The (un)importance of gender in programming
lorettahe.org
lorettahe.org
Equally it's probably not very helpful if the distillation of your point is "women ('girls'): have you even tried talking to your peers?". Of course they have, it's the most obvious thing to try. To re-iterate, the problem is not that geeky men and women have strong social cues not to interact at all (like some sort of really weird Victorian tea-party), it's that there is a minority of men are actively and aggressively misogynist and the majority of men who aren't refuse to call them on it. Unfortunately there isn't much that women can directly do to change this (hence the perpetuating problem), they can only highlight this behaviour and expect to be treated with professionalism and decency.
Here's an example of what I mean by misogyny: a previous manager at a company printed out an A3 picture of a woman in hotpants and a bra with the caption "Please update your Jira tickets before you go home". When I came in the next day to replace it with a picture of 4 (clothed but sexualized-I think it was a picture of a male stripper troupe) men, I received a disciplinary action from the company. The same manager, when he introduced me to the team, introduced the male programmers as "he works on ToolName" and the female programmers as "she makes things look pretty".
This is reasonable subtle stuff, but I am surprised (though happy) if you've genuinely never encountered it rather than cultivating obliviousness or growing a thick skin.
e.g. it was a running joke at my last job how women didn't know anything about hardware, but there was a male programmer there who repeatedly used "memory" to mean hard disk space and "hard disk" to mean the case, and nobody ever said anything. And a guy can banter back - this guy's comeback when anyone corrected him was "who'd want to know boring nerd stuff like that" - but a woman quickly gets pegged as sour, bitchy or snooty if she talks back.
And after a while of every dumb slip-up being jumped on, is it any wonder that some women don't leap gleefully into the conversation?
(Plus as female coder I am always happy to talk about programming, retro computing, science fiction or other "geek" topics, but 80% of the Man Chat in my office is about cars and Top Gear, which don't interest me at all.)
Don't get me wrong: very few of the male IT professionals I've known have been openly hostile. But there have been those who have seemed slightly confused by my presence and ignored everything I said, those who regularly met up outside work without asking me and months later said "we would have asked you, but we didn't think you'd be interested", those who say nothing when someone louder insults women...
...and the ones who rush to applaud when a woman insults another woman, which to be honest I found your post rather close to with its implication that any woman who's had a harder time in IT is whiny, antisocial or doesn't "know their shit". (Apologies if this reply just seems to continue that trend. I'm grateful to you for starting this topic, which I've found interesting, at any rate.)
If women programmers are surrounded by men all day because 95+ percent of programmers are men, it makes sense that it's not an ideal work environment (not that it's unworkable, just not ideal). Until women reach a certain representation in the field (maybe 20-30 percent?), why not cluster together and make a point of working together? To say, "Being one in a hundred is just fine" seems to leave the problem unsolved.
Try telling this to the women doing the same work as men but being paid less; and not getting promotions; and not even getting the jobs in the first place - all just because they are women.
> To not feel like an outsider in a place, is to precisely NOT do what these articles seem to be suggesting - singling yourselves out.
Strongly agree with this.
Well, you can't see it. The only people who know someones salary (generally speaking) are the bosses doing the paying, and the employee herself. You must be another employee, because otherwise you'd know for certain.
It seems obvious to say it, but these problems persist because they're largely hidden from view, unless you are the target.
The sad thing is, I can't really do anything about it. I don't know the salaries of any of the women at my work, and even if I did I can't request more money on their behalf, only stand behind them if they are the instigator and they're unfairly refused.
Instead, I decided to just drop my salary amount into conversations sometimes (it's probably middle of the road for developers at my company), so anyone can compare and make their own evaluations based on that. I don't know if thats good idea or not at the moment.
[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/08/internat...
You have provided statistics that show women get paid less than men in technology. But this does not show that women are not getting promoted, or are getting paid less, just because they are women.
Is it not also another plausible hypothesis that they are getting paid less, because, (for example) they make work/life balance choices that focus less on career advancement?
This of course, might indicate that there are other issues to be addressed, with how society structures work/life balance, gender roles etc and this is well trodden ground; but statistics that show women get a lower average (or median) pay do not necessarily show they are getting paid less, "just because they are women".
If "work/life balance choices" is code for "making babies", then yes, but you made have noticed that it's mainly women who have babies. :)
Pay rates until primigravidity are lower for women than men in most industries and (less) low for men than women in a few. After that the "male bonus" increases more than the fertility rates would suggest they ought to. There are lots of conclusions that can be drawn from that, but I think the most obvious one is that employers haggle down women returning to work from childcare, and that from that age women pay a penalty "because they might go and make babies". There's some evidence (comparison with other countries with different patterns of childcare) that this is the case.
I believe women and older candidates get less of a chance at interview because they are seen as less likely to be interested in putting up with that and may disrupt the clubhouse feel of all lads together.
Obviously it's not absolute proof but I know plenty of fellow programmers who've been expected to work 60+ hour weeks on 37.5-hour contracts, where anyone who's reluctant gets shunned by coworkers for not getting into the company spirit and is let go quickly. And those places have been almost all male and mostly under 35.
This is of course not just to the detriment of women, older men and anyone with a family, but also the young men who get manipulated into working hours they're not being paid for.
There is very little evidence suggesting that the problems you describe are a serious problem in coding, so bringing up these hypothetical problems is a bit confusing.
Maybe it's easier to understand the issue if you replace women with another group of people. Imagine if black people, jewish people or LGBT as a group were paid 90% of their counterparts. Does that make it easier to grasp why this is a serious problem.
Lets make it even easier. Would you still feel that it's not a serious problem if white men as a group were discriminated against, were getting less promotions and were paid less than their colleges.
Coding and programming is not a vacuum that exists outside of society.
What would make it easier to grasp that this is a serious problem is if you had evidence it occurred to any significant degree. You are telling me a huge business opportunity exists and no one is exploiting it.
If you can find good women being paid less for doing the same job or who find themselves not getting hired, send them my way. I'd love to hire them myself.
Until you do (or hire them yourself), I'm lumping you in with all the inefficient market crackpots.
You also realize that your link looks at age, but not work experience. I.e., a 35 year old woman who vanished from the workforce at age 28 gets paid less than a man who didn't. Not discrimination. It's lesser pay for lesser experience.
Definitely agree
'Know your shit' - yes this goes for everyone!
These blog articles seem pointless in comparison.
This right here. An overwhelming majority of hackers, geeks and guys working in IT are so absolutely alright and wonderful to deal and hang out with and I cannot reconcile the average hacker with discriminating against women, this simply doesn't fit. On top of that most hackers will be so happy to have a chance to have girls around in an industry that seems to draw more than 90% men... look, it's not like we try to keep you gals out or anything, it's just that so many girls aren't even remotely interested in the strange things we do and of the ones who are interested still quite many don't make it through the programming courses in university then - or at least this has been my experience. The image of the hacker and our profession is definitely changing to the better nowadays, so there is something to look forward to. In my experience the average office full of true hackers is a wonderful place to work, no back-stabbing, friendly positive atmosphere and lots of fun to be had.
And I never had the impression that hacker gals actually get paid less for the same position, at least not in the IT industry? Or is it just as common a problem as in other industries?
Like the guy who calls everything "gay" when he finds something insufficiently male or good. And the last time I invited a female into my workplace, my male coworkers thought it was perfectly normal and funny to put down women's achievements. (And by mainstream standards, I guess it was.) She was fuming afterwards.
To be not-quite-so-sexist takes active work, because we are embedded in a sexist society. Being sexist is the neutral default. I think I'm sexist. Maybe every man I've met is.
It's better than in most fields, see http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-251007.html, for instance. From what I remember when I looked into this last, you'll find very different actual numbers from each source, but generally speaking, there is a very real gap (at least amongst older workers), but it's smaller in tech than most places.
The absence of a disproportionate pay gap would seem to cast a bit of doubt on the idea that this field is so much more misogynistic than most, though that certainly doesn't mean there's nothing to be concerned about. Those numbers also don't (I think) account for people moving "up and out" of engineering and into management, and I suspect those stats might make things more lopsided.
As to why the article does not use the word boy:
1. As I said, such terms are usually used as endearment, for the group you belong to. Phrases like "Us girls can program, too", or "Boys, let's go get this YC interview" are common and you cannot replace women and men in these contexts. I think the OP was using girl in this sense in her post.
2. The correct counterpart to the use of girl seems to be guy (although there are phrases like "old boy's network", etc.) mainly, I think, because of alliteration. Some opponents to sexist language are offended by guy, too.
To reiterate my point, as hackers let us think about and then act rather than regurgitate rules that may be dictated by others. Let us not do simple string matching for offensive words but set our regular expressions wide to check the context that words are being used.
P.S. An interesting parallel to this discussion would be the debate on the use of the N-word, which is considered taboo by many but used by others freely.
But again, I think it's frankly weird that when someone makes a request for consensus you start talking about "rules" that are "dictated" that "ban" speech. Would you call a co-worker who was older than you "mum"? Probably not. Are you "banned" from doing so? No. Was that a "rule" that was "dictated"? No.
I'll just point this out:
The words "boy" and "girl" are usually used for endearment The correct counterpart to the use of girl seems to be guy
From my point of view (and I don't mean this insultingly--I have felt almost identically and it wasn't out of malice), your concern to not be dictated to is not a resistance to authority but an (unconscious) attempt to perpetuate a sexist status quo.
I felt similarly that the original comment was not a request for consensus, but more of a loaded question implying that it's never ok to call an adult woman a girl (which is why I asked the OP to elaborate elsewhere in the thread).
Addressing an adult human using a child's label is condescending, period. I certainly don't appreciate being called a boy, and I haven't referred to a female colleague as a girl since I was in my teens. Further, if you haven't noticed the consistent way in which comments here have used the words men and girls then I think you're not reading very closely.
> ... invalidate my statement by dismissing me as hypersensitive
> Addressing an adult human using a child's label is condescending, period
> I certainly don't appreciate being called a boy ...
> comments here have used the words men and girls
1) She doesn't have much corporate experience yet, and is drawing conclusions based on her limited experience.
2) She's not in a position of authority... sexism really shows its ugly face when there are power differentials where the woman is on top.
3) She's not yet of an age where child bearing is typically discussed, once she hits her 30's she'll have to deal with this regardless if she wants to have children.
4) Just because you're female doesn't mean you arn't sexist.
As others have pointed out, it is a very small minority of problem people. However, they can have a very adverse affect on an individual woman and her career. Sexism is something we should all be actively aware of and do our best to counter when we see it. It only takes a few corrections (by a male colleagues) to address some of the more prevalent issues -- but you have to do it or the sexism will persist.
In your comment, you've painted a picture of the OP as a naive (if somewhat dimwitted, for not understanding life's basics) girl who doesn't have a child, not in a position of authority, etc. whereas in reality you don't know if these are true of her. The only thing she mentions in her post is that she's been in the "IT industry for a few years". For all I know, she may be married with two kids, leading a small project.
So, in chastising her for the sexism you perceived, you commit the same basic sin, your comment is very condescending. I would rather have a well-meaning colleague call me a girl, rather than having someone write this comment about me.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not uncommon on HN, people react to certain thing in such a way that on a more basic level invalidates their point. A recent example was the debate on reddit's removal of certain subreddits, where people, who normally are against censorship, SOPA, etc., were very pleased that some "pedos" now cannot get their fix. In many cases I think this happens (I'm not saying this applies to you, too) because people hold a bunch of attitudes without analyzing them to arrive at an axiomatic set of beliefs. The unexamined belief is not worth having.
This article is really about talking to males at work about geeky stuff and that we don't have to feel so special. Regarding childbearing, all women in other industries have to do it too, and there doesn't seem to be MathTeacherLadies or groups talking about this kind of things. We are sitting in front of a computer all day long, like many other office jobs, and those other industries have male and female workers working in the same office too, why is IT so strange and special?
Sexism is a problem in workplaces across all industries, and I do, as most others, hope the occurrences of such horrid incidents will gradually disappear over time.
All I wanted to say in the article was, in IT, being male or female does not, and should not matter. At work, as a female, one CAN join in nice conversations with males. A female geek does not have to talk to a female geek about geeky things. That's the only thing. I did not intend to refer to sexism. It was not the original intent of the article. If I have offended you with my article, I sincerely apologise.
When other people offer "rules" like don't use this word, don't do this or that, think for yourself rather than taking hythloday's, clarevans' or my comments at face value: Why is it wrong to use girl, what are the causes of sexism in the workplace, what evidence or arguments do these people offer. For me, a big part of what separates hackers from the masses is this questioning of authority , curiosity, and thinking for ourselves. I wonderful book in this regard is Christopher Hitchens' Letters to a Contrarian.
</jedi_master_mode>
P.S. And do submit stories and comment more often on HN!
I'm specifically responding to the last paragraph in your post where you're characterizing PyLadies as a "strange female programmer group". I'm absolutely certain most members of PyLadies are quite comfortable "talking to guys". This isn't about inability of some women to work as a programmer in a male dominated hierarchy. This isn't about the vast majority of nerds in software development. It is about power dynamics that will impact your career.
Perhaps I.T. is "strange and special" for women because technologists, in general, tend to have more leverage with regard to management/owners than in other industries.
And girl/boy are not quite analogous. "Boy" can be used in a belittling way, but it more often used in phrases like "one of the boys" to mean easy-going and fun: a positive statement about someone's ability to work in groups.
It's not an easy point: there's a few women I know who think that not using "girl" means that you think they are too old to be attractive. I think that often holds in both the US and the UK; it used to be true here in Germany, but I think calling a woman "Maedchen" in her workplace today is positively offensive.
I advise you not to call female colleagues girls in the office, and be sensitive outside the office. It's a good topic to raise in conversation.
I'm totally aware it's not always appropriate to use such terms.
"Are intrinsic differences between the sexes responsible for the underrepresentation of women in mathematical and scientific disciplines ?"
I think so.
But you should have thinked about that by yourself; another example of woman logic I guess.
[0] This moron got downvoted because downvoting is not socially awkward; how many times do you see a social smack-on-the-wrist in a face-to-face conversation?
[1] I'll donate £5 to a charity of your choice for every time someone comes up with an attributed accusation of using "man logic" in a discussion related to programming.
No. The evidence suggests that Larry Summers was right, namely that men have a higher variance than women, though means are close to equal.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5888/494.summary
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2889145
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038941
Seriously, the difference in math test scores between male and female students in different countries tracks sexual discrimination...
Yes - the more gender equity you have, the better boys do relative to girls. (The scores of both genders improve with gender equity, but boy's scores improve more.)
http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf
This document also shows that the greater male variance is mostly invariant across cultures.