If DjangoGirls makes you uncomfortable, maybe that’s a good thing | Hacker News Reader

If DjangoGirls makes you uncomfortable, maybe that’s a good thing

pfctdayelise.tumblr.com

As a low femme girl who's also a software professional and a hobbyist, I'll say we need more articles like these.

I'm also particularly impressed to see Julia Serrano being quoted here. Serrano is mostly known as a trans activist, but she's also done a lot to tackle what she terms femmephobia, which is a serious problem even in progressive spaces such as LGBT and feminist communities.

While efforts to get more women into tech are commendable, I've witnessed an attitude of "we'd love to see more women, just as long as they act like honorary guys, and they get rid of all that girly shit". What's worse is that this attitude is perpetuated by the very same people who want more women in tech. Honestly, I think it's a problem. There's very much a tendency for feminist activists to throw their femme sisters under the bus, and it bothers me. I already don't get along with a lot of feminists because they take issue with my personal choice to refer to myself as a "girl" rather than a "woman".

I love slinging code, and I've always had an interest in taking things apart to see how they work. That said, I also really like looking pretty, and I go nuts over anything that can be described as cute. That shouldn't be a contradiction, and I'm glad groups like the Django Girls are here to get more girls like me involved with programming.

I like the argument and Django Girls, but the article seems to act like some things are inherently feminine. Pink has only been considered feminine relatively recently, for instance, previously the blue/pink thing was reversed.

I have no problem with them using cupcakes and yoga if it appeals to their chosen demographic, but acting like such things are inherently feminine seems wrong to me.

Things are only feminine because we(society) choose them to be.

I would disagree with your assertion that gender specific items are "nurture" and not "nature", and a lot of research would disagree with you, too.

I remember reading about a specific study done on humans, but I can't recall enough to find it at the moment. However, there seem to be several similar studies done on primates that reinforce the conclusion.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamen...

/edit Here it is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

My last statement may be too strong, but I still believe there is a very strong amount of nurture in our culture regarding gender differences. Things like "girls like pink" is a big one considering that previously it was boys who were associated with pink and we changed that as a society.

On the other hand, things like girls liking dolls may indeed be due to nature (never mind that boys like action figures which are basically dolls).

I think like most things it is actually a combination of nurture and nature.

Compulsory femininity, where girls and women are expected to act and look a certain way, is bad, yes. But femininity itself is not inherently weak, or silly, or frivolous, or bad.

The thing about this is, you have a situation where some resources are offered along with the expectation that a group of girls will want a certain aesthetic. There's nothing wrong with just choosing that aesthetic but giving something with the strong expectation that you will like a given aesthetic seems to be actively pushing a person in a given direction.

It's not that I have an objection to someone freely choosing this aesthetic as such but that you can't be certain that target audience is going to like being pushed towards this aesthetic. And as the author essentially acknowledges, girls are frequently pushed in this direction normally.

My impression was that the DjangoGirls founders have probably done some significant A/B testing on their presentation, and found that having a more "feminine" (even if that follows stereotyped gender lines) set of options makes it more appealing to their target demographic (ladies).

If having flowers, sparkles, cute animals, or beautiful typography on the pages helps women and girls discover that they love programming (or even that they don't), that's _awesome_.

The comment about being women being treated differently when they wear a dress shows misunderstanding. The male equivalent to that is not a T-shirt and jeans. It's the suit. I'd sure be treated differently if I wore a suit. I'd be trading one kind of signaling for another, giving up technical cred in favor of business cred.

There are many styles of dresses with multiple levels of formality. A sundress, for example, is in no way equivalent to a suit.

Often you can even take the same dress and dress it up to accompany someone in a suit or dress it down to accompany someone in jeans and a t-shirt.

A sundress is much closer to a suit than it is to a T-shirt and jeans.

Considering modesty though, a woman in a sundress is equivalent to a man wearing a tank top. We don't get males in the office wearing tank tops or anything else that would expose the collarbone, armpits, shoulders, or shoulderblades. These things are normally considered inappropriate. We also don't normally see males wearing snug form-fitting shirts. It's not considered appropriate. Feel free to wear that stuff while you weed your lawn at home.

So that is two strikes against the sundress. It's kind of formal, yet no more modest than a tank top.

"We also don't normally see males wearing snug form-fitting shirts"

Heh you should really visit Shoreditch or Soho on a warm sunny day. ;-)

I came across this a few days ago, and posted because some people in the other thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9982730) were getting uncomfortable about DjangoGirls.

Which seemed to mostly be Joe - and I support Joe's criticism. It has to do with gender norms, society constructed and "helpful to market" or not.

Where do tomboys fit into this? Where do transgender women fit into this [3]? I'd be put off from attending due to all the emphasis on "girly things" and the fact that I don't know if I belong or not (without doing some more research at least).

On the blog here [0] there is a mention for "Yay Python", seemingly headed by some Django Girls. It caught my interest so I went to the page [1]. Glitter, art, and sparkles. Beautiful (used 5 times on the one page) and imaginative. A child-like connect-the-dots with flowers and pink and "girly typography".

I'm sure it's, on a technical level, a great book. But it comes off as "this is girly, made by girls, and it's meant for girls [2].

In their attempt to make "squirrels feel more welcome" they've marginalized even more squirrels further by showing that these "tomsquirrels" don't even belong with the squirrels!

>The book will build on the Django Girls tradition, with "a good dose of emoji and funny little quirks".

So girls have to use a lot of emoji and be "quirky" (cutesy?)? I'm feeling less and less like I belong...

[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/651833/

[1] http://yaypython.com/

[2] Usable by anyone is a cop out. Girls can play with Hot Wheelz and action figures too, but they aren't the target demographic. The book is obviously marketed towards girls even if it is usable by anyone.

[3] http://organize.djangogirls.org/attendees/index.html | I did more research, though I'm still confused if I would be encouraged to be given priority or not? Not renumbering to show that I checked after writing everything else out.

"I did more research, though I'm still confused if I would be encouraged to be given priority or not? Not renumbering to show that I checked after writing everything else out."

A quick google suggests that DjangoGirls is explicitly open to all women and also non-binary individuals, and at least one major player is connected with Trans*Code.

"Monospace white-on-black command-line aesthetic is a stylistic choice. It’s one that is relatively unmarked in our community. Glittery pastels is a different aesthetic. They are both perfectly valid ways to invite someone to be a programmer. And they will appeal to different audiences."

And this comment of yours: "I'm sure it's, on a technical level, a great book. But it comes off as "this is girly, made by girls, and it's meant for girls"

is sort of the entire point of the original blog. So what if it's laid out in a manner that's coded as "feminine" by this society? What's wrong with that?

As for your quote - monospace white-on-black command-line is not a gendered aesthetic (although it's a stereotype aesthetic? The "typical computer geek" from TV shows I guess?). Glittery pastels are a gendered aesthetic.

>And they will appeal to different audiences."

So would having a sports bar and female strippers. I'm not denying that glittery pastels are going to attract a more feminine girly-girl audience. I'm arguing that not all girls are girly-girl types and many are tomboys and would feel completely out of place in a place that tries to yell "Disney Princesses" at the top of its lungs.

> So what if it's laid out in a manner that's coded as "feminine" by this society? What's wrong with that?

Not all girls are feminine and will feel out of place and unwelcomed in such an environment. We can start there. Which is the point I feel Joe was trying to get across and is definitely the point I was trying to get across.

>A quick google suggests that DjangoGirls is explicitly open to all women and also non-binary individuals, and at least one major player is connected with TransCode.*

This does not answer my question about "priority to female individuals". I had already answered myself about being welcomed or not. But when priority is given to females, do transexuals count as female in this regard? Because in many places we don't - especially pre-op.

Hey, I'm a trans girl. I'm also fairly feminine. I love coding, I especially love Python, and I also love stuff with "glitter, art, and sparkles". That should never be a contradiction.

I'm thoroughly sick and tired of all the femme-shaming that's endemic in feminist and LGBT communities. Julia Serrano is right: femmephobia is a serious problem.

Honestly, as a mostly platform-level programmer who never really got into webdev, something like the Django Girls stuff might actually get me to learn the webby side of things.

I have nothing against femininity. There are some tomboys who essentially tie their very identity to "hates girly things" and they are still girls and should still feel included in a place like this. Django Girls place too much emphasis on the femininity of everything, as if someone is questioning if they are girly enough because they're "nerds doing tech things". It's bizarre to me and I'd feel uncomfortable. I've also had some time to speak to a few coworkers and, with no surprise to me, the more tomboyish ones would feel weird or unwelcome because femininity is too much of a focus.

A tech conference should not be the time or place to play on gender norms. If you are not interested in technology for technologies' sake then you shouldn't be there! Go do something you're interested in. If an all-tech place is too boring for you to attend that speaks more about you than tech.

I'd also like to clarify it's perfectly fine to love glitter, art, sparkles, and Python. If your goal isn't to be inclusive, it's fine to host an event loving all 4 at once! But if you want to be inclusive, you should focus more on the Python and less on the glitter, art, and sparkles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com