LadyCoders 2012 -- a Kickstarter project to help more women in software
kickstarter.com
kickstarter.com
Almost all the successful developers I know started creating software (or at least wanted to make computers do things that they weren't immediately able to do) at a young age. Even you believe it is an issue (and I don't know why it is necessary that 50% of all developers need to be women), this isn't a problem you can fix by talking to a bunch of adults about how to get a career in IT.
Now, part of a lack of women in IT could have to do with gender stereotyping at a young age, but I do not believe that IT is generally negative towards women any more than HR/marketing is negative towards men.
PRO TIP: If you are told you're a crap developer, it's not because you're a woman, it's because you're a crap developer. If you think you deserve some type of different treatment because of your genitalia, you're part of the problem.
The point of this project is not to convince women to go into tech, that is completely out of scope. The point is to help women that are qualified but don't interview well or know how to deal with some of the issues unique to women that either raise eyebrows or can cause confusion in an interview.
The women we're targeting include recent graduates, those who left the field for a few months or years to have babies or take care of sick family members, and women who may have been driven out of other positions by sexual harassment (nobody wants a troublemaker, and they do always ask why you left your previous position).
Unfortunately, all continuing to enforce how special women are (either positively or negatively, in this case) is to keep women thinking they need specialised tools to succeed.
As a man, no one taught me how to interview well, or come back to the workforce after taking an extended break to care for someone else, or to be driven out of a position due to bullying (much more common than sexual harassment because it is much subtler). Why do you feel the need to single-out women for such general issues?
2) I usually think about non-standard channels for hiring, or assistance/boosting programs such as this focused on women (as one example of minorities in the tech field) because almost all of industry is subtly or not so subtly biased towards the majority. The ways you relax with coworkers, the non-programming personal attributes that are assessed in interviews, the similarity bias interviewers have to pick people like themselves. These are not intentional acts of sexism, but are nonetheless prevalent.
Aside from childbirth itself, women are far more likely to be single parents than men are, and are normally the ones to stay home with sick children, especially when there is a long-term disease involved.
Many women end up dealing with multiple name changes, across degrees and sometimes projects.
Of course not all women lack these skills, we would never pretend that to be the case. But the ones that do are at a distinct disadvantage, and there are more of them out there than you realize.
Who would you turn to if you didn't even know that your handshake felt like a dead fish and you never once made eye contact with the hiring manager? That kind of feedback doesn't exist after interviews.
I agree that having this information available is a positive thing.
Limiting it to either women, or even women in IT seems to be part of the problem (not the solution), in my opinion. By all means, market a generic series at women who may be having these problems, but I fail to see how limiting the audience to ONLY women stands up for equality.
A project launched by women, aimed at women, because women are an observable rarity in our industry ... is against equality.
This isn't affirmative action. It's not a hiring policy. It's a private sector effort by interested individuals who want to help others like them.
How does this project sound?
"A project [to empower men], launched by men, aimed at men, because men are an observable majority in our industry."
How does that follow? I'd genuinely like to know your reasoning.
But I'm still not following.
How does substituting in "majority" for "minority" undermine the case for the minority?
In my opinion, targeting a message makes more sense than trying to make it overly broad to cover everyone, that only dilutes the information. You, of course, are welcome to disagree :)
It emphasizes it to you. As a woman, it painstakingly obvious I am "special." At the last tech event I was at I was one of three women; one was the girlfriend of the organizer, one was a non technical person looking for technical help for a start-up, and the other was me. I felt awkward and stood out like a sore thumb. There's nothing that a bunch of women trying to raise money to encourage women to be in tech could do to make me feel MORE awkward at events where it's obvious I stand out.
Look, I think the project itself is kind of silly. But it could bring more women into tech. And more women in tech won't make me stand out more; it will make me stand out LESS. That's the only way it's going to shake out.
We chose women because that's what we are and because we wanted to target some of the issues specific to women. A LOT of the information we will be putting out will apply to both genders.
That seems like a shame. A lot is said about the awfulness of tech culture for women. I think it would be good to see more made of the upsides (the money's good, the hours can be convenient, and most of aren't actually as awful as we're made out to be).
People doesn't care about gender, they care about good code.
Actually, no. People are people. We are not abstract logic machines, disinterested minds floating across a sea of pure symbolic manipulation.
It really bugs me when software people have this subtle arrogance that human fallibility is something that happens to other people. Oh other people can be biased or form toxic norms, but not us, we're an elite subculture.
Women are raised differently. Clearly their fault.
Women are treated differently just because they are women. Clearly their fault.
The industry shows a universal shortage of women. It couldn't possibly be because of strawman-punching attitudes like yours. Clearly their fault.
In other contexts this is known as "blaming the victim" and it is generally considered to be a) piss-poor reasoning and b) even offensive.
1. It's specific. They're not over-promising with a really cool video. They already have a plan and know the costs in considerable detail.
I see an awful lot of Kickstarter projects which are basically link bait getting heavily funded, then discovering that they had no idea how hard Shiny Thing X would actually turn out to be.
2. We all know that our industry's ratios are unhealthy, and it's a self-sustaining loop. It's starving the industry of talent and leads to an insular, narrow culture that's frankly holding us back from being taken more seriously as a profession.
While this project won't wave the magic wand on the whole industry and deliver rainbows and puppies, it identifies a particular high-leverage point that can be improved almost immediately.
I think this is one of the better kickstarter projects I've seen in a while.