Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech
attendly.com
attendly.com
Negativity is never the way to win [anything]. We didn't go to the moon with negativity and as people, we can't get over things with negativity. I recently got in a position similar to yours (oh well, no meme though) and I heartily agree: Negativity only begets more negativity.
I would love to write paragraph upon paragraph about how negativity can change you and how "doers do" and other pretty zen philosophical quotes, but I have none under the hand and that would just be repeating myself. So I'll just say it straight: Be positive :)
I believe in building, because, despite all those who would destroy and tear things asunder, we builders continue to make progress. Bit by it, piece by piece, the world is becoming a better place.
Since you don't go into any actual details about what set the situation off, it makes it really hard for me to take your anecdote too seriously.
Since you don't go into any actual details about the basis of your comment, it makes it really hard for me to take your remembrances too seriously.
Hmmmm, it seems to me that asking a question would be an invitation to provide details. Making a statement about how other individuals in similar situations have been deeply wrong comes across, to me, as an invitation to defensiveness and conflict.
Why not ask simply, "Can you provide more details?"
Read the article. (Or better yet, just its headline.) It doesn't focus on men. It focusses on how bitter angry women are holding females back. An article men can upvote!
We know the power of the Dark Side, and warn you from it. For your own good, naturally. The best advice comes from people who don't take it themselves.
Be a team player. We men never complain. (Except for this one subject.) Can you imagine Larry Ellison complaining? Steve Jobs? Bill Gates? No, of course not. This trait they shared with Jesus, who famously also never complained.
(Now, you may google that and ask, "What about the Pharisees? And a fig tree he cursed to wither and die, because for some reason it didn't give him fruit out of season? Plus, wasn't he always complaining about his Apostles?" The answer is that was the historical brown Jesus, and you know how uppity Middle Easterners are. I'm talking about White Jesus with the soft eyes. Who's all about turning the other cheek and taking it.)
Perceptions are generally not nuanced and often lag 10-15 years behind. If you take the interaction of gender and ethnicity into account, you actually see an interesting reversal at the 99th percentile for Asian Americans where there are where there are 1.37 F for every 1.25 M. There is another study that shows Asian females score higher on STEM subject exams when they had to write a short essay about being Asian prior to the exam, but scored lower when they had to write about being female. (I'll try to add the citation later when I find it.)
Overall, I think the macro strategy of making female role models more visible is an effective one, and may well pay off in the next decade or so. Another reasonable strategy may well involve immigration reform with a special eye towards people who have focused on STEM subjects. Perhaps extra H1B slots for techie females? (I haven't thought this one through yet, but it may be worth exploring.)
Side note: It is also interesting to note that there are a substantially higher percentage of female Iranian mathematicians, and some of those mathematicians have noted that some of this is due to the cultural perception that highly theoretical pursuits (including theoretical computer science and theoretical physics) are not "too masculine" and are less likely to be dissuaded from pursuing the field.
That's the real balance that we need to reach for -- and unlike what many people seem to think, this ratio is not necessarily 50%.
Thus, advertising.
We're trying to fix the advertising.
Fixing the culture of tech and the role of gender in our society more broadly is a major part of what's needed to deal with these issues. And part of that is helping some women--and mean--realize that they want to be in tech despite false impressions they have about their abilities and what working in tech means.
I don't know, I can only guess. You can see my guess below.
> Do you think it's because women are inherently much less interested in tech? Or do you think it's because our society imposes stereotypes and values on women, and gives very "macho" impressions?
It's probably a combination of both, I'm not ruling out either case (or even getting close to ruling out either case).
I feel like too many people are ruling out the former entirely (or just not realizing it's a possibility altogether) which doesn't make sense. You have to keep both in mind, and realize that your goal isn't an absolute 50%, it's the natural ratio, which may of course change over time.
Just curious, why not? There are many obvious physical differences between men and women, why not mental as well?
Divide the number of women who want to be in tech by the number of people who want to be in tech and you have the ratio.
But yes, we obviously have to do some work to figure out the numbers.
You can think of it in terms of Maslow's Pyramid.
Societies at the top of the pyramid are filled with individuals that no longer need to take the highest paying jobs, but can now take jobs that uniquely fulfill their interests and desires. And it could very well be that taken as two bell curves, the interests of women are different from the interests of men, two overlapping bell curves, but with different means, and different variances. Concluding that try as hard as you might, it just may be that women do not want to work in tech and preferentially prefer different sorts of occupation.
There's a story about boxing in America, and that is as various poor immigrant groups came to America, they each in their time rose to the tops of boxing. The Irish, the Jews, the Italians, & the African Americans. These groups saw boxing as a way to rise above their income levels. And as the various groups either assimilated or as a group rose above their resources, their interest in boxing waned.
http://voices.yahoo.com/ethnic-boxers-america-part-i-105696....
Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, boxing has been a sport dominated by men of meager means and questionable sanity. Who in their right mind would choose to pursue an occupation in which you expose yourself to habitual beatings? Such a calling speaks to men who possess an overabundance of rage, and a dearth of opportunities. Historically, ghettoes are the environment most likely to produce such men. These are neighborhoods where too many people compete for too few resources, and the inhabitants face daily frustrations more profound than those known by more prosperous men.
Something similar could be happening in tech as women in general might prefer occupations that are more female friendly, more family friendly, more human centric, more social, etc., like medicine, or law.
I am explaining this theory, I am not necessarily supporting it. I have no idea why their is a dearth of women in programming. I know in the places I have worked, as a whole there are many women who are often lead developers and managers.
If you're referring to Simon, the psychological researcher, that would be his cousin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen#Personal_life...
How come there's no big outcry to equalize nursing so that men are 50% of the field? How about teaching, women also dominate that field.
Women outnumber men 2 to 1 in high school teaching. They account for 85% of all primary school teachers.
No outcries to equalize those numbers?
Must be sexism in high school teacher hiring.
Must be sexism in nursing hiring.
Must be sexism in primary school hiring.
Oh wait, there could be other explanations.
Disqualifying half the population will reduce the quality of the selection you can make.
The quality of teachers is of critical importance to the effectiveness of education. The effectiveness of education is critical to equality, social cohesion and economic growth.
Actual evidence of sexism in hiring is more persuasive of the presence of sexism, than the ratio of people employed. A standard way to study this is to send out a bunch or resumes in which only the gender changes.
I think there are sexist social pressures on men which reduce their desire to become nurses.
Tech doesn't require a degree - it's a field anyone with a free evening can pick up. It also bears a significantly broader scope than nursing or teaching.
And yet here we are, wondering why so many programmers don't seem to have the skills they need in the profession.
How is that relevant?
That's a bad idea -- it would stigmatize those who entered the field by such a program that they were given their positions, rather then earning them. The same problem exists in race relations, where equality by law conceals equality by merit.
Women are fully qualified to take their place in science and tech -- that's well-understood -- but to force equal numbers would obscure the fact that women can easily earn their place in science and tech.
Read the quote: "The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually _are_ in tech to that of the people who _want_ to be in tech."
How would that be achieved without a law? If a law weren't required, it would already have happened, since, logically and without obstacles, those who want to be in tech would be in tech.
The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.
By changing people's attitudes.
> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.
While legally provable gender discrimination is an issue, I think the bigger issue is changing people's attitudes. I agree that can't happen all by itself, but I do think it can happen without laws. Call me optimistic, but I think all these discussions on Hacker News (and other places) are part of what will change things - that is, people arguing with each other, hashing stuff out, and moving forward. It's a slow, painful process, but, in my opinion, it is the permanent solution.
> By changing people's attitudes.
Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there.
Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech.
The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there.
Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.
Also, you say:
> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field.
Which, to me, implies that you were also assuming qualified people only, since excluding people who aren't qualified is perfectly fair.
Not "also". My point was that the OP's statement disregards the issue of qualification by saying that everyone who wants a position should get one. I emphasized the issue of qualifications, and not "also" but alone.
My use of the word "unfairly" moves the standard to qualified people, which contrasts with that of the OP.
Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech.
The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there.
Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.
People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident. Here's what you said:
"The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech."
Seems pretty clear to me. The above would require a law, a compelling factor. Attitude adjustments wouldn't be enough.
Well, it seems like at least some people understood what I meant:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599351
So maybe you just took it too literally at face value?
I wasn't writing a computer program, I was writing English, so let's try to understand what I was saying instead of attempting to interpret it like a computer.
My entire point was that "equal" isn't necessarily the correct ratio, so if you got that point you got my entire point; if not then you missed it.
That's called being respectful of the views of others, and not presuming to interpret their words in any way one chooses.
> I wasn't writing a computer program, I was writing English, so let's try to understand what I was saying instead of attempting to interpret it like a computer.
I have a better idea -- say exactly what you mean. Don't assume other people will understand things you don't bother to say.
The problem with leaving interpretation of your words to others, is they will interpret your words in ways you didn't intend.
I never assumed; I simply hoped it would be the case. Feel free to believe whatever you think I really meant, I already made my point so if you end up missing it that's perfectly fine with me.
Want to communicate? Communicate. Use words that have universally accepted meanings. Stop assuming that others will or must fill in your blanks for you.
So far, you've tried and failed to argue that incoherence is a virtue and your communications breakdowns are the fault of others. Sorry -- no sale.
> I already made my point ...
The only point you've made is that you haven't made your point -- instead, you assign to others the responsibility for decoding the things you didn't say.
> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.
Doesn't your use of the phrase "unfairly exclude" imply a narrowing of the scope down from "all people who want tech jobs" to "all qualified people who want tech jobs", since excluding unqualified people is fair? I don't understand why now you are arguing that you didn't understand the OP's implied assumption. This statement implies that you did.
Am I missing something?
Why did I post? To emphasize that the OP is encouraging a no-standard standard. My reply adds the requirement that the people be qualified, as opposed to the idea that, as in the OP's original post, everyone who wants a tech position should get one.
My posts emphasize the opposite of what you claim.
> Am I missing something?
Yes, you are. Here is the original content:
"The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech.
That's the real balance that we need to reach for -- and unlike what many people seem to think, this ratio is not necessarily 50%."
No mention of the qualifications of the candidates, only their number, their gender, and their wish to be in tech. It's a competence-blind standard. So I objected. Now I hear that I should have used my psychic abilities to divine the OP's real meaning.
> you didn't understand the OP's implied assumption.
The OP's "implied assumption" is not my responsibility, but that of the originator.
Effective communication starts with ... wait for it ... saying what you mean, and leaving nothing to the imagination. If a reader can reply and say, "Wait ... did you actually mean ...", then something is wrong.
Here's the key phrase:
" ... equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech ..."
If the OP really meant to specify qualified people, she should have said " ... correct the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech by including people qualified to be in tech but unfairly excluded..." or other similar wording.
To assume rather than to specify is to make the classic error of assuming everyone has the same values and attitudes. If that were true, there would be no need to try to communicate ideas.
We've started at that point many years ago; we should be trying to refine our easy first-order approximations instead of living with them forever.
http://www.codersatwork.com/fran-allen.html
Despite this, the author (Peter Seibel) begins his introduction by mentioning Ada Lovelace in the very first sentence. In the next sentence, he talks about the six women - Kay Antonelli, Jean Bartik, Betty Holberton, Marlyn Meltzer, Frances Spence, and Ruth Teitelbaum - who were called to be the first programmers of ENIAC.
I don't know if this was explicitly intentional on Seibel's part, a sort of gender-balancing of the book given its one female interviewee, but it was a nice reminder of how, at one point in time, it wasn't strange at all that women were among the forefront of computer pioneers. Today, the numbers have receded to the point that some people just think that women are inherently not "built" for programming. Well, some clearly were...this isn't like arguing whether the Navy SEALs should let in a real life "G.I. Jane"...given the history of women in programming, it's still a strong possibility that the gender disparity is heavily influenced by social trends and stigma and is something that we can mitigate.
(note: I'm not accusing Seibel of not having enough diversity in his book...it's very likely Fran Allen was the only woman available for his book and who played as interesting a part in history as Robert Knuth, Peter Norvig, and the other big names that Seibel interviews)
Edit: Also, the Fran Allen interview is really interesting. I jumped to it to see her thoughts on the gender disparity, but most of the interview is on her thoughts about early programming, teaching scientists to code, and how C ruined the art of compilers
It was pretty funny imagining her—a petite artsy (actually she was a full-time artist at that point) grandmother type when I talked to her—knocking back shots of whisky with the boys but apparently that's what they all did...
Interestingly, Ada Lovelace, also a woman, is considered the first programmer. She wrote a program to compute the calculate "a sequence of Bernoulli numbers with [Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine]." [1]
Adele Goldberg would have been an excellent interview subject. Not up to the level of interest of Knuth, but certainly up to the level of some of the others.
I try not to jump to conclusions with these things. There's no telling who returned Seibel's calls and who didn't.
I could be wrong, of course.
She was one of the very few women I ever saw in a STEM subject and good at it.
Her husband was Jack Schwartz of the fundamental 'Linear Operators' with Nelson Dunford, as I recall, at Yale. Schwartz was long at Courant and did a programming language SETL, 'set language', for allowing programming via essentially set theory notation.
Second, I have never been asked to participate on a panel. Taken further, I've never felt welcome at any conference in this industry. For the most part, I assumed this was unique to me, especially since I wouldn't really enjoy this activity.
Oh, and another thing: I am lesser than no one. I've always believed that. It galls me to be treated this way, but I haven't the slightest idea what I'm supposed to do when it happens.
How is the lack of women in the tech industry, and the offensive notion that women fair poorly in STEM subjects for no other reason than they're women uttered in the same breath? They shouldn't be for the very same reasons as this post extolls.
> Being told that female students fair poorly in STEM subjects, or that the tech industry is lacking in female programmers, for instance, can reinforce those beliefs within women’s minds, leading them to confirm those stereotypes themselves.
Anyone who believes that women inherently do worse in STEM subjects needs to be called out, in the most negative of terms. No one should say it, period.
However, the lack of women in tech is not a stereotype or a belief. It's a fact. I'm not reinforcing a stereotype by mentioning it, I'm pointing out something that needs to be called out at every step, to root out anyone continuing the above mentioned offensive discrimination against women.
Gender-based discrimination being called out and gender based discrimination being committed must be considered different things.
Outside of a university context, I would agree with you. Statements like this are the reason tenure is still needed in a university setting. No axiom should be sacred if we genuinely care about understanding the world and making the world a better place for everyone.
So non-academics don't have the right to an inquiring mind?
Also, what other lines of inquiry should be forbidden?
I don't think the point is that they inherently do worse, but rather that, currently and on average, they do worse.
Correlation is correlation: whether or not there is a causal relationship doesn't change the correlation.
The solution, put in positive terms, is that if you want things to be better, you need to encourage women to look on the positive side.
In that light, I think that if http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/26/software-for-underserved... gets taken to heart by people in the startup community, that will do more to address this issue than any 10 heartfelt rants about the inequity of the present situation. (For those who don't follow the link, it is patio11 pointing out that if you want to create a successful consumer business, the odds are very good that your primary customers will be women.)
This seems to be one of the main points of this post, but I do not agree. By and large women are subordinate to men in the business world and women do encounter personal and institutionally oriented sexism in tech. Acknowledging and talking about living and dealing with that reality do not reinforce that sexism, that sexism already exists and is a prevalent force and women already know this because they live the experience. On that:
> The sad thing is the effect of repeating these issues on those people who are already affected by the issues themselves, i.e. women who are struggling for equality in the tech and science industries. Hearing that this is a problem, that their field isn’t fair, that men are not including them in the industry the way they should… these negative sentiments are being drilled into the minds of people who could actually change this for the better.
Isn't part of the problem that women are undermined in their attempts to make their working industry and business lives better? What efforts are taken and how they are hampered is directly linked to the current state of how people are treated in business and tech. Sharing that experience is one of the few ways that women can begin form the basis of action that changes communities for the better or creates communities for themselves.
I totally agree with the OP's points of action. However, there are limitations that are externally imposed by women who entered in tech and they have a right to know that. Others have a right to criticize and call out others for sexist rhetoric. On this the OP says:
> No more ‘calling people out’ for making mistakes unless we’re offering to help them fix it.
Someone who is receiving unfair treatment has absolutely no obligation to the person treating them unfairly to be nice to them, so I do not believe this can every be helpful advice where there is a power imbalance. For folks who are peers or part of the same peer group, calling out sexism is an important part of not letting that sexism perpetuate.
I would assume that a rational woman would go into tech for the same reason a man would; because those jobs depend on social skills in a way the tech jobs do not.
I mean, this is changing, some; there are a lot of unemployed lawyers right now, but yeah; the set of people who could be both a good programmer and a good MBA? yeah... uh, that's a small (and very well-paid) set of people. (I mean, sure, most good businesspeople can and probably should learn a little bit of programming... just like most programmers should learn a little business. But for most of us? we can only be really good at one or the other.)
Most of us? we're lopsided. We were born with traits that make it easier to succeed in one are than the other and/or we've been putting effort into one area rather than the other for most of our lives.
This is true of most of the nerds I know, male and female. If you are good at everything? yeah, you get to write your own very expensive ticket. But most of us? well, we chose to focus on one or the other, or we don't and we end up being well-rounded but mediocre.
The thing about this? we make this decision before we are old enough to understand the implications. If you are in college before you decide you want to work with computers, well, I've already spent half my life up to that time practicing. I mean, if you are that much better than me (and really hard working) you can catch up, but I've got a hell of a lead.
This is my personal pet theory to explain the difference in interest; from an early age, boys are taught that they will be valued, mostly, based on what they can do; what they can make happen. I knew that if I could make myself useful, there would be a place for me, society would value me, even if nobody really liked me very much on a personal level, even if I was ugly or unpleasant to be around. Now, I wasn't a girl, so I don't know, but my impression is that this isn't what little girls are taught.
(Now, obviously, I have limited perspective here. This is just what I observe in myself, and what I observe in my peers of both genders. Most nerds seem socially... a little bit broken. It seems to get better with age, but man, the socially optimized have a hell of a head start. I'm sure there are many other factors, but this is how I personally rationalized the decision to become a nerd.)
This position sounds stimulating. Perhaps some ladies are also motivated to pursue careers more for passion than profit?
Money is the main reason why we need jobs, but that doesn't mean that a job's only purpose is to earn the maximum amount of money.
Depends on where you are I guess. I've definitely had my view changed on this working at my current job.
"What we like is that there is no one here judging us for our gender. There is no pressure from men. Some of them feel very threatened when a woman is more skilled or even better at computers."
That is quite the statement, and sadly, true. During all of my years as a programmer, I have come to suffer from such attitude. If you can't code a binary tree with your eyes closed while singing the Start Spangled Banner, then you suck. There is too much ego. Too much macho "I am better than you" stuff going on. Even in interviews, where you get technical leads showing off their knowledge, rather than allowing you to show off yours (isn't that the point?).
I met one of the women in Protocademy while buying a MacBook. She saw my nerdy glases, saw the computer, and asked me about OSX. From there, we started talking about computers and then to video games. Turns out, she is a college student doing a major in IT. Her dream had always been to program, but could never come up with enough guts to do so at college. She is doing quite well these days. Python is like second nature. A good programmer. All she needed was some space to grow.
This is not mirrored in female dominated professions. There is a shortage of male teachers and nurses, but it isn't because the women are so disrespectful of the men.
Beliefs? Stereotypes? Those are facts, dude. As things currently stand, women do perform more poorly than men in STEM, and their numbers are lacking in tech. And what are we supposed to do? Not tell women that, once they join the tech field, they will be viewed as anomalies, treated as sex objects and feel very lonely? Are we supposed to con women into joining tech?
In order to improve the status quo, we first need to acknowledge it, openly and fearlessly. There's no way around that. Facts won't go anywhere just by refraining from stating them.
For instance, this quote from Upstart:
“Stereotypes remain a huge limiting factor for women, who are often seen as ”too aggressive“ when they succeed, Sandberg said. ”As men get powerful and successful, everyone likes them better.”
But when women achieve success, “everyone likes them worse,”
Huh, I thought we were trying to avoid generalizations and stereotypes here...
I mean, check the logo for this twitter page out for example: https://twitter.com/redistogo
Do others on HN think that image is appropriate? I don't.
It turns out that which facts you focus on affects your performance. Reminding women of all of the negatives makes them less likely to succeed. That's worth remembering.
Speaking of which facts you focus on, did you notice that the article was not written by a dude?
Yes, I use the term regardless of gender.
edit: Yes, keep downvoting me for pointing out how useless his post is. I love HN!
Anything more than that is over representation of women. This is just misandry I'm reading here.
I hate bar graphs with a y-axis starting anywhere but at zero.
I think it matches up well with what was discussed in this blog post.
What evidence is there to point to a causal relationship?
They were asked to choose a value, not a topic.
A pretty common abbreviation in tech, the context should have tipped you off.
---
edit: One startup I worked for that focused on improving federal regulation compliance in the banking sector had a team of 5 project managers, 1 was male. Our product management team was entirely female.
I couldn't tell, at first, if the last word was supposed to be 'mediocrity' or 'meritocracy'.
The idea that no women on a conference panel implies the conference organizers believe no women are even "qualified" (whatever that means) to be on the panel and, ipso facto, sexism must be at play is on its face so stupid and devoid of meaning that it reads like a paragraph from a contrived newspaper used as a prop in a bad movie.