Comment by exclusiv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by exclusiv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't deny that there is some history in the current representation of programmers but I don't buy that socially awkward white males are somehow oppressing diversity in general as some would suggest. When they supposedly aren't, it's a brogrammer problem and blatant sexism. Everyone wants to find someone to blame.

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

I don't think the article was really putting socially awkward white males to blame. I believe it tried to say that the diversity (or lack of it) of the field is a result of the shift in targeting a certain type of person for the programmer's job. And this accumulated over time reinforcing the notion until recently that it's sort of a no girls land. I can't help but feel that you're kinda shifting the blame when you say that there are just not enough female candidates otherwise you'd be perfectly happy to hire them and of course you would be. Maybe the problem really is in the way career possibilities are presented to children from early on. My brother is a programmer with years of experience - he got a pc when very young that I really didn't have access to and he was making fun of me when I got into a coding job because I it didn't really suit me, even though I have a CS degree. That doesn't mean he is to blame, it's just how we are brought up. Arts and humanities go girls, STEM go boys.

diversity (or lack of it) of the field is a result of the shift in targeting a certain type of person for the programmer's job

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.

"some shadowy powers carefully select to make a mysoginistic getto to keep women at bay."

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.

The "detail" is so vague as to not deserve that name. Give me a ten minutes description of the described environment and I will give you a dozen alternative explanation to the especulation presented in the article.

This is no more than coach psicology.

shadowy powers carefully select

I don't think anyone's claiming that.

Actually, that is exactly the claim.

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.

Oh, fair enough, I understood a different thesis from the article (of a self-reinforcing stereotype among employers).

This is a blame game. It's tried on individuals. When they reject accusations, there's the "you are biased even if you don't realize" and then the "you are a tool in the hands of an oppressing society". If you can't convince, at least seed the doubt.

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.

> "you are biased even if you don't realise"

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...

> All the nerdy types flocked to her

Is it unimaginable that this might be uncomfortable?

This is still blaming nerds for something they really can't do anything about.

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.

Maybe it made more sense for the business to have you as a developer writing code and her as a manager rather than you as a manager and her writing code?

Then it wouldn't be a problem that there are few women writing software, wouldn't it? Because .. maybe it just makes sense?

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.

Well he ended up leaving, so they didn't get him as a developer either. That's a significant catch 22 in a lot of these companies.

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").

It's 3 companies. Truth is, I don't mind having them as managers as long as promotion is fair and as long as I learn how to become a manager. Which I didn't either.

Yes, we clearly need to tell nerds they can't interact with females, because...

...help me out here. Because nerds are icky?

Perhaps the label "creepy", which some argue is disproportionately reliant on the attractiveness of the subject rather than what they say or do.

So true. There was a funny skit on SNL where Tom Brady and another guy said the exact same things and Tom was welcomed while the other guy was creepy and hit with a lawsuit.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexual-harassme...

Because it's still a way of being singled out, even if well intentioned.

Do you think they flocked for the lone woman's benefit?

What do you think?

Not in this case. I was friends with her. I never witnessed anything disrespectful and she spoke regularly with most of the classmates. Perhaps flocked was a bad word - but let's just say it was obvious that she was getting a lot of attention initially for the fact that she was the only female.

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.

Is it unimaginable that this might be uncomfortable?

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?

All the nerdy types flocked to her and were very inclusive with team projects.

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.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

That were my thoughts too .. if they had ignored her "You see, nerds ignore women and make them feel unwelcome", now "see, they are creeps, that makes woman feel unwelcome" - and if you ask "what is your solution?" "They should behave normal." which is the most useless answer ever. If I ask ten people about normal behaviour in a given situation I get ten answers and if I drill a bit further more like 40 answers, almost all probably starting with something like "Well, in this context .." or "If you frame it this way .."

One could almost think that human behaviour is complex, but only almost .. everything is black and white, go on, nothing to see here. /s

Human behaviour is complex, but that doesn't mean there aren't some basic universal truths that will always help. Things like "Don't treat every attractive person you meet as a potential sexual partner. Use behaviour appropriate to the context you're meeting them in. An engineering class is not a social gathering."

> Human behaviour is complex, but that doesn't mean there aren't some basic universal truths that will always help

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 ..)

On the other hand, just because the solution is unclear, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

Certainly, but almost everything can be redefined as a problem, because almost everything can be a problem. In a given context.

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.

Exactly.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com