
Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance - skormos
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/DiversityImbalance.html
======
nsxwolf
I don't get this. Maybe it's because I'm a white male, but it still doesn't
make sense to me.

Why is there such a resistance to the idea that there might be differences in
what groups of people are interested in at any given time? Not an issue of
genetics or competence, but a complicated web of social influences that make
people less likely to be interested in one path or the other?

If there are truly unjust and discriminatory barriers, then by all means let's
remove them. But if we succeed, and it doesn't change the numbers much, does
it matter?

If certain groups really think it's a problem then let them do the work of
encouraging their group members (alert, this feels condescending - who says
they'll even self-identify with that group) to get into tech.

It's certainly not my fault. I'm a cheerleader for tech careers. The more, the
merrier. But if you're not into it, then you're not into it. There's a lot of
things I'm not into, either. Whose fault is that? And why should it matter?

~~~
funkah
I have similar thoughts. But also, it bothers me that the imbalances in tech
are considered to be somehow more pathological or worse than the imbalances
that exist in all kinds of other professions. We seem to be the only
profession flogging ourselves over this issue (I'm sure there are some others,
but I doubt there are many).

Are people in nursing worried about the field underperforming as a whole
because it has so many women?

~~~
nsxwolf
If we keep going with your excellent point, it's not hard to see a
hypothetical argument for aiming to make everyone in the world equally
interested in everything.

Proponents of this theory in tech jobs don't seem to understand this. They
just see that if the numbers don't add up to a perfectly even split, there's
something nefarious going on.

~~~
lindseybieda
So that's why the percent was higher for CS degrees and then steadily
declined, there _was_ interest and now there is less
<http://rarlindseysmash.com/images/entries/degrees.png>. Something _is_
happening here.

------
plinkplonk
Edward de Bono once talked about how words become loaded with emotional
connotations and value judgements to the point where it is hard to argue for
or against certain positions.

Eg: You can make an argument for or against a mixture of two things in
differing ratios, but the moment you use the words "balanced" and "unbalanced"
to represent the two states, the it is harder to argue for the "unbalanced"
side. Likewise for "core" vs "surface" (de Bono's example) Who would want to
argue against balance, 'core', or in this case, "diversity"?(What are you,
some kind of bigot?).

"Diversity" is automatically assumed to be a positive, _before_ the argument
on whether it is desirable begins, and there isn't a value neutral or value
positive word that is its opposite.

Specifically in this post, there are plenty of value laden words -
'diversity', 'meritocracy' etc put together to slant in a particular
direction. Not much solid argument or content there - the power of the
argument comes instead from the values attached to the specific words used,
which makes it a bit iffy - Martin is a gifted writer and clear thinker - this
just isn't one of his better efforts.

[Due Disclosure: I know Martin from my days at ThoughtWorks. I respect him
immensely and think he is a very impressive person, who has given me a lot of
very useful advice on many occasions.]

~~~
queensnake
re: "little solid argument" - he does say that diversity means a wider variety
of thinking, and /more programmers/.

~~~
plinkplonk
"/more programmers/", as long as the new set has a different and "better"
distribution ratio among its members than exists presently. Just reinforces my
point. As to "wider variety of thinking" this is immeasurable and is
sufficiently vague so you can take it to mean anything you want it to mean.

Fwiw, I am not saying Martin is _wrong_ \- he is a smart guy and he is a
probably right. I am just saying his argument uses subtle tricks of rhetoric
to, essentially, circle back to his assumptions.

------
te_platt
He talks about diversity of sex and race being necessary to have a diversity
of viewpoints. If that is true doesn't that imply that that different sexes
and races have fundamental differences based on those attributes? If so
shouldn't we expect a diversity imbalance in every occupation. That is, people
with fundamental differences will tend to want to do different things. If it's
not true then why care about diversity of sex or race.

Also I disagree with this line from the article: "A diversity imbalance
suggest that there are many women, who would have good careers as programmers,
who are not getting the opportunity to do so." If women are denied
opportunities as programmers there will be an imbalance. An imbalance can be
caused by any number of other factors.

------
ArbitraryLimits
I was under the impression that most people had accepted that the reason more
men than women do software development is that more men find it interesting
than women do, not because women are less intelligent or because there's a
conspiracy to keep them out. Too bad, I guess not.

As an aside, my boss at the moment is a woman, and a few years ago she had to
staff up significantly and hired several young women at the junior level. The
interesting thing is that her team hasn't really changed because of "the
diversity" since it turns out that women who like programming act pretty much
like the men who like programming: they're kind of socially awkward, have
sometimes unreasonable expectations that the world will be a meritocracy, make
a fetish out of liking cartoons and movies that most people don't, and so on.

~~~
roguecoder
No.

At least, I've certainly seen no research suggesting that is true; you may
believe it but "most" people don't and if they did they haven't provided
evidence for that belief. If your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain
the massive variation over time in gender gap even just in the United States?
(citation: [http://phrogram.com/cfs-
filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityS...](http://phrogram.com/cfs-
filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.00.12.14/Computer-
Science-in-Crisis.JPG))

~~~
ArbitraryLimits
If you're talking about the sharp decline in computer science degrees granted
to women around 1984, I have a couple of guesses.

First, no one really knew what kind of career path getting a computer science
degree entailed until around then anyway, and once women had figured it out
they decided they didn't want it.

Second, in my opinion women are much more sensitive to their career's
stability and predictability than men are, for the simple reason that they're
the ones who have to plan out when to have children. You'll notice that the
drop-off more or less coincided with the first (or second, or maybe third - I
forget which) big bust in the PC industry in the 80s. Mainframes and even
microcomputers did not have boom-and-bust cycles like PCs did in the 80s,
although individual companies might blow up the industry as a whole was
relatively stable. College students looking for stability around that time
might sensibly decide "computing" wasn't for them any more.

My favorite reference in this discussion (well, about women in science and
engineering as a whole) is Philip Greenspun's article
(<http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science>) who basically makes
the argument that the median scientist who doesn't win Noble Prizes actually
has a pretty crappy career and that women are smart enough to stay away.

------
mhartl
Although it's easy to become accustomed to it, it's pretty obvious the child
care world has some serious issues in diversity. By this I mean that it has
some notable differences in proportions of people compared to the general
population. One of the most obvious differences is the low proportion of men,
which is true all over the world. In the US, where I spend a good chunk of my
time, the over-representation of Latinos is also obvious.

One point of view I hear fairly regularly is that these diversity imbalances
are natural - because men don't have the aptitude or inclination for child
care. The big flaw here is a simple one of evidence. There are (roughly) 50%
men in the world, so we should expect the ratio for men in child care to be
50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.

This waste hurts our society, too. We need more and better child care to
nurture and support the next generation. By not bringing enough men into the
profession, we are handicapping ourselves. How can we say we are hiring the
best people when we ignore significant chunks of our population?

~~~
dgabriel
Your rewrite is completely valid. Were you expecting it to be absurd? It's
not. The same interesting questions arise. I'm sure you can come up with
reasons why men may _choose_ not to make their living caring for children,
even though they'd prefer to do so. Is this not a problem we should attempt to
fix?

~~~
bermanoid
_Your rewrite is completely valid. Were you expecting it to be absurd? It's
not. The same interesting questions arise._

I think the point is, that when "women in tech" comes up, the default
assumption that people (particularly feminists) tend to jump to is that sexism
is keeping women out of tech. More specifically, that sexist guys in tech are
keeping women out. Even when not stated explicitly, this accusation has been
made many, _many_ times, and underlies every discussion about this topic.

But the immediate assumption when it comes to nursing is almost never that
women in nursing programs mistreat men. In fact, I've almost never heard that
accusation, even though it's considered the null hypothesis when it comes to
"women in tech". People are much quicker to look for other explanations, for
instance that men are more likely to be bothered by the working conditions,
pay, autonomy, etc. than women are.

 _I'm sure you can come up with reasons why men may choose not to make their
living caring for children, even though they'd prefer to do so. Is this not a
problem we should attempt to fix?_

Absolutely, we should address these problems. First we need to know what they
are, though, and I think the discussion about this topic has been much more
productive in nursing than it has been in tech, because sexism is not
considered the null hypothesis there.

~~~
dgabriel
I'm about to get on a plane and don't have time to fully rebut, but I assure
you the treatment of men in nursing school is a problem taken very seriously.
Google "recruiting men in nursing," to see more.

~~~
bermanoid
I'm afraid I didn't see this response until just now, so it's a bit late, but
if you're still following this, I'd love to see some more specific references
- I googled "recruiting men in nursing" and I see a ton of stuff about how to
try to make nursing seem more appealing to guys, but nothing about accusations
that the nursing establishment is hostile to men, certainly nothing similar to
what is accused against the tech status-quo on a regular basis.

In particular, most of the links related to nursing seem to be making
arguments analogous to the much derided "women aren't interested in tech
because the work doesn't appeal to women" theory, arguing that men don't like
nursing because the work is not perceived by them as male enough in various
ways, not that they have any perceptions of anti-male bias in the nursing
community. Quite frankly, I'd reject any such notions, since there is no such
general feeling, at least none that I've ever heard, so _that's_ not what's
keeping people from walking through the nursing school door in the first place
(otherwise, I figure I would have been at least cognizant of such a general
perception).

Similarly, I'm skeptical whether tech really has any significant misogynist
reputation once we look beyond feminist-in-tech bloggers and male me-too
hangers-on - none of the women I know seem to have that impression (though
granted, they're from pretty varied and non tech-centric backgrounds), and I
certainly have not seen where I've worked.

When I _have_ asked my female friends about their impressions of the computer
world, they tend to think that yeah, it's a circle-jerk of forever-alone
dorks, but they generally assume that they'd be _more_ welcoming to women and
more accepting of them than guys in most fields, not less. When asked why they
don't do programming-ish stuff themselves, most have said stuff like "that's
for the math geeks", and "I study people, not code" (crank the superiority
knob to the max on both of those, btw - when I asked this, I got the definite
sense that they thought the subject matter was distinctly below them). Not
once have I heard "because I've heard that guys in tech treat women like shit"
as an answer, which makes me very suspicious when people point to that as the
definitive root cause...

------
shallowwater
[reads all the comments about how no one wants ladies in their field anyway]

And people wonder why the ladies don't want to hang out with you kids all day.
Could it be that ladies are smart enough to figure out when and where they are
unwelcome? UNPOSSIBLE

signed, a lady who is interested in programming

~~~
jcoglan
This needs to be at the top of the thread, rather than all the formal-logic-
obsessed debate-club navel-gazing currently sitting there.

~~~
shallowwater
Thank you for your kind words. I confess that I am completely taken aback that
in 2012 there are still people postulating that women are not capable of or
inclined toward intellectually rigorous or difficult work.

Oh those ladies and their feeble, overheating lady-brains!

------
lancewalton
I want more competent people in all jobs regardless of their genetic and
cultural makeup.

In software development, we seem to be beset by an astonishing array of
incompetence. The bar is so low that nobody should argue that any particular
sub-group of the population would, by nature, be worse.

However, I am always intrigued that when people talk about "diversity", they
always look to balance the high end of the spectrum, and never the low end.

For example:

Between 2003 and 2008, over 39 out of every 40 deaths in (US) military
operations in Iraq were men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance?

Who is in prison, the world over as criminals or political prisoners? The vast
majority are men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance?

In the US, most homeless people are men. Where's the outcry about gender
imbalance?

Over 90% of people killed while performing their job are men. Where's the
outcry about gender imbalance?

Men on average die three of four years younger than women. Where's all the
research into finding out why?

Why on the news, when reporting exam results, is it a triumph that girls have
outperformed boys for the last several years?

I read an article once that said that two industries showing the greatest
gender imbalance were "programming" and janitoring. The article then went on
to talk about systematic gender discrimination in the software field (yes...
"geeks" and "nerds" came into it a lot). But why did the article make no more
mention of the need to get more women into janitoring?

------
Morendil
Recommended reading on this topic: Ensmenger's "The Computer Boys Take Over",
or the more scholarly "Gender Codes" edited by Thomas Misa.

The latter in particular gives lots of detail, not just in describing the
situation (the imbalance isn't the same everywhere, in every company or in
every job description) but also in in explaining how (historically) and why
(causally) the situation became what it is today.

------
mc32
>Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal
rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of
evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software?

True. But are underrepresented groups being actively denied access as was the
case in the example above? Apple and oranges. Not saying there isn't a
problem, just saying it's a different problem. I think in this case more
passive cultural than active cultural problem.

There are imbalances everywhere. Line cooks. Where are the women line cooks?
Photography. Where are the women in professional photography -how many women
street photographers do we know, other than Vivian Maier? Where are the
straight people in fashion? I think, at least in some cases, there is self
selection going on. Different airports have different pluralities of
ethnicities doing lots of the service work. SFO is different from JFK is
different from BOS, in that regard.

------
loumf
It's fun to take apart the logic, rhetoric, and nitpick on every word of this
post. We could argue the premise all day long -- and 5 years from now there
will be fewer women, minorities, etc, than there are now.

Instead I prefer to take constructive action to change this, without worrying
if (1) it is natural or unnatural or (2) it would be better. I accept that the
current state is unnatural and a more balanced population would be better.

If you agree, please post replies here with what you think can/should be done
(or what you are already doing). If you disagree, please reply to one of the
other threads.

~~~
mc32
I agree with you. Not sure about the "unnatural" qualifier though. That
presumes an active agent present.

What can be done. I think that's difficult. It has to be something pervasive,
insidious in the culture. Via TV, internet, radio, entertainment, education,
propagated by not only peers but all via all media. Everywhere. There needs to
cease the archetyping of human roles. Something on that scale could happen,
but it would take a generation or two. Kind of like the deprogramming of
National socialism in Germany, or deprogramming of Religion in (soviet)
Russia. 100% success isn't necessary, just enough to overcome the momentum or
steady state.

Very vast, very pervasive with both incentives and punishment. Piecemeal I
don't think would result in fast enough turn-around in attitude.

To me the problem is cultural. It's not men or women, it's the whole body of
the culture which results in the skewed numbers.

~~~
loumf
What I am doing is trying to bring up the conversation with as many people as
I can -- saying I think it's worth solving and asking for ideas. We need more
software developers, and this is an untapped pool. If we increase it a little,
we'll have a lot more programmers.

I have also noticed behaviors that work to systematically lower participation
by women, and I have worked to reverse them. For example -- noting that
invitations to speak at a tech conference included no women, even though there
were many qualified choices (I gave the conference organizers a list). I think
the issue was that we invite who we know -- we need to break out of that --
our networks are probably overwhelmingly male.

I suggest more discussion (not here -- everywhere) -- but focused on ideas to
increase the number of women in programming -- not meta-discussions. Try to
notice when the ratio is bad and comment on it -- insist on something being
done. And --- if you notice behaviors that work against changing the ratio --
do something about it.

And, I don't think it's very constructive to keep meta-arguing about it. If
you want to, go ahead, but it's starting to sound a little silly. Almost all
of these arguments were used to stop women from becoming lawyers 100 years
ago. When, instead, we started working to include women -- their numbers grew
to half the profession. 100 years from now, many of these arguments will seem
outdated, especially the ones arguing natural aptitude.

------
greggman
I'm having a problem with this as well. I'm sure I get the bozo bit flipped on
me but...

Let's pick some other topics. What's the percentage of men vs women that knit
as a hobby? Crochet? Cross Stitch? Scrapbook? Ok, those are hobbies. But I'll
bet if you asked most programmers, at least the good ones, they got started
programming as a hobby and that happened to end up leading to a career.

How about nurses? In the USA is 93% women. 7% men (or was 14 years ago, not
sure about today)

Are you going to argue that 50% of the participants of all those things should
be men and that something is wrong because they are not at 50%?

I 100% want to see more women programmers but I'm at a loss on how to get more
women interested in being a programmer. Should we try to do more? Of course!
But there's a part of me that feels it's like saying "I wish more people
didn't like pop music". I can wish all I want but if the biggest problem is
culture it's going to take some serious concentrated effort to change. I'm
talking like every 5th Hollywood movie and every 4th TV show needs to start
showing women as programmers and in positive light the same way in the 70s
they all started making anti-discrimination stories and girls can do anything
stories. It's going to take women's magazines running articles on how awesome
programming every month for years. It's not enough just to say women can do
anything. If you want to change culture it's going to take a lot more than
just a few words on a blog or a few more male geeks being aware of things they
do that drive women off.

~~~
Kathy
As noted above, the lack of men in nursing is something that the nursing
community worries about.

What I do think anyone who wants to see more women programmers can do is this:
if you hear that women (or a woman) is discouraged from X for reason Y do
_not_ dismiss their concern. First, reason Y is probably a symptom not the
main reason. Second, dismissal is in itself a discouragement, as it implies
that their opinion is not worth anything. It would better to reflect on what
the main reason might be (or what assumption are you making that may be
false).

------
godares79
I feel like this imbalance is going to correct itself over the coming decades.
As people become more connected, and are introduced to computers at a younger
age, the diversity of those interested in them to the point of wanting to work
with them as a career will increase.

The stereotype of the white pasty male computer nerd is vanishing. With it is
the pressure for those who don't fit that stereotype to choose a different
field (Fowler mentioned this). I feel like this lack of diversity was almost
purely societal and as society changes this will.

You are already seeing the enrollment of women at universities increase from
its post-bubble years. It will probably keep going up. I don't think it will
ever be on par, but it will get closer.

~~~
lindseybieda
The overall trend right now shows the opposite:
<http://rarlindseysmash.com/images/entries/degrees.png>

this isn't an issue that is going to self correct and people trying to take
steps to remedy a problem should not be lambasted by the community.

------
jkr124
Some people bring a cult-like mentality to the discussion of diversity and
related issues. Dissent is not welcome, unpleasant facts and observations
explained away often in contrived ways. Why is it so hard to imagine that
maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species?

~~~
MartinCron
_Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations
within the human species?_

The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around
the notion of "meaningful group variations within the human species". Without
hard science, it's a scary and dangerous place.

~~~
jkr124
"The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around
the notion of 'meaningful group variations within the human species'."

That is an extremely strong statement to make without justification. It sounds
like a forbidden knowledge-type of argument. Science should decide if there
are statistically significant intergroup variations. But right now, that is
strictly verboten by the type of arguments you just gave me. This strikes me
as an echo of the resistance to understanding human evolution, but by a group
that considers itself to be rational and scientific. It seems some people
literally have taken the notion of universal human equality as a revealed
truth in the religious sense. These people are hostile to inquiry into the
matter because it would literally upset their entire worldview.

~~~
queensnake
To be fair, if the gates of acceptance of HBD (human biodiversity) were thrown
open, people fear there would be a lot more social friction. And I think
you're right about the worldview bit, too - people not being seen as quite
equal would be a major change. Gah, I wish HBDers would discuss the
repercussions of acceptance of HBD instead of just sniping from the sidelines
(not meaning you, now), as the mainstream won't accept it until they're
comfortable with the consequences.

------
Tichy
"But making statements with inclination is little better than with aptitude -
there's still no evidence and it has just the same shoddy history"

Sorry, but that is just bullshit. Everybody who is in IT and has talked to a
bunch of women in his life has collected some evidence on this. When would
Fowler accept it as evidence? If you have asked 100 women, or one million, or
one billion, if they are inclined to go into IT? What do you suppose would be
the result if we asked everybody on HN "what percentage of women you know have
an inclination to go into IT"? I think there would be thousands of samples
with a fairly obvious result.

Why there is little inclination is another question, but the logic Fowler
employs here is simply bullshit. It matters because I don't think he'll be
able to sway people's opinions if he simply dismisses the evidence they
personally collected for themselves. Who are people supposed to trust, if they
can't even trust themselves? Also, if he deals with evidence like that, I can
not trust his argumentation because it seems as if he only wants to see or
accept "evidence" that supports his viewpoint.

------
xbryanx
My argument for improved diversity (racial, gender, economic, et al.) in the
software world is simple and wildly unscientific. It would be lots more fun.
Every time I've worked on diverse technology teams it's been more enjoyable
and I feel like I've done better work. I know this is a facile argument, but
it's definitely the driving reason I work for this change in the software
world.

------
DanielBMarkham
I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an
idiot -- but I have to.

 _here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for
women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other
ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence._

But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence
constitute "evidence"? Aside from direct observation, what other definition of
"evidence" would you use? Or are you assuming that because one ratio exists in
one set (the general population of humans) it must exist in any subset? This
would require that the subset have no defining characteristics, which
effectively prevents it from being a subset. (A bit loose with my language,
but you get the gist)

Then his sheer audaciousness when he calls observation of the data circular
logic! If I there are 20% blue trees in the world, and I see a lot with 40%
blue trees, is it not natural to conclude there is some agency at work here?
The question becomes one of intelligent design -- was there a external
intelligent agent causing the blue tree delta? With complex systems, this is
as much a religious question as anything else. We simply don't know. Very
intelligent people could creatively speculate on all sorts of prime movers,
natural or not.

 _Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal
rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of
evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software?
As far as I'm concerned this shoddy history should make us doubly wary of the
any suggestion that a diversity imbalance is natural._

I'm really not sure what to do with this. Is he arguing that since a certain
type of rhetoric has been used to ill purpose in the past that it should be
looked upon extra critically now? If so, how would I go about picking and
choosing which methods of reasoning might be better or worse to use? It seems
to me that he's arguing that based on some conclusion to the argument (there
might be a natural difference) that we should hold the methods of reasoning
suspect. But if we got a different conclusion using the same methods, that
would be okay? This is like a generic ad hominem -- don't trust that reasoning
because it's been faulty in the past! Well sure, all kinds of ways of
reasoning have been faulty in the past. This has nothing to do with anything.

 _That is, given we have a unnatural imbalance, is it a problem that's
sufficiently serious to spend energy on fixing it?_

But he hasn't shown an unnatural imbalance at all, he's just made broad
statements about how he feels about certain kinds of tools being used in the
discussion.

 _Lack of diversity is itself a problem. Different people think differently,
and consequently come up with different ways to solve problems. If you have a
bunch of people with the same background, they miss lots of ideas - leading to
inefficiencies and lack of innovation. A diverse group is usually more
effective._

See here I completely agree with him -- a lack of various backgrounds,
opinions, and personalities hurts small groups. But he seems to be saying that
these good qualities -- opinions, backgrounds, personalities -- are inherently
part of being a female, being a Norwegian, or of being black. So it's okay for
him to say that in general being Norwegian is cause to make you so different
you have value as a team member, at the same time he's saying that there are
no natural differences to account for the difference in observed ratios? Huh?
Who is using circular logic again?

Fowler seems like a nice guy, and I'm sure he likes puppies and ice cream and
all of that, but this is tripe. I am a firm believer in having as much
possible diversity as possible in my teams as long as we can hold the group
together. So count me in as being a huge proponent of diversity.

But diveristy is all about things that you can't see -- not bullshit like your
skin color, how tall you are, or your gender. Lots of teams fail because
nobody on the team had good empathy skills. Nobody fails because there wasn't
a person on there wearing glasses. Don't confuse the true greatness of
diversity with some kind of flavor-of-the-week political bullshit.

Here it is: nobody knows. It's a complex system full of individuals all acting
in their best interests, not something you can perform a logical proof on. The
variables and systems involved are legion. If you would like to discuss the
story of just one person, we could do that with some clarity. But if you start
waving your hands around and claiming you already know the answer -- whether
you want it to be a natural ratio or whether you see prejudice in the world --
we're not going to get very far. I can assure you that whatever happening is
natural, but by "natural" I mean it might be that the society at large has
major problems that need to be fixed. Or maybe not. Beats me. This is a topic
for moral discussion, not logical discussion, and bringing these kinds of
logic tools to the table only makes things worse, not better.

Must be in angry-old-guy mode again today. Sorry about that. I'm just really
disappointed that Fowler couldn't see the errors of his own thinking and then
presumes to lecture us about it. Man I find that really annoying.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Not only does he make the logical fallacies you suggest, but he also ignores
plenty of evidence that there might be natural causes:

For instance, there is plenty of evidence women are less likely to be very
good (or very bad) at math:
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5888/494.summary>
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038941>

There is also evidence women are more risk averse, making them less likely to
work in startups: <http://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268.full>

There is evidence women avoid computing specifically because they are
intolerant of geeks:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20100106021904/http://scicom.ucsc...](http://web.archive.org/web/20100106021904/http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/0901/pages/geeks/geeks.html)
(The original article was taken down)

This report also pushes the intolerance hypothesis, as well as women being
less dedicated, being fearful of text interfaces, and preferring more
collectivist environments:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20091007234852/http://opensource....](http://web.archive.org/web/20091007234852/http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/lin3_gender.pdf)
(Please go read the report before criticizing me for citing it. It's written
by a woman who is allegedly a feminist.)

It's safe to say that none of this is ironclad proof that the _only_ cause of
women not being present in computing is natural causes. But the author's
claims that "there's no such evidence" is utterly wrong. There is evidence, he
just ignores it.

Lastly, the author completely ignores the fact that computing is very diverse.
We have whites, all different types of asians, israelis and a smattering of
euros (and of all sexual orientations). Our diversity may not be statistically
identical to the general US population, but it's nonsensical to claim a lack
of diversity in computing.

~~~
cturner
I was told I'd never be a programmer because I didn't get good marks in math
and physics, that was sixteen years ago. Let's kill the myth.

I can't see any reason why being genuinely good at math is more important to
effective programming than being good at chemistry (layers and sequence),
biology (complex systems) or languages (building meaning from abstract or
incomplete signals). You do not need to be good at late high-school math to
understand Big-O.

I suspect people who are good at or passionate about math are far more likely
to stroke their ego with premature optimisation.

Also, there's a vast difference between aptitude for maths, and performing
well in maths tests. Attention to detail, regard for the education system,
interest in the topic all play a part.

    
    
        > There is evidence women avoid computing because
        > they are intolerant of geeks
    

I see a different pattern that goes in mostly the reverse direction. Young men
are a strange bunch, but young _nerds_ in particular tend to act bizarrely
towards women, and are therefore undesirable to be around. It can be more
effort to deal with someone bizarre (has feelings but is draining) than
someone who is just a bastard (quickly tell them to get stuffed). If you sense
a concentration of draining people - avoid!

~~~
youngnerd112
Sorry to be so brutally honest....but personally with women rejecting me
everywhere in a downright rude manner as an undesirable nerd it is hard not to
have a bias against them!

Agreed that perhaps not all women are like that...but for one that is nice
there is at least a hundred shallow bitches around!

~~~
bethling
I've been called a bitch to my face during architectural debates. I've had
responses to my technical comments come back as "whatever, sudo make me a
sandwich". Been asked while doing interviews, "Oh wait you're not HR?" I've
gone to many presentations contain sexist images, etc. Throughout my career
I've been constantly had to deal with implications that I don't belong - and
that my opinions can be dismissed..

Yet, somehow I manage to keep the perspective that technology isn't populated
by sexist assholes - sure the ones that are there stand out and make up a lot
of the things that come to mind when I'm stressed. But really it's a small
percentage [even though that small percentage can really get to you].

Try to keep the same perspective about women, the vast majority of us aren't
"bitches".

~~~
youngnerd112
Trust me I try....but being a nerd and a racial minority it is hard to keep a
straight mind when nine out of ten women look the other way when you try to
approach them to start a conversation.

I dont think you have been in a situation where "Can I buy you a drink" is
replied with a "you're ugly ...go away".

~~~
adrianpike
I don't know you, so I can only make assumptions and extrapolations from what
you've revealed here, but it sounds to me like you're crossing up "let's have
a conversation" and "let me buy you a drink so we can go play some horizontal
mambo." Now it's totally possible that you just want to chat, but "can I buy
you a drink" is often interpreted as the latter.

As lots of us on HN trend towards the geekier side of life, social cues
sometimes don't come as naturally to us as they do to many others - it takes
time and effort to not be socially awkward, but it's 100% worth it.

The next time something like that happens, try reviewing exactly what
happened, how things might have been misinterpreted, and how you can learn &
grow from it.

Also keep in mind that there are lots of people who _are_ jerks, but gender
has nothing to do with it.

Most importantly, don't let it bias you, and keep your chin up!

~~~
youngnerd1121
Thanks for the kind words man!...My situation is actually not as hopeless as I
am leading people to believe here.

The point I was trying to make was that a _bunch of negative experiences with
women when you are young leaves very deep scars and these scars manifest
themselves as unconscious biases_ so much that whenever you see a beautiful
woman (who will most probably reject you if you tried!) you are automatically
biased against her.My brain does this to me so often even though I think I am
logical than most other people.

Now I will make another point that is also controversial.(someone needs to say
these things!)

See when you grow your skills interacting with women a point comes when the
things you cant change matter much more than the things you can, so much that
the situation seems pretty helpless.

So at that point even if I bought really expensive clothes and bought myself a
mercedes or say became a really smooth talker, how women respond to me would
only marginally improve as compared to the non-possible changes such as
changing my race to become white...changing my height to become six feet tall
etc.

So no matter what I do a six feet tall white guy or a good looking muscular
black guy will always have significantly higher odds of attracting a given
woman over me.

The more you approach the limit the more you begin to see this brutal truth of
the dating world. _The things that matter most are things you are born with_
and this sometimes causes you develop significantly negative feelings towards
women as a whole.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
> The things that matter most are things you are born with and this sometimes
> causes you develop significantly negative feelings towards women as a whole.

Wrong. You're suffering from confirmation bias.

Guys obsess about money and looks to prove their worth to females, but most of
that shit doesn't matter, actually. (It's held against you if you're severely
deficient, of course.)

What does? A strong sense of self-identity, confidence, the ability to be both
a risk-taker and a stable provider, and, more generally, being an interesting
person. These are much harder to work on, so you don't hear as much talk about
them. You need to be able to enjoy your life without a girlfriend. You need to
have something you love to talk about, and, preferably something you can be
good at.

Suck up your pride, ask for help, and start working toward taking
responsibility for more of your life.

------
queensnake
I thought someone would have mentioned this by now, but in other cultures (my
sample: India, China, Ukraine), there /are/ more women programmers. At least,
I've worked with proportionately more women from the above nations, than white
American women. Meaning it's culture and not ability or /native/ inclination,
at least.

------
theprogrammer
Diversity is a good thing. That's been stated as axiomatic on these
discussions and it's probably true.

But what kind of diversity will have the greatest effect? I posit that there
are far greater kinds of diversity that will have a bigger impact than gender:
language, culture, education.

I would also be interested in studies in why girls aren't as interested in
science and computing as boys. When I started no one around me knew what a
computer was. I'm kind of puzzled why I was interested at the age of 11. I was
also discouraged from doing it at school, but it didn't stop me.

I take issue with te while geek thing. It may be true of some devs, but most I
know don't fit into that stereotype, they have a wide range of other
interests. I wish people would drop it.

------
MSwaffer
"Girls aren't supposed to get involved in robotics" was the answer I got from
a high school girl on why more girls weren't in the robotics club. All the
stats about girls not doing well in math etc. just tell me that gender
stereotyping is alive and well.

------
daniel_solano
This footnote drew my interest:

 _Although female programmers are rare now, that wasn't the case in the 70's.
That shift is another argument against the natural balance hypothesis._

I am too young to know, but is this the experience of others as well?

Again, this is based purely on anecdotal experience, but I wonder if women
programmers tend to concentrate into particular industries (for whatever
reason). My wife was a programmer at a contractor for a large government
agency, and it struck me that there was a higher concentration of women there
than in other industries or in the start-up scene.

If this is generally the case, I am not sure to what extent this would support
any given hypothesis.

~~~
ArbitraryLimits
Back in the day I think the popular perception of programmers was kind of an
extension of a secretary (it's just typing on toggle panels instead of a
typewriter, right?) so there were lots of women stuck in secretarial positions
who tried it out.

~~~
pmb
...and those secretaries were good at it. And so were the women math PhDs who
could not get jobs elsewhere. And so were the women who had female mentors,
and therefore failed to be chased away. All of which dumps water on the
"innate abilities" trope that people keep bringing up as the null hypothesis
which must be disproved, instead of the claim which requires proof.

It genuinely weirds me out how many white males in tech see no conflict or
even feel a shiver of historical echoes when they argue the premise that they
(white men) are intrinsically genetically gifted in ways which other groups
are not, and that is why they are superior (at technology). Every other time
it has ever been argued, it has been false.

Unless the argument was that white men are better at the combination of having
penises, privilege, and low amounts of melanin --- we have that hat trick
down.

~~~
ArbitraryLimits
I wasn't arguing the "women aren't good at programming" position.

My personal opinion is that the most important reason there are few women
programmers, next to which any other factor fades into insignificance, is that
women are simply less interested in doing it. Now that I think about it, the
fact that there used to be many more women programmers when women's career
options were more limited is pretty strong evidence that this is true: Now
that women have more options, there are fewer women programmers.

------
nsxwolf
Also: This sentiment that women _should_ be interested in programming jobs,
but aren't because they've been damaged by the patriarchy in some way, and now
it's up to (predominantly) men to fix this for them - strikes me as a bit
sexist.

We could potentially take the Avatar/Dances With Wolves approach. A really
awesome superstar male programmer could start dressing in drag and lead female
programmers to victory. Or at least 50% representation.

~~~
lindseybieda
It's up to everyone in the community to fix this. No matter what their sex or
race. It's just a matter of being a more open and welcoming community.

I'm sure there are fellow female (and other minority) programmers reading the
comments on this article feeling completely unwelcome in the programming
community.

~~~
shallowwater
I'm one of those lady-types reading the comments here and getting the message
loud and clear that no matter how interested I may be, or how talented I may
become, I am not a welcome addition to this community.

~~~
nsxwolf
What led you to that conclusion? No, seriously, I want to know. Why don't you
feel welcome?

~~~
Kathy
How about comments like "Women getting their panties in a bunch about
something as minor as that is the reason they aren't taken seriously in the
workplace (to the extent they aren't, I mean)"? Not even so much the message
as the way it was said.

~~~
nsxwolf
That's like one guy on this whole thread. Everyone else would be more than
happy to see you in an interview.

We all would. We're just not seeing you gals come in. We've got quite a few
female project managers and business devs at my company, but no programmers.

~~~
Kathy
(The other answers to the first question are better and I agree with them.)

It is possible (I don't actually know in your case) that there are other
factors that make women not want to apply to your company. For example, right
now (and in the US) women are more likely than men (for this argument it
doesn't matter whether it is cultural or innate) to seek companies that reward
people (or at least don't punish people) for wanting a balanced between work
and home. A company's career website (or benefits website) can turn off
potential applicants if it looks like that balance is not respected. That is
particularly true in software because there are software companies that do
both.

------
tomjen3
Why are we having this debate? Shouldn't we focus on developing awesome
software?

~~~
duality72
That is exactly why we are having this debate.

------
lifeisstillgood
For a given value of true, Programming is just normal human language literacy
with slightly stricter syntax rules.

As such I say there should be as many good women programmers to good male
programmers as there are good women writers.

~~~
lancewalton
Programming is just writing lines of code with correct syntax?

~~~
mc32
As much as writing a novel is just writing sentences with correct syntax.

~~~
lancewalton
My point exactly.

------
mlncn
[http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-
explain-t...](http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-explain-the-
low-numbers-of-women-in-cs-hint-it-doesnt)

~~~
davidadsit
Since is it fairly common to hear mention of Asperger's syndrome in reference
to software developers, I went out and found this study: [http://www.la-
press.com/gender-ratios-in-autism-asperger-syn...](http://www.la-
press.com/gender-ratios-in-autism-asperger-syndrome-and-autism-spectrum-
disorder-article-a1900)

It turns out that there is a 12:1 ratio of males to females with the
Asperger's diagnosis.

I wonder if the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in males contributes
to behaviors that might give one an advantage in the software development
field? It only takes a quick reading of the characteristics of the disorder to
see that many of them are common among software developers:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome>

Of course, there are exceptions and I don't mean to imply that one cannot
create good software without these characteristics. I only suggest that
perhaps these characteristics provide some advantage in a field that is young
and constantly changing.

------
CoderDude1
I wonder if Nurses, Social Workers, and Daycare teachers are writing these
same articles about how there are not enough men in their fields.

~~~
dgabriel
Yes.

In nursing:
[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/06/health/main521057....](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/06/health/main521057.shtml)

<http://www.lpn-to-rn.net/articles/men-nursing.php>

In social work: <http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/092310p32.shtml>

<http://www.prlog.org/11694478-men-in-social-work.html>

In teaching/day care: <http://www.menteach.org/>

[http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_...](http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ484021&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ484021)

------
dudeguy999
Martin says that we are turning away qualified female candidates right now.
That's not the case. Only one female candidate comes through my door for every
7 or 8 males. We are meritocrats like Martin and would be happy to hire
females. But first they have to show up.

~~~
brianprogrammer
I don't believe he said anything close to that. Part of the reason posts like
this get people fired up is that they assume that they are being accused of
shutting women out unfairly. He left open the possibility that women (for
example) select themselves out of programming careers for whatever reason.

Imagine if you threw a party and invited half men, and half women, but only
the men showed up. Wouldn't you be displeased with those results and conclude
that you need to do something different to make your party more appealing to
women? I know I would.

------
bitops
Amazing, but unsurprising, that the first slew of comments are all about
tearing down the post.

~~~
jdp23
As Martin says "Personally I find it troubling when software professionals,
who ought to be good at logical thinking, can reach so easily for such
circular logic."

~~~
bitops
I don't mind the downvotes, but I think my comment was misunderstood. Of
course, whenever there is any type of gender-related article on HN, it gets
pretty nasty pretty quickly. HN, for all the good things I can say about it,
is firmly entrenched in the mindset that Martin is writing against.

~~~
roguecoder
And yet, still better than slashdot!

------
datashaman
Reprocussions is a word?

~~~
phuff
No. It's repercussions.

~~~
warmfuzzykitten
Having been dinged by PG for rewriting the title of a posted link - common
practice on HN - it particularly annoys me when it's done by people who can't
spell.

------
funkah
> A diverse group is usually more effective.

Does this mean the problem will take care of itself? That is, if it is true
that a diverse group is usually more effective, the products and startups that
succeed should have teams which tend to be more diverse than the ones that
fail. And as that happens, founders interested in succeeding would pay more
attention to the diversity of their firms.

~~~
jdp23
Not necessarily, because it's starting from inequality.

Here's a simple example. Assume hypothetically that due to historical
differences the vast majority of investment decisions are made by a non-
diverse demographic who prefer to invest in people like themselves. So even
though the diverse groups outperform, it may not be enough to overcome the
"unfair advantage" of easier access to capital.

