
My positive experience as a woman in tech - sebkomianos
http://lea.verou.me/2015/12/my-positive-experience-as-a-woman-in-tech/
======
indifferentalex
10/10 Will read again.

The sexism debate has indeed painted a bleak picture, people so often try to
show a different side of the picture but end up using the wrong words or
simply adding ambiguity to the discussion, most of the time only making the
matter more complicated, and worst of all, pulling us even further from a
potential solution. This one showed us not only a potential solution, but also
proved it's effectiveness.

Lea Verou (the author of the article) perfectly explains that even though
there is undoubtedly a problem, a problem whose degree is not/can not be
calculated (she also indirectly, simply by not giving it more article-time,
makes us understand that the lack of statistics doesn't mean this problem
doesn't exist or should not be resolved), this problem can and has already
been solved, not by company policies or special rules, but simply by people
treating others (women included) nicely, or as my first grade teacher taught
me, by following the golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated,
and amazingly across all mindsets and ways of thinking this rule means, for
anyone beginning from the wee age that they understand what those words mean,
that one should be treated in a way that is free of bias, fair and rational.

I will read this article again, and I will recommend it to friends and
acquaintances and family, because sexism is a problem beyond tech too (in
certain industries it might be an even bigger problem). I think this article
and hopefully ones like it that either exist already that I do not know of, or
ones that will be written afterwards, are a great way to make us realise that
all people should be treated the way that we want to be treated, and I truly
believe that will be enough to fix the problem of "women in tech".

~~~
userium
Based on discussions we have had with women in tech at
[https://keepwomen.com](https://keepwomen.com), it's not just sexism, but many
women leave tech due to working conditions (low salary, no advancement), work-
life balance (too much travelling, commuting), or the company environment
(poor cultural "fit"). Some solutions for retaining women in tech are e.g.
flexible working hours, personal development opportunities and workforce
diversity.

~~~
falcolas
If I'm honest, it sounds like the same issues everybody in tech faces. We're
all consistently under-compensated for the value we bring to the company
(sometimes because measuring the value is genuinely _hard_ , other times
because the tech industry is solely focused on making investors money), have
to leave a job to advance our careers, fight the internal politics and cliques
which form between departments and teams...

------
golergka
> It’s impossible to know, especially since they don’t know either! If you
> confront them on their sexism, they will deny all of it, and truly believe
> it. It takes a lot of introspection to see one’s internalized stereotypes.
> Therefore, a lot of the time, you cannot be sure if you have experienced
> sexist behavior, and there is no way to find out for sure, since the
> perpetrator doesn’t know either. There are many false positives and false
> negatives there.

Thousand times this.

I know that things like racism and sexism is bad and evil. But I also know
that I am these things — subconsciously. Having lived in a country with a long
tradition of racism and sexism, and given I've ever talked to a black person
for a first time half a year ago, I know that there's no chance that I don't
have these stereotypes inside on some level. Of course, I try to fight that
and become a better person, and on a rational level I know exactly why these
traits are evil.

But when I'm trying to explain it to someone, too often they just hear "I'm
racist" or "I'm sexist" and decide that I'm a total asshole :(

~~~
kelukelugames
My co worker accuses other people of being "tone deaf" and then makes dick
jokes. I have about a million examples of this. Of course, some of those
stories are about me. :P

People are too unwilling to admit and learn from their own mistakes.

~~~
CaptSpify
> "tone deaf" and then makes dick jokes

What does "tone deaf" mean in this context? And what's wrong with dick-jokes?

EDIT: I've poorly worded my question/point: I don't think there's anything
inherently wrong with dick jokes in the workplace, but context is key. It's
probably best to side on safe in that regard

I still would like to know what "tone deaf" means as I'm not understanding
that term

~~~
kelukelugames
Do you really think it's okay to make dick jokes in the workplace?

~~~
lloyd-christmas
My female Australian boss says "dumb cunts" roughly 5x a day in reference to
some 22 year old marketing "woo"-girls down the hall. I just made a comment
about how my balls hang down my left pant leg. In my prior job, I'd never even
bring up politics. It's almost as if people and environments are different.

~~~
pdex
I'd be more irked by the comment she made about your balls hanging down your
pant leg. Sounds like sexual harassment to me, if it were me wouldn't let a
boss speak to me in that fashion- male or female.

~~~
lloyd-christmas
I made that comment. If it were sexual harassment, I'd treat it as sexual
harassment. It's a joke, so I treat it as a joke.

~~~
pdex
I am truly sorry, I misread your post.

------
cubano
Here is my personal experience with the fringes of this issue over a lifetime
of watching it play out before my eyes...

If a female is attracted to the guy, things he says or does are considered
"cute", "flirtatious", and/or "interesting".

If not, _the same actions_ are often considered "creepy", "jerkish", and yes
even "sexist".

I think its just human nature to perceive things in this way, and since women
grow up in such a vastly different, sexually charged environment (I'm watching
it happen with my 13 year old daughter right now) as guys do, it is, of
course, impossible for me to understand all the nuance.

Just my anecdotal thoughts on it...btw it is good to see this woman make an
attempt to address the issue.

~~~
ZoFreX
My experience is different. This meme gets repeated a lot on the internet, but
it jars with the stories I hear from my friends.

Yes, someone not attractive is more likely to be considered creepy - but
that's correlation, not causation. Being creepy is extremely unattractive!

An example, which is by no means an outlier: A friend of mine met a man. The
man is very attractive, in the particular way that the woman in this story
likes, and they had some key common interests. She was extremely attracted to
him in short order.

Then he did something creepy. Bam, not attractive anymore. There was no
immunity conferred by the other attractive qualities - being creepy was
unattractive enough that he was no longer considered attractive.

It is a rather sad fact that many... "socially less capable" people can be a
bit oblivious of how their actions seem to other people, and the dividing line
between flirty and creepy. Without the necessary skills to tell the
difference, it does appear that this distinction is arbitrary, or predicated
on other variables (e.g. visual attractiveness).

~~~
nether
There seems to be a large divergence between women's spoken preferences and
observed preferences. It's like my very sympathetic female friend who says she
would date a short guy, while she never has. My sister says plenty of women
like asian men, while she has only dated white men. Women roundly ridicule
men's shirtless photos on dating sites, except OkCupid showed that these
photos attract women very effectively:
[http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4-big-myths-of-
profile...](http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4-big-myths-of-profile-
pictures/). Even Brene Brown discovered that while women spoke of their desire
for a sensitive, vulnerable man, in reality they were actually repulsed by it:
[https://www.quora.com/Why-are-some-women-repulsed-by-male-
vu...](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-some-women-repulsed-by-male-
vulnerability-as-discovered-by-Brené-Brown). I could go on. I think there's
some toxic puritanism that makes women feel compelled to act as the "fairer,"
more virtuous and less carnal gender. But the data show that women want big,
strong, virile men to lean on to this day.

------
gloves
> _" when no positive stories get out, the overall picture painted is bleak,
> which could scare even more women away."_

In a world where there is so much bad press and news, it is nice to read
something from the other side. Refreshing and encouraging.

------
ZeroGravitas
> _" Ironically, one of the very few times I have experienced any sexism in
> the industry was when a dude was trying to be nice to me."_

I'm not sure how ironic this is. It seems to be setting up a straw man of
sexist behaviour being the domain of moustache-twirling villians, rather than
something that often perfectly normal men and women inflict on each other and
experience unwanted outcomes of because of their culture and the structures of
the society they grew up in.

~~~
lmm
I think the point is that deliberately trying to accommodate women can result
in being more sexist. Which is pretty ironic.

~~~
meowface
I'm not a woman, but if I were one, I think I'd be pretty irritated if I was
given special privileges or encouragement over male peers to "help me succeed"
or something. That seems condescending and unfair.

~~~
coldpie
I understand what you're saying, but it is a bit more complicated than that.
Affirmative action is about leveling an unlevel playing field by giving
preferential treatment to those who are on the lower side of the playing
field, even if they're "less qualified" than those on the higher end of the
field. Yes, when viewed on the micro scale without a picture of the whole
field, it may seem "unfair," but that's precisely the point; to raise up those
who have been treated unfairly in other arenas. In addition, there is value
simply in having viewpoints outside of those you might otherwise receive by
valuing people solely on whatever objective "merits" you might be evaluating
them on.

It is a tricky and difficult subject, I would not be quick to dismiss either
argument.

~~~
meowface
It is certainly a difficult subject. I understand the good intentions of
affirmative action, but I think they cause more harm than good in the long
run. To be passed up for a position due to your gender or race, or for a
company to hire someone with lower technical qualifications than they'd
normally accept due to gender or race, creates a lot of resentment and
cultural issues. This isn't just negative opinions at the microscale; it
creates a large-scale perception that certain companies or industries are
giving preferential treatment, even at the expense of their own productivity
and cohesion. Already I see a lot of people complaining about this on various
websites, though it's probably overexaggerated a bit given that diversity
quotas aren't that popular with US companies relative to many European
countries (yet).

Even worse, it also might _encourage_ more division and more prejudice towards
those minority groups. If a company gives preferential treatment to hiring
women, then what are many coworkers going to inevitably think when a woman
makes a mistake or something? "You only got hired here because you're a
woman." And in that case, they actually have some empirical backing for that
assumption. I don't belong to a minority group, but I feel like the anxiety of
other people wondering or believing I only (or primarily) got into a certain
place because of my gender or race, and not my qualifications, would be very
uncomfortable and demotivating. Some people may already think that even when
it's plainly not true, but a lot more people will think it if it starts
becoming more true more often. Not to mention, on top of that, fear that maybe
I'm not that great and my gender/race really _was_ a major factor in my hiring
decision. Talk about imposter syndrome.

Also, just on a more general ethical note: People in certain groups have
indeed been treated very unfairly for centuries, but flipping the table feels
kind of "eye for an eye".

Of course unconscious biases are a major problem and will probably be
impossible to get rid of or ignore during a hiring process, but I think blind
hiring procedures (no name, gender, age, etc. listed on resume or during the
first stages of initial online interviews) are an all around better option. I
think if organizations work hard enough, they can eliminate a lot of these
issues in the pipeline. If, hypothetically, an equal number of male and female
candidates make it through the blind stages, but many more men make it through
the following stages, they can look at it and quickly determine if they have a
problem that needs addressing.

------
SCHiM
Keep in mind that the situation she recalls, the one with the guy that
apologizes to her for cussing, is perhaps not the sort of sexism you would
want to try and get rid of.

The way I see it, this coming from a early 20s male (read, shall we say,
constantly aware of the opposing sex), is that that attempt to be polite to a
woman has nothing to do with her being a woman in tech, but simply being a
woman in a social situation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's pretty normal for a guy/girl to
alter his/her behaviour when in a social situation with a member of sex
he/she's interested in. Eveb uf the situation in question is supposed to be
100% platonic and/or work related. There is a limit, of course, to how far we
can/should excuse this behaviour in people. But I don't think it's fair to
stomp on people when they behave different within limits.

Because you _are_ a woman, and it _does_ make a difference, but obviously not
in the sense that you'd be any more/less competent because of your gender.

~~~
douche
Women really, really, don't want to be treated the way men treat each other
when they get together without external sources of censure. Trust me on that.

~~~
DanBC
A lot of men really really don't want to be treated like that either.

~~~
Joeboy
also lots of women seem pretty comfortable in blokeish social settings.

~~~
pdex
There's lot of women who are more comfortable socializing with men and have
hobbies or think about topics that might have once been considered "tom-
boyish" that aren't considered so now (thankfully) and they can find a lot of
common ground to converse with men.

------
kelukelugames
>I would rather not call out sexist behavior ten times, than wrongly accuse
someone of it once.

Story time!

An admin at work complimented me for having a cute girlfriend. Two of the
younger women claimed that objectified women. On the other extreme, the CEO
made jokes in the hallway about having sex with other people's wives, but no
one ever complained.

Sexism from management is too often ignored. I suspect people rather nitpick
minor issues with peers and subordinates then tackle real problems against
people in power.

------
michaelwww
Some people command respect, others get respect without asking because they
deserve it, some are ignored one way or the other, being kind of neutral
persons, and some get disrespect for a lot of little things they are not aware
of, and some get outright scorn because they deserve it and know it. This has
nothing to with gender.

As a male, I've always tried to be someone who deserved respect. My first
impression of Lea Verou is that she deserves respect and possibly something in
her bearing gives off the impression that she commands it (that last part is
pure speculation to make my point.)

I've noticed a lot of complainers of either gender aren't getting respect for
the little things they are not very conscious of (and this is another reason
for the disrespect - little self-awareness,) things like being late, doing
sloppy work, gossiping, being greedy or careless with common resources, making
inappropriate comments, and so on. I'm not saying there isn't gender
discrimination, but I feel there are other factors that should be considered
as well.

------
hahamrfunnyguy
Glad to hear the positive side of this. I can't say I've encountered any
negative behavior in the course of my career that I would consider sexism.

I typically avoid crude humor and innuendo in the workplace because it's
impossible to know who is going to get offended. That said, I wouldn't be
surprised if I was more even more cautious around women lest something be
construed as harassment.

------
sonabinu
There are definitely good experiences. I think the problem is when management
pretends they did not hear something. I remember another female colleague
(absent at the meeting) being referred to as a 'chick' and the other men
laughing it off. It was a very bad experience. Being the only woman in the
room, I did not speak up but I wish I did.

~~~
pdex
Sometimes management needs to be tactfully reminded that they have the power
to correct these things, but they need to be made aware and it needs to be
done tactfully. I can see how you regretted not speaking up in front of a
majority who seemed to bless the bad behavior by indulging in it, but if it
happens again you may want to speak to your supervisor in private.

We hired a new guy who needed some education from the management on how NOT to
speak to female colleagues on the team. He was assigned to some projects with
a female colleague of equal position and pay, and he spoke to and treated her
like a subordinate although she was not. He was doing this unwittingly and
meant no true harm, but it was very insulting. This was likely another case of
a youngster who didn't have much experience working with women on a team. It
was brought to the management and they spoke with this new guy and his
behavior changed immediately, he's now much easier to work with all around and
everyone is happy about it. But if no one spoke to the management about the
behavior, it would have gone on unchecked and probably escalated.

~~~
sonabinu
I've since moved. That was one of the many boys club vibe I got there!

------
pervycreeper
Blackstone's formulation for those who didn't bother to click through:

>"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Wise to keep this in mind if you wish to be justice-conscious.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
Given 11 people who each have a 90.9% chance of having significantly harmed a
child and the option to release all or jail all, how many would be for
releasing all of them? I find that most people don't follow Blackstone's
formulation in practice. Maybe if it was 1 guilty person, but not 10.

~~~
wfo
It depends on how accurately describe the punishment you are meting out, and
very much on the words you use. Given 11 people who you suspect 90.9% chance
of having significantly harmed a child and the option to let them live free
until you're absolutely certain they are guilty or lock them all in cages to
be repeatedly beaten and raped for years at a time without being sure first,
which would you pick?

------
jenshoop
This is one narrative in an overall spectrum of experiences. Important not to
sidebar someone's very real experience or assume every "woman in tech" goes
through the same thing, so I welcome the introduction of a new perspective
that runs against the grain a bit. I wonder if this was prompted by a well-
intentioned friend asking "what it's like to be a female in tech these days"?
This is a question I get frequently and I'm just sort of at a loss as to what
to say -- I see a lot of problems with the lack of diversity especially at the
senior leadership level and have been through my fair share of negative
experiences, but I've also been fortunate to have insane mentors -- male and
female (well, if I'm keeping score, more male than female) -- to help me
progress, learn, develop. For me, and maybe this is fraught with its own
issues, I've always just sought to prove myself, demonstrate my value by
working hard, and earn respect that way. Few people -- male or female -- can
hold you in poor esteem if you constantly work to be an ethical, industrious
team-player.

------
anc84
> Stories like mine should become the norm, not the exception.

We don't know if that is not the case already. The echo chamber is powerful
and viral.

A great post, thank you!

------
ionforce
I had the pleasure of attending one of her talks at a conference and she was
one of the more entertaining, engaged, and articulate speakers there.

Glad to have come across her work again here!

------
dajohnson89
She had me until the very end, with the anecdote about the guy apologizing for
swearing in front of her.

I would apologize if I said "fuck" near my country's president, or even the
president of my small-ish company. Both of whom are male. It's a sign of
respect. In the context of women, I see it in a similar light to holding the
door open for a lady. It isn't me assuming she's too weak to open a door, it's
just a common courtesy.

I'm genuinely sorry that the author was offended by the guy apologizing for
saying "fuck" near her. I can't speak for him, and perhaps he was a total
douchebag. But perhaps he was aware that on average men can be more crude than
women, and in a professional (male-dominated, numerically speaking!) setting
like that one, it's prudent to avoid language that could make people feel
uncomfortable.

~~~
avz
You're missing this important point:

> His effort to be courteous made me feel that I was different, the odd one
> out, the one we must be careful around and treat like a fragile flower.

We should respect all our colleagues _equally_ regardless of the type of
sexual organs they happen to be equipped with (and regardless of other
irrelevant characteristics). Singling out one group over others for additional
"respect" is what makes them feel different and out of place.

In the setting of this anecdote her role was not that of a "lady", but that of
an "engineer".

~~~
swombat
Why can't she be treated as both simultaneously? Why does treatment as an
"engineer" require the abolition of her "lady" role? Are the two roles not
compatible?

I personally thing it is more sexist to try and deny gender differences than
simply recognise them and deal with people respectfully. I find the
implication that the only way to not be sexist is to treat everyone as gender
neutral disturbing.

~~~
meowface
Why is it generally okay to swear in front of men but generally not okay to
swear in front of women? That's a pretty sexist, and condescending, point of
view.

Sure, there are gender differences. But I don't think "genetic vulnerability
to profanity" is one of them.

~~~
scintill76
This feminist wiki says, "Any form of 'fuck' that assumes penetration is a bad
thing for the receptive partner" is misogynist[1]. So I guess something like
"Yeah, they really fucked us over on that one." could have been what he said,
and it would be misogynistic and thus makes sense to be something that
shouldn't be said around women especially. The next step is to eliminate
saying it around men too, because misogyny hurts us all.

Yes, I'm being half-sarcastic here. It seems like if you want to question this
definition of misogyny, you have to concede that every such thing, like casual
uses of the terms "trigger" and "microagression", is suspect. Why is "fuck" so
acceptable to say around women that they feel left out when you try to
abstain, but saying "forking" and "dongle" was a mini sexual assault that one
time?

[1] [http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Guide_for_foul-
mouthed_fe...](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Guide_for_foul-
mouthed_feminists?oldid=32221)

~~~
meowface
That seems like a bit of a strawman and overgeneralization. I personally think
offense over "fuck", "fork", or "dongle" is absurd (beyond typical
professionalism/politeness standards), but this is one branch of feminism
finding "fuck" offensive, and in the "dongle" incident, one single woman who
found it offensive at the time. Obviously not all women find these things
offensive. Not all people (women or otherwise) use or advocate for the modern-
tumblr definitions of "microaggression" or "trigger", either.

You're acting like the article you linked is some sort of rulebook all women
in technology abide by.

~~~
scintill76
I'm surprised my comment was actually somewhat popular, so it may well have
been interpreted differently than I meant. I was intending to sarcastically
take the position that one feminist website is a rulebook for everyone,
because that's how people seriously act all the time. The woman in the dongle
fiasco believed that because she was offended, everyone should be, and the
conference organizers apparently agreed. She had plenty of supporters -- was
it really just "one single woman"? Maybe it's a bad example, because as the
situation evolved she was being attacked (and in response, supported) more as
a woman than as a professional maintaining certain standards. But I do believe
a substantial chunk supported her position itself, a complaint primarily about
sexism.

On the other hand, the OP herself is in the gray (for now at least) for saying
dick jokes are fine and the only sexism there is the lack of vulva jokes.[1]

The fact that there is no rulebook was exactly my point. For every person
wanting to analyze whether your anatomical/sexual reference is offensive to
someone, there is someone else feeling singled out that you would take that
care before saying it in front of them. I don't want to throw up my hands and
give up, just point out that people act like the answers are easy but it's
actually very complex. There's little consensus on proper behavior on these
small scales, and both sides have tribal and exclusionary behaviors.

Behavior of today's college students, in the US at least, suggests the Tumblr
generation is growing and therefore a sizable contingent of people really will
increasingly apply these standards to everyone else.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10760819](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10760819)
(you have to go up to parent to see the grayness, and I'm assuming it's the OP
because she claimed so in another comment and has a sufficiently-aged account
with the same name as the website)

------
exodust
Now we just need a "neutral experience as a woman in tech" piece and we'll
have discussed the full spectrum of this topic.

I didn't read the article. When someone has a positive experience in tech "as
a woman", that is the norm. I don't subscribe to that being noteworthy,
regardless of the campaigns insisting otherwise.

maybe some stories about nasty manipulative women in tech should be shared. Or
not. Bad vibes and all, who needs bad vibes. I worked with a backstabbing IT
exec woman in a previous job. Piece of work she was... Won't go into it of
course but sometimes people just suck. Male or female.

The danger is that poor performance can be insulated by the distraction of
over sensitivity to the "women in tech" issue that's memed at campaign levels.

------
danr4
>" _It takes a lot of introspection to see one’s internalized stereotypes._ "

I think she hit spot on with this - But that bit was directed at men, when the
reality is that it goes both ways.

The problem is that it's a cycle hard to break from - it's not just men being
sexist, it's women being unconsciously sexist towards themselves because they
grew up in a sexist environment.

That's why you need to raise awareness, to make men AND women more aware of
their thoughts and actions which they did not know were a result of sexism.
Gotta break the pattern.

~~~
leaverou
It was absolutely NOT directed just at men. We all have internalized
stereotypes and biases.

~~~
danr4
That came out wrong. I was referring to the whole paragraph, which contains
examples of men being sexist, rather than that quote.

------
FussyZeus
Personally I've only ever witnessed sexism at play in larger companies,
startup culture by it's nature I think is anti-sexist, the highly competitive
market for employees combined with the sense of "who gives a shit about
genders, we gotta get this thing fixed NOW" kind of makes it a defacto
meritocracy.

Not to say that it can't happen in startups of course, just saying in the
Perfect World, a startup culture would eliminate it before it even had a
chance to take foothold.

~~~
m0dc
Biases come into play even when judging supposedly objective things like
technical merit. In a startup environment where every new hire has a huge
impact on the outcome of the company, the subconsciously perceived 'safe bet'
will always be to favor the person who talks and acts the most like a young
Zuckerberg.

~~~
FussyZeus
Must be a privilege of startups who have an ample amount of applicants to sift
through. When you're in an area with a smaller tech industry, you need be a
little more flexible to whats available.

------
kohito
I think the reason the overall picture painted of women in tech is bleak
because the typical experience of being a woman in the tech industry is bleak.
Women are scared away from tech by their experience in tech, not by tech's
reputation, so I'm not surprised there aren't more Lea's out there.

Women who quit the tech industry (56%) do so at a significantly higher rate
than they do in science (47%) and engineering (39%) ("HBR Research Report: The
Athena Factor:Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and
Technology" \-- and I'll add that the report is good about addressing why
childcare and the heavy workloads don't entirely account for the quit rate.)

Quit rates in the industry shouldn't be higher than other STEM industries.
Even if you grant a pipeline problem, in which case sharing positive stories
about women in tech improves the situation, once women are involved, positive
stories can't impact how they are treated. The quit rate suggests it's a worse
situation for women than in similar industries.

One commenter here suggests Lea's case shows nothing needs to change, which is
odd, since Lea doesn't say that. It's also odd that this commenter suggests
rule changes addressing inadequacies ought to be characterized as "special
rules" \-- special changes to fundamentally sound policy -- instead of "better
policy" \-- fundamental changes to flawed policies, policies demonstrated to
be flawed by their unfair and differential impact on women.

Nonetheless, it is great Lea has had a positive experience. I am glad she
shared it.

~~~
kazinator
What is "engineering": just mechanical, civil and such? If I'm designing part
of the circuit board for a tablet, is that "tech industry" or "engineering"?

------
vinceguidry
> It takes a lot of introspection to see one’s internalized stereotypes.
> Therefore, a lot of the time, you cannot be sure if you have experienced
> sexist behavior, and there is no way to find out for sure, since the
> perpetrator doesn’t know either.

I had the thought today that the sexism debate is actually a war, but it's not
a war fought by humans against other humans. It's fought by groups of neurons
against other groups of neurons, our conscious minds are just pawns.

Many times, those groups of neurons war inside the same person's brain.
Biological warfare is fierce.

------
JDiculous
Thank you for writing this, this was a much needed post that sheds light on
the other side of the story that you never hear about.

------
ljw1001
thank you

------
reitanqild
Don't see why this was flagged. It us a well known fact that a lot of women
thrive in tech.

I've said this to many times already but I've been told by women how much they
enjoy working with men because we are so straightforward.

Edit: that said, didn't vote at all on this one, but flagged to death? No.

~~~
nv-vn
>Don't see why this was flagged Because some people would rather silence
people who disagree with their opinions rather than debate them or just learn
to live ignore them if it's too hard.

~~~
tangled_zans
It's not about disagreement. The poster put "scare quotes" around sexism,
implying that the issue does not even exist or is worth discussing.

That's not an "opinion" it's an implicit way of saying that everyone talking
about it is kind of dumb for even bringing it up.

EDIT: OH WOW, I HAVE BEEN DOWNVOTED. Which is not something I normally care
about since I post quite controversial things anyway. But downvoted by the
same people complaining about being "unfairly downvoted by others"? The
hypocrisy of you.

~~~
microcolonel
By the way, it's against the guidelines to talk about being downvoted, that
will explain further flagging of your post.

~~~
tangled_zans
Replying here cos I can't reply to your other comment.

Either I have been so bad at communicating my point that it came out as
garbled nonsense or you've confused me with someone else.

I am all _for_ people being able to downvote whoever they want without needing
to explain themselves. The only reason I mentioned being downvoted at all - by
1 guy, I think - was to point out that the same people complaining that they
are being "unfairly downvoted for having controversial opinions" have no
qualms about downvoting people with opposing views. Which, in my eyes, is
hypocritical.

------
sktrdie
Am I the only one who thinks "sexism" is overrated? It's misinterpreted by so
many and I'm not sure I understand what it means most of the time. I think
humans are prejudice about so many things that it's hard to keep track and
"give a name" to every single prejudice. Obviously "sex" does set us apart
much more strongly than, say, race, or probably any other thing, so I really
find it normal that there are stereotypes and prejudices about "sex"
specifically.

Obviously there's a problem if your stereotype, whichever it may be, becomes
offensive and disrespectful. But I mean -- " I noticed for the first time that
day that I was the only woman in the room. His effort to be courteous made me
feel that I was different, the odd one out" \-- there's no way you can label
this "sexist". It's just a dude who probably thinks a girl is cute and is
therefore a little awkward around said person.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that labels can mean different things to
different people and I really hate using them to express my specific
situation.

~~~
blowski
Exactly. Sexism is not identical to misogynism. Where the latter is about
being nasty, sexism is believing something about somebody solely based on
their gender.

So if I assume you don't like pizza and football because you're female, so
instead buy you frozen yoghurt, I'm being sexist even if it's with the nicest
of intentions.

We're all human and we all make mistakes, but sometimes people blow those
mistakes out of all proportion. We just need more understanding and patience
on both sides of the fence.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Is it sexism to make assumptions that are probabilistically correct?

Consider the following procedure:

1) For a woman I don't know, I buy her frozen yogurt. 2) For a man I don't
know, I buy him pizza.

Now suppose my stereotypes are actually accurate - i.e., P(likes froyo >
pizza|woman) > 0.5 and P(likes pizza > froyo | man) > 0.5. This procedure,
based purely on stereotypes, will make everyone happier than flipping a coin.
It's actually the best possible way to allocate pizza and frozen yogurt if the
only information I have is gender.

Are you really saying that to not be sexist, I need to ignore information and
make worse decisions?

(My supposition that stereotypes are accurate has actually been studied:
[http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o...](http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf)
)

~~~
pron
I know you're just doing your normal schtick of incorrectly assuming that
everyone else is stupid (obviously no one, including blowski, thinks "to not
be sexist, you need to ignore information and make worse decisions"), but this
time you have accidentally stumbled on an interesting point. I know you don't
care one way or another, but for the sake of other readers, I'd like to point
it out(and BTW, your specific example (taken from blowski) isn't really sexist
as I don't quite see how it keeps women away from power, but that's beside the
point):

> I need to ignore information and make worse decisions?

Ignoring information and making worse decisions are two different things. Or,
more precisely, by _not ignoring_ some statistical data you are ignoring
_other_ pieces of information, such as our understanding of social dynamics.
Ignoring yesterday's information about the train's arrival time would only
lead to a much better decision making if you want to get to the train on time
and you know that the train runs on a different schedule on weekends and
yesterday was a Sunday. A piece of data is mostly useless (and even
misleading) if you don't know what model it samples. Statistical data on human
behavior is usually very bad information because history shows us that
_preferences_ change all the time (except for obvious things, like that people
want power and are afraid of death). In fact, if women preference for frozen
yogurt over pizza stayed _constant_ throughout the ages it would be the
exception rather than the rule.

If you base your decision _only_ on _statistical_ information of the kind you
describe, you're creating a conservative feedback loop. We now know that
people's assumptions about others' behavior may affect the other's behavior,
and so behaving in accordance with past behavior (because that's what most of
your information is really about) simply perpetuates the current condition.

The information you shouldn't ignore is the deeper information that comes from
the actual study of social dynamics. That information tells us that changing
your behavior to not conform to past behavior would (and constantly does)
change society's future state. This is where social dynamics diverge from
physics and the train schedule. We can _decide_ to affect them (not
necessarily determine them, because it's very hard to predict the behavior of
such a complex system, but our actions definitely change the dynamics; we know
this for a fact).

The only question is, which way do you _want_ to direct society: do you want
to keep it as it is for as long as possible, or change it according to your
values?

~~~
throwaway999888
I guess the conclusion to yummyfajitas' scenario then is to not give a woman
frozen yogurt or pizza, but broccoli or spinach instead.

~~~
pron
The conclusion is to try to study about society before trying to make
unfounded assumptions such as "as in the past" = "greatest happiness".

------
silentplummet
This is fair, but let's recognize that the discussion takes place in the
context of a few well known individuals who have made an enviably successful
career as freelance victims, who stridently prevaricate about the persecution
they've experienced in the industry, but by all accounts don't actually do any
work on technology at all.

One wrote a story for a mediocre video game and claims publicly to be a game
developer. Is she a 'woman in tech'? It's like if I painted a mural on a house
during construction this one time and went on claiming a career in carpentry.
But don't you dare claim I'm not legitimately a carpenter, because hey, stop
persecuting me!

The dichotomy isn't false, it's quite real and true, and it seems obvious to
me that there are a handful of lamentably visible charlatans who are to blame
for it. On the other hand, I could list dozens of women in the industry whose
output I greatly respect and they seem to experience great success, but you
never hear a peep out of them. It's almost like the more "tangentially
involved" one is with tech, the more vocal one becomes about this supposed
persecution...

~~~
dang
We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10761246](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10761246)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
silentplummet
That's a pretty fast turnaround time. 6 minutes! I don't think the Air Force
can even scramble jets that fast.

Would you care to point out exactly what part of the comment is "off-topic"
pursuant to `the experience of women in tech`?

~~~
dang
The timing is random.

The comment is trying to convert this thread into the most well-rehearsed
flamewar of the last several years. That's not just off topic, it's arson. The
HN guidelines explicitly ask you not to do such things on HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

Also, please stop posting inflammatory rhetoric to HN generally. That's not
what this site is for.

------
tomp
That's the general theme of public discourse... Americans killing Muslims in
Iraq are "soldiers", wherears Muslims killing Americans in the US are
"terrorists".

 _Edit:_ Looks like I've hit a very sore point...

~~~
aikah
> That's the general theme of public discourse... Americans killing Muslims in
> Iraq are "soldiers", wherears Muslims killing Americans in the US are
> "terrorists".

Americans aren't killing Muslims in Iraq just because they are muslims. That's
a straw-man.

> wherears Muslims killing Americans in the US are "terrorists"

(Some) Muslim extremists certainly are killing americans because of what they
are and what they believe in. They are effectively called terrorists because
they don't kill soldiers.

They go kill random civilians in the streets.

A soldier that would do the same would be charged with war-crime, and it
happened.

Quit your post-modernist framework which is making you say despicable things
frankly.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
It's a pity that, whenever some idiot tries to set light to a mosque in a
'revenge' attack, it never seems to get described as a 'terrorist attack'. I
don't know why that is.

~~~
reitanqild
Where is this happening on a regular basis except in Muslim countries?

Also FWIW I think my local news sources tend to write about it in about the
same way they write about other forms of terrorism.

------
DrNuke
HN is a bubble made of few making it real, mostly in the Bay Area, and a lot
of marginal daydreamers from all over the world. For this reason, the mood and
the overall narrative is sometimes bizarre: we have a front page with one
topic bashing India as corrupt (it may be 90-95% of the planet, actually) and
this one where gender (race, age, culture, attitude) does not affect the
industry. A bit detached from ordinary life, both the makers and the dreamers,
uh?

~~~
gotchange
HN is more of a vanguardia than gatekeepers whether on social or technological
change front and that's why these topics appeal to the community and garner a
lot of responses and interesting discussions.

Welcome to the community.

------
anon4
Interesting. I was actually expecting a blank page.

------
Chris2048
I think, when we see things like this, we maybe need to clarify _where_
(country) these experiences come from. I suspect that the worst of sexism in
tech comes from the US, and that Europe is generally great...

~~~
burkaman
Why do you suspect that?

~~~
douche
Because Europe is a socialist, progressive paradise, full to the brim with
sunshine and unicorns! /s

~~~
MattRL
Not the other poster, but it seems like some of these issues people are
bringing up just don't exist in the UK at least.

I think the big problems will generally correlate, but some of the silly ones
like excusing swearing around women or holding doors for women (we do that for
everybody if I understand the issue correctly), just flat out don't exist.

I'd also hazard a guess that we're probably more polite when dealing with
coworkers, but that's complete conjecture on my part.

------
sarahnadav
I am glad that this woman had a good experience, but it is the exception
rather than the rule. Anyone who wants to use this as social proof that gender
discrimination isn't a huge problem in the industry is fooling themselves.

~~~
FussyZeus
For goodness sakes, sentence 1 and 2:

"Women speaking up about the sexism they have experienced in tech is great for
raising awareness about the issues. However, when no positive stories get out,
the overall picture painted is bleak, which could scare even more women away."

And:

"Yes, there are several women who have had terrible experiences, and I’m in no
way discounting them."

And:

"Those of us who have had incredibly positive experiences, and have always
been treated with nothing but respect. That side’s stories need to be heard
too, not silenced out of fear that we will become complacent and stop trying
for more equality. Stories like mine should become the norm, not the
exception."

Way to miss half the point in the first three paragraphs.

------
Kenji
As a man, I'm really glad to read things like that. You know, the sexism
problem makes both sexes feel bad. I think it is really important for our
society in general that we don't let differences like sex get between us. It's
silly and petty.

------
tangled_zans
Great article.

Odd though that so many commenter choose to interpret this as "look! clear
proof that there is no sexism! everyone has been overreacting about it!"

If you don't believe that sexism is a real issue, look at source [0]. It says
so right there:

"While women have gained many more rights and freedoms in most of the
developed world, especially since the beginning of the 20th century, women
still face discrimination and harassment worldwide. Until then, women in most
of the world did not have the right to vote, and were treated with even
greater disrespect than today."

[https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman)

------
lifeisstillgood
Sexism is not "over-rated"

OECD's Social Institutions and Gender Index Is at
[http://www.genderindex.org](http://www.genderindex.org), and is a litany of
baked in prejudice, violence, lack of access to education, lack of access to
property and other normal legal rights.

When we compare the lot of a 16 yo girl in Rwanda to a High schooler in SF,
yes it is hard to find where the High schooler is having problems, but we just
have to look at the ratio of men and women in tech to see there is a problem -
even in modern, western, progressive San Francisco.

So globally, sexism is a violent oppressive force holding back progress for
billions. In our happier world, it's waaaay better, but still not equal - and
where there is inequality, there is profitable arbitrage opportunity. Both for
talented women and for companies willing and able to introspect and overcome
whatever is blocking their use of talented women.

The most obvious example I can see is I should be able to hire the very best
development talent, for 80% of the price of the equivalent male talent ! Win!

~~~
adrianN
I'm still not convinced that the lack of women in tech is due to sexism. Maybe
women just aren't as excited by the field as men? Nobody seems to question
that this is the reason why there are so few male preschool teachers.

~~~
Already__Taken
There a few male preschool teachers because of the threat of accusations and
prejudice. I work in schools, you're told not to be alone with children. You
can work 10 or 20 years to get into your stride teaching in lower school and
it can be all undone in one bad press piece. It's a massive problem.

~~~
Cthulhu_
^this; after a large child abuse scandal in an Amsterdam day care, male day
care employees were scorned, distrusted, frowned upon, etc, and a lot of them
either lost of quit their jobs. The sexism is real, and that industry doesn't
get as much pressure to increase diversity either - mostly because their
customers (i.e. parents) pressure the day cares into discriminating based on
gender, either directly or indirectly by taking their children elsewhere.

That just doesn't happen in IT. Nobody cares by who software was written, as
long as it does the job right - as it should be. Real tolerance is not
worrying about the demographics of people in a certain industry.

------
daleharvey
It really isnt surprising this is pretty much the only article about gender
discrimination that is allowed to be on the hacker news front page.

Lea is obviously a talented and confident person and it is great that she has
had such a positive experience. Entirely agree that she can and should share
it.

It is however sadly predictable that the comments on HN lean very much towards
self congratulatory 'gender discrimination isnt really a problem!'
discussions. The huge amount of discussion around the problematic areas of
tech culture are routinely censored from this site giving people who have the
privilege of not having to suffer from the systematic discrimination an easy
pass to believe that there is no problem when even a token effort to look
makes it more than obvious that there is a massive problem of discrimination
in our field.

~~~
golergka
> pretty much the only article about gender discrimination that is allowed to
> be on the hacker news front page

WTF?

There have been dozens of articles about gender discrimination on HN front
page, and comments have always been supportive.

In what alternate reality do you live?

~~~
DanBC
> and comments have always been supportive.

There's a sizable minority of HN commenters who deny sexism exists.

~~~
golergka
> There's a sizable minority of HN commenters who deny sexism exists.

It's always good to have a minority that questions the consensus. Even if this
minority is something completely idiotic, like a "flat earth society".

~~~
jnbiche
I agree strongly with this statement. But most people seem to think that
having a subgroup with "verboten" opinions is a liability, not an asset.

~~~
ionforce
I think it depends on the... good-will (?) of the crowd. Like if both sides
are willing to engage in reasoned debates, I don't see anything wrong with
dissent.

But if one side is trolling or won't engage in good faith, then I would say
that those types of people shouldn't be able to stick around. That's
poisonous. And their continued existence lends credence to unfounded ideas.

I don't think this issue of sexism is so cut-and-dry. A lot of it is informed
and shaped by people's personal experiences and we'll never have view of
everyone's experiences with 100% clarity.

There will always be this natural tension when mixing "well, I'm skeptical of
your claim" with "well, you should trust what I'm saying" from a
disenfranchised party.

