drive of male programmers, according to my observation (hundreds of samples), are video games, myself included. It is stereotyping, but it is statistically significant. Gamers are overwhelmingly MALE. That is the a big reason that I got to know different parts of computer hardwares, collecting parts from markets and assemble them, and eventually being thrown into this industry. As to girls, they may not have same level of motivation as the boys had. It was in the days, when computer programming was still kind of niche profession and by no means had that much of influence as it cast on the society today, so self-motivation is important.
Fundamentally, if we want to really solve the gender issue in this industry, it is not the duty of those established software companies to force reverse sexism to artificially inflate the gender ratio, it is the early stage education system to introduce programming to wider range of people. Once it becomes universal parts of people's curriculum, the problem will be there no longer.
Disclaimer: Male, Asian, not born in US, but works here.
This used to be true for decades, but by now the majority of people who play computer games are female. Social games and mobile games were a game changer in this regard. It will be interesting to see how that affects interest in programming in the future.
I picked up a tremendous amount of various computer trivia digging around making games work, and basically internalized a lot of debugging techniques before getting out of short-pants, so to speak.
The other thing is, if gaming is the gateway drug, for a lot of people the next step is modding, level design, botting, etc. The more black-boxy games are, the harder that is.
Women were once the majority of programmers.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programmin...
edit: my 65 year old mother is the only reason why I'm a programmer today. Well, that and William Gibson.
One big drive of male programmers, according to my observation (hundreds of samples), are video games, myself included."
I think you are drawing a false statistical conclusion here.
The basic hypothesis you are making is: "In the population of women, there is a lower average aptitude for programming than in the population of males". "This hypothesis is based on sampling my coworkers, and the general population".
Let's take as given that the statistical aptitude for programming in the general population is much lower than in the population of professional software engineers. Basically, if all of the women you've met and are using as a basis for your hypothesis are not your co-workers, then you are sampling from completely different sets.
If we presume you are familiar with n women (and they are picked randomly from the general population) then yes, it is very likely that they have a lower aptitude for programming than the set of your male colleagues. But this lower aptitude would apply to any random set picked from the general population irrespective of sex, or any other factor.
" it is the early stage education system to introduce programming to wider range of people"
Yes, this.
>lower average aptitude for programming than in the population of males
How did interest turn into aptitude?
Sorry, poor choice of words. I mean 'A quality which increases the likelihood of being employed as a programmer'- this is just not interest, though. But yeah, not a deeply insightful comment, given I tried to play with back of the envelope statistics and ended up with a low quality scheme myself.
Basically hypothesis: back in the day, programming is niche and needs self-motivation -> More boys were interested in video games -> Became programmers latter.
And if you really read through my post, the sampling is here not to be about women programmers...it is about gamers population in male programmer.
I know it's my own bias, but no one was writing articles for me when I was "sticking out like a 'sore thumb'" in HS for being smart and nerdy instead of cool.
I totally agree that there's a problem of disrespect towards those who are new (apparently more if they are women), and I'm cool with focusing on fixing that. But describing the abundance of nerds in the field as "what can we do about it?", as if that was a problem? Give me a break.
</rant>
The article does not state anything like that. Unless you have kids and are actively stopping your daughter from using a computer.
'But describing the abundance of nerds in the field as "what can we do about it?", as if that was a problem? Give me a break.'
If there is a societal bias from stopping people trying things they might be actually good at based on their sex organs I see that as a problem.
It's not about categorizing being a nerd as 'good' or 'bad'. It's being aware and negating filters based on obsolete stereotypes.
The article's conclusion is more along the lines of: "We're a self-selected group in the programming world now and we often unconsciously project messages that make others who have the potential to diversify the group feel cut out based on metrics that actually have no relevance to their ability to execute programming tasks well"
Highlighted by the often off-hand comments like "oh you don't know that?", "this is so easy!" etc. I think it's more about messaging to let people know "Hey you don't have to be like me and love video games, have made your own arduino project, be active on github, and all that noise to be a good programmer"
No one is out to make you feel guilty; one of the questions the article brings up is questioning how you, as a seasoned / skilled developer are handling less-seasoned / less-skilled developers.
No one was writing articles for you when you were sticking out like a sore thumb for ... so that's kinda like an angry toddler screaming 'it's not fair mom'.
About that sticking out like a sore thumb in HS. How about being smart and not nerdy in HS? Then you get shunned by 2 groups of people: the nerdy smart ones and the not-nerdy 'dumb' ones. I'm glad we're seeing people writing about this.
Granted this was 9 years ago, but when I was in computer engineering we had a few classes with only 1 female. All the nerdy types flocked to her and were very inclusive with team projects.
I'm a partner in a 6 yr old business and I've just recently started to see more women programmers. Most of my job postings would get zero female applicants. However, my last 2 engineering hires were women that came through our internal network and they've been excellent.
Account managers and project managers - generally women applicants. Engineers = male nerds of all types. I welcome more female engineers but it's challenging to hire them if there aren't enough and they don't apply.
EDIT: spelling
Based on... which facts exactly?
Edit: As far as I can see, the picture is that there's a bunch of socially inept males that some shadowy powers carefully select to make a mysoginistic getto to keep women at bay.
This is utterly ridiculous, no matter which amount of social science "evidence" you put into it. I'll be retired by then, but I'm pretty sure enough time will put this crazy notion to rest.
I don't think anyone's claiming that.
For example, the book "The Computer Boys Take Over" quoted all over in TFA claims that the drive to "professionalize" programming and make it more "engineering like" was specifically to drive women out, after men found out the profession was gaining status and money in the late 70ies and early 80ies.
Which is ridiculous on so many fronts, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry. And of course makes me not give too much credit to anyone basing their argument on that book.
Have you seen what happens when there are no employers? Open source projects, I mean. It's qualified then as a "toxic culture" with "ambient pressure", "terrified women" and so on.
There is a handful of nonsense viruses that survive and flourish in the interwebs, concepts that are instantly rejected as absurd but have enough followers to keep then alive for years. Either you detect them early or you will be pushed by peer pressure (until the fad goes away).
Unfortunately the clear feeling that something is totally wrong and backwards (like EU defending Samsumg right to push its crap instead of Google apps) fades very quickly to propaganda.
Yes. For example, I looked at some online "implicit bias" test from some well-respected university. Well, started to take.
One of the first questions was whether I associated "black" (in general) with sports. I do. It was obvious that answering truthfully was going to dramatically up my "implicit bias" score.
But I don't do this because I am biased, I do this because my lived experience tells me this association is a true reflection of the world. I was on my high school's track team. In a school that was (guessing) >90% white, I was the only white guy on the sprint relay team. When going to the next level (county championships), I was the fastest white guy in the 200m that I competed in. I was also the only white guy (came in 4th of 6) in the 200m finals. Or look at the running competitions in the Olympics. Bias my ass.
Aaaand...it doesn't apply to individuals. When I see President Obama, I don't think "sports", I think "President of the United States", and "amazing speaker" and "says things like 'that makes no sense' when people make no sense". And
But I guess "reality = bias" these days.
See also: "Stereotype Inaccuracy: A Belief Impervious to Data"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201408/st...
While some may claim this, it is not stated in the article at all and I don't think this is a mainstream opinion. Also the article actually gave detail about this shift in targeting with the SDC recruiting procedure - and it is clear it was about optimising the work environment - and not to exclude women. This also coincided with the rise of the PC which was targeted at boys - again because they thought they would increase their profits, not because they don't like girls messing with the boy hobbies (it even sounds ridiculous). As I mentioned in my first comment, what we have as a result is not everyone gets equal exposure to computers in similar conditions based on their gender and hence fewer women end up interested in the field.
This is no more than coach psicology.
Is it unimaginable that this might be uncomfortable?
...help me out here. Because nerds are icky?
Do you think they flocked for the lone woman's benefit?
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexual-harassme...
There's really a gap between "scientific surveys" and the terrain I've seen. In my last project as contractor there were 9 male/developers and 4 females with a management title. The meantime-to-management I've seen is 2 years after graduation for women, 7 years for males. All 15% females of my 150-student class are now in management positions, 10 years after IT master's degree, and only 50% of the male students. If a women really wants to know what discrimination is, just step in as a male.
I've left companies where I wasn't promoted and created my startup 3 years ago. Sounds like my skills weren't the problem: I'm doing better than seasoned product managers who left the same company and created startups in my field, so as a developer I'm better at product management than my previous employer foresaw. But it sure seemed very important to my previous employer to promote a female team lead.
No that is NOT my opinion, I just want to highlight the logic flaw I see here. You cannot say that the same thing (underrepresentation) is a problem in one case and not in the other, that's just .. weird.
There's no path for promotion beyond "developer" without becoming a manager, but then you're not doing the work you're great at, so there's a disincentive to promote you, but the developers want to have career growth, so they get restless and eventually leave the company for a different one, usually getting a salary boost but possibly still being stuck as a 'developer' because they saw no advancement at their previous company.
I'm struggling through a similar situation now, although I have project management and team lead experience, I was never officially promoted because they were small companies and didn't want to bump my salary (or believed they had a flat heirarchy and "titles were meaningless").
Is is unimaginable that this might not? Maybe because it was made respectfully and in a friendly manner? Could the fact that the person telling it didn't mention any rejection mean that this was the case? Why are we talking in questions all the time?
Assuming they were being creepy or coming on hard to her because they took interest is just wrong. I think it could be intimidating for some women in a similar situation but that's normal if you're extremely outnumbered. I was offered a job at a women's fashion company once. It was a little intimidating with the sheer number of beautiful women, the different culture and the tiny tech team. I didn't take the job because they didn't have a proper budget, not because I felt women were making me uncomfortable. They weren't.
When you're around a lot of similar people, it's refreshing to work with someone with a different background. People are naturally curious. Did some talk to her because they thought she was cute? Perhaps, but that's not a crime. My point was that I don't believe male programmers are exclusive of women and programmers are merit-based people at heart. They want to work with women. There's just not many of them.
This is just my experience, but I've been in several industries and the only thing I've ever witnessed in tech was one guy who was mildly creepy with another female employee and she was friends with him. In other industries like hospitality and real estate - they are tightly controlled by men and there's a lot of obvious sexism and I've seen several sexual harassment claims. Yet, there are a lot more women in them than tech.
That woman would have had to question why the nerdy types were so keen to include her. There's a huge difference between a motive of "Let's invite someone to our team because they're a great engineer" and "Let's invite someone to our team because they're hot and they might agree to date me once they really know me".
Being keen to include someone is great if it's for the right reasons.
One could almost think that human behaviour is complex, but only almost .. everything is black and white, go on, nothing to see here. /s
For a problem you need a problem definition or things get very murky, very fast and you end in "just do the normal thing" territory, which is what I wanted to highlight with my comment above.
I thought that too once, then I learned that not everyone thinks people should have access to adequate food, shelter and medical care. I've since stopped from assuming anything when dealing with humans. People never cease to amaze me in their sheer capacity to be abyssimal to each other.
(Warning, potential topic derailment lies ahead ..)
I'd love to see an experiment where they put one female in a class of men of various backgrounds and aspirations. Perhaps: liberal arts class, Ag class, business class, etc. and see what happens.
I'd be willing to bet that the engineering class would be the most respectful.
I would like to add that suggesting that the majority of programmers were/are the 'majority' (in a societal sense) in the west is also disingenuous. It seems a bit self-serving for the author to not mention that technology, even at the time, was a place where many homosexual but otherwise 'socially-awkward, white, male programmers' thrived and made incredible bounds. If you think women suffered from marginalisation in the 40s and 50s (they did)... imagine being a homosexual.
Whether the article is about the ENIAC or not, you need to consider all facts when you make a factual statement, even if they do not serve your thesis.
Edit: sorry if I'm a bit passionate about this... I wrote my grade 5 speech on the ENIAC and I've always held the men and women who designed and operated it in incredibly high esteem. Some crazy old man said something once about 'standing on the shoulders of giants' and I feel that is very relevant when discussing the ENIAC.
Turing was prosecuted as soon as his usefulness in the war effort ended, so I don't think they made that many bounds. And if we're going to have a good ol' oppression-off how about blacks? They weren't anywhere in programming, and sadly still aren't.
[0] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
It says a great deal about your motives when you speak facetiously about the struggle of others as if it's just a trump card to be used in debate. I could digress into a rant about academics here but I'll hold my tongue and let you use your imagination.
It's like showing up at an event to fight cancer, and complaining that and heart disease isn't getting its due. Yes, heart disease is important too, but that's not why we're here.
I wasn't trying to start a 'who has it worse' pissing contest, I was pointing out that making a broad generalisation about all white men is discriminatory and unfair... a bit ironic for an article discussing discrimination against women. There are people in all ethnicities, sexes, sexual orientations and classes that have faced adversity, you can't use someone's demographic to determine how much. Turing probably looked like your average socially awkward, white, male programmer up until he was chemically castrated and killed himself.
Using the term 'socially awkward' seems more like a schoolyard taunt than an unbiased description of a demographic... especially when similarly alienating treatment is what caused many to want an escape and persue computers in the first place. The shallow see awkwardness, but others recognise it as the detachment and eccentricity that often accompanies intellect.
Showing up to an event to fight cancer will have null effect unless you're doing research or dropping off a cheque anyway, so what's the harm in bringing up heart disease while you're there?
I have to disagree with you. I'm from Africa, and I can point you to many African programmers.
Maybe in your country where blacks is a minority(?) you don't see black programmers. But in the last 10 years of my programming career. I worked next to black competent peers.
I am one of 2 white people in my dev team. We have one Indian and one Asian. The other 15 devs are all black.
Even today, many male OSS progammers have low status. Women in general (there are counterexamples) know this perfectly well and thus shun work in open source.
Don't tell me that it's about their treatment in OSS. Men treat each other badly in OSS, if anything, women are treated more politely (if they appear ...).
To give some background, I started in the late 80's and early 90's in Canada. There were very few womon in my CS program (I recall it was 5 our of 140 in the graduating class), but even still in my early career, I was never on a team without women. I would say that between 10-20% of the programmers I worked with were women of various cultural backgrounds. That's not a huge percentage, but compared to the numbers graduating it was quite high.
In the first 15 years I worked as a programmer I can only think of a single female programmer that wasn't particularly competant. Everybody else was excellent. I often had conversations with them about why they got into programming and the vast majority of women I worked with said the same thing: programming was the best way to get into management. They felt that every other avenue was blocked by the old boys club and that as a programmer there was no ceiling. As such, these programmer often came with other skills that those of use who were just looking for the new technical hotness (myself included) did not have. I think eveybody I worked with highly valued that diversity.
This is not to say that there weren't women who were just in it for the programming. I met several women in the course of my early career who had very similar interests and abilities to myself. It's just that in the companies I worked in 80-90% of the men would be obsessive-compulsive technophiles and 80-90% of the women would be level-headed get-the-job-done types. Those women usually did very well and were promoted quickly (and the technically-minded ones struggled to get into management, just like the technically-minded men).
Fast forward a couple of decades and I find the landscape seems different. At my present position we have yet to hire a single female programmer. The thing is that nobody applies. When we do get female applicants they often look excellent and I think we have given job offers to every women we have interviewed. Usually they are good enough that we try to stretch our budget to get them. We have been overbid (by a substantial margin) with every single female candidate. So while it seems like the available female candidates are still of high quality, they are in much higher demand than 20 or 30 years ago.
On the other hand, I have noticed a dramatic shift in the types of male applicants we get. Like I said, 20-30 years ago male programmers were often fit the stereotypical mold (in my experience -- YMMV). These days I would say that more than half of the applicants we interview have very little interest in programming outside of it being a high paying job. So you get some cultural mismatches. You end up with the old guard saying things like, "You're not a real programmer" when they are talking to someone who is cutting and pasting stuff from stack overflow. Of course, we used to say the same thing to the guys who were cutting and pasting from MSDN or passing off GNU software as their own. It's just that having the alpha dog barking at the pups to get them in line was the normal way of working.
I wonder if in the midst of this cultural change, women are getting a bit lost. On the one hand you are getting a lot more men coming into the field who are not technical primadonnas. So it is easy for a lot of women who get interested in programming late in life to identify with those men the most. However, I think along with that cultural change we get a lot of baggage. The old boys club gets sucked in along with it. Where I used to hear women tell me how great the computer industry is because there was no ceiling, now they tell me that they are actively and often blatantly discriminated against. At the same time, they see the technical alpha dogs barking up a storm and think, "I don't want to get anywhere near that person".
I suppose at the end of this long (and I guess pointless) rant, it's just one more perspective. I really wish more women would get into the field because I miss working with women. There seems to be huge demand too. I hope we can get over this cultural speed bump and make it happen.
I was going to write something about self-selection in the field, but I think you have made a more important point there. The technically competent loudmouths attract attention, as well as a disproportionately large audience. For pretty much anyone looking from the outside it appears as a kind of cheerleader-driven mob mentality. And we are surprised that the industry actively repels people who do not fit into this mold?
This also has become a perverse selective trait. The women in the industry are those who entered and remained despite of the atmosphere. Some ignored it, some adapted to it, some even encouraged it. But all of them have had their reasons to continue working in the field. And due to the otherwise repelling selection bias, they are generally way above the mean as far as skills and competence go.[+] As much as dread to quote from Ender's Game, I think Card nailed it: "Your only option is to be so good that nobody can ignore you."
Our engineering is currently 30-odd strong, and we are lucky to have attracted six women so far. We must be doing something (or likely many somethings) right.
+: Of the 5 best systems engineers I have met over the past ~20 years, two have been women. They hold the spots #1 and #3, respectively.
EDIT: turned footnote-asterisk into a plus sign to prevent unintentional italics.
So for the women I know, the distribution seems to be compressed and shifted to the right a bit. I have absolutely no idea if that matches with other people's experience. Or, indeed, if my experience with male workers matches their experience.
See also: "Anyone who thinks psychological sex diffs are wholly learned has lot of explaining to do" https://www.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/attachme...
There isn't any scientific metric for artfulness so art schools can use any gauge they feel like to filter out prospective students.
This is a much bigger problem than just the software industry in the US. I'm a Navy veteran, as a nuclear reactor plant mechanic. I remember being shocked in MEPS (the enlistment and entry processing center for all branches of the armed forces) by the number of black men enlisting in the Army and Marine infantry - it's much higher than the local population would suggest. But of the roughly thousand or so people I worked with as Nukes in the Navy, I can recall only one black man. The trend is just as strong in college. While I'm working as a software engineer today, my degree isn't in CS: its in Mechanical Engineering. The same trend applies there, too. I've worked with a grand total of one black engineer professionally, and he was an intern! There is a serious problem in this country with our failure to attract black and latino talent to engineering. Its pretty frustrating to see all the media attention focused on bringing women into CS, while almost zero attention is being focused on the lack of black and latino engineers.
I can't point to any single factor that is driving this trend. But it must happen in High School or earlier, since it's already totally broken by the time folks are graduating HS.
Computer science isn't much different. All the math coursework hazing is why I have a history degree and a minor in CS - the minor let you take all the interesting stuff, without the 4-5 semesters of poorly taught, mostly useless math department coursework.
I started as a EE. My diff EQ professor literally did the stunt "look to your left, look to your right, of the three of you, only one will pass my class." I was the only caucasian to pass, but I made a D, and rather than re-take the class I decided that EE wasn't for me.
There was only one way to ace that class, and that's to live inside it. I have a very good mind for math, but I was also interested in lots of other things: music, theater, philosophy, humanities, business, politics. The same semester I had made a D in Diff EQ I had also taken a Phil 101 (Logic) class which I aced. I was also a walk-on in a play that semester.
The dean of the engineering school called me to his office to tell me I wasn't the sort of student the EE program was looking for. I left and got an MIS degree, where I could develop as a much more rounded student.
Looking back some 30 years later, I realize now that the dean was literally telling me that they don't want well-rounded EE students. He was literally telling me, in spite of being in the top 1/3 of my class (math-wise) the very fact that I wasn't willing to forgo Logic and my theater activities to become a better calculus student made me a misfit. The whole point of making Diff EQ so amazingly difficult was specifically to weed out those who did anything but study Diff EQ.
So in the end, I made the right decision for myself and my career. And I've learned a healthy suspicion of companies that tend to exclusively hire ace engineering students.
But even though I breezed through it in high school, my classmates didn't, even the AP courses. So I'm not sure how much that could be ramped up. I do think at least discrete math could be taught earlier, though.
Why?
I think equal opportunity is a better goal than equal representation. Forced equal representation can quickly deteriorate to racism/sexism.
Inequality in the name of equality.
So for creating any sense of equality in society it's a fact that there needs to be more or less equal representation. Yes there is IQ disparity which probably decreases chances further of finding elite employment. But there are outliers in every population, enough to create equal representation.
Life is inherently unfair. There will always be differences in power. The goal can't be to assign equal power to everyone because it is impossible. The best goal is to ensure that there isn't a huge difference in power. Equal opportunity provides that guarantee.
That was not a passive activity. So is it any real surprise that it might have long-lasting effects that need active, rather than passive, countering?
EDIT: your comment reads differently after your addition of the second paragraph so now I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you or answering a rhetorical question or what. Regardless...
Government sponsored education for the unprivileged is much better than the ham fisted bandaid of making companies match percentages of different segments.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black...
The groups that suffer the most from "equal representation" are immigrants and their children. These people tend to be high achievers, competing in the upper echelon where every little difference counts. It is unfair to punish these people for actions that were done when they were not even in the country.
Even if there is some way to only target the children of the perpetrators, it isn't fair to punish people for simply being related to the perpetrators.
What happened in the past is wrong and unfair, but reparations will just displace the hurt from one group to another.
To continue your analogy:
"I'm not Asian, so I'm not good at math, but perhaps if I were Asian I could be. Those guys do math all the time and they love it; its impossible for a Caucasian guy like me to be any good at it. I spent 10 hours on my calculus work and Li did it in 30 minutes and got a higher grade. I'm just not Asian."
The linked article [1] literally does not even contain the word "Asian". Am I missing something here?