
Brotopia: Analysis and Review - randomname2
https://quillette.com/2018/10/12/brotopia-analysis-and-review/
======
wjnc
Ok, one thing against the 'data analysis' in OP: if Santa Clara is allegedly
male-dominated then the better comparison is number of complaints per million
women in the local labour force. The other obvious one is that complaints per
capital possibly falls with income. Without correction for that, this offhand
denial after a casual data browsing is too easy. My personal ethics suggest
that any sector where business is done in sex clubs and hot tubs is shady, but
who am I? It's like when Heineken had stocked fridges with beer for meetings.
It's not directly female-unfriendly but the social dynamics of meetings change
after a few beers. They stopped that a decade ago.

~~~
naasking
I was about to post a similar point, that he's possibly comparing unequal
demographics, and without controlling for that his numbers are probably not
meaningful.

Still, he makes plenty of other good points. And as for meetings in sex clubs,
I have no doubt that this still occurs in plenty of other fields, even ones
that aren't male dominated.

The fact that Chang's book appears long on rumour and short on data is what
should disqualify it from being taken seriously.

~~~
mhjas
> Still, he makes plenty of other good points.

Could you summarize, or mention a few? Because I struggle to see much of any
merit to the article. It starts out with scare quote even in the first
paragraph which is, if not just outright bad, criticized enough to be a faux
pas in itself. It continues with rhetorically embellished opinions about the
book, which most of us haven't read. Then presents a bunch of numbers that we
again don't know if they are particularly relevant. Finally it spends most of
the rest of the article discussing other theories that the author prefers.

I would expect an analysis like this at least partly present the theories
discussed in the book in a relatively natural light to then discuss those
theories.

~~~
naasking
> It starts out with scare quote even in the first paragraph which is, if not
> just outright bad, criticized enough to be a faux pas in itself.

I suggest reading the introduction to the book in Amazon. Plenty of "scare
quotes" there too, just pushing an opposing narrative. Maybe the tone of the
article is reflective of the book rather than a bias people seem all too quick
to ascribe to the article's author (although the author is almost certainly
biased too -- we all are). I'm not sure the article has embellished much given
the introduction.

The article actually points out the book's main bias, "Chang does not consider
any alternative theses that might cause gender disparities in occupational
sectors." People attempting to analyze an issue with a narrative already
firmly in mind is all too common, and the signal to noise ratio on this
subject been getting worse. This book appears to be more of the same. I've
done a lot of reading on this issue, and the book's intro and this article
reflect a common narrative that can explain only some of the data rather than
following where the data leads.

The article cites a few books by professional psychologists that discuss
gender differences at length. That's where you'll find better data and better
theories to explain the data.

As for other good points in the article:

1\. I think the article is correct to point out that tech is getting an
unusual amount of attention given the gender disparities in other fields. I
think people with a feminist agenda see tech as a big lever for social change
because of how pervasive tech is in our lives. Adopting that agenda will have
upsides and downsides, but we should always be wary of agendas, because they
are by necessity blind to effects outside their narrow scope. This agenda is
often couched in phrases like "diverse teams always outperform non-diverse
teams". If that were true to any meaningful degree, then there would be no
need for any explicit action on our part because compensation for diversity
would reflect that.

2\. The article is also correct to point out that redistributing work means
taking women out of other sectors and displacing men to other sectors
(although obviously hyperbolic in suggesting we just swap with nurses), and
this change won't necessarily lead to better outcomes overall.

Finally, consider the obvious question: why is it necessary to "break up" the
boy's club in tech when we clearly didn't need any such call to break up the
boy's clubs in medicine or law. Arguably, they were far more insular and
sexist, but women broke into them anyway and achieved gender parity. But note
that while those fields overall are roughly gender equal, the genders have
still segregated themselves into various specializations, eg. surgery is still
male dominant, pediatrics is female dominant. The sexism narrative can't
explain this, but the works by the psychologists the article cites actually
can.

This is one among a few data points that tells me who is more closely pursuing
the data, and who is pursuing a narrative. Anyway, I could trot out plenty of
citations on this, and I have here on HN in the past, but there's little
point. It almost always devolves into pointless squabbling.

~~~
mhjas
> I suggest reading the introduction to the book in Amazon. Plenty of "scare
> quotes" there too, just pushing an opposing narrative.

I don't see the relevance of the tone of the book. Especially not if the
author of the article suggest that his own arguments have more merit. Nor does
the introduction of the book [0] actually seem to have many scare quotes. A
scare quote is when you question something by quoting it, most often without
elaborating. That isn't the usage of quotes in the introduction of the book as
far as I can tell, it is the usage of quotes in the article though.

> I'm not sure the article has embellished much given the introduction.

Again I don't see why it is relevant what the book does nor that this is
actually the case in the book. Things like "colourful mud-slinging on the
basis of anecdotes" and "can be dismissed as lurid gossip" is certainly just
that and present in the article. If it was true that Brotopia only contains
anecdotes that can easily be dismissed then why do we even need the rest of
the article?

> The article actually points out the book's main bias, "Chang does not
> consider any alternative theses that might cause gender disparities in
> occupational sectors."

Since we don't really get to know what the theory of the book is in the
article I don't think that is that relevant either. When I read an "analysis
and review" I want to know what the theory of the book is and its merits. That
the author of the book didn't consider a specific theory might be an argument
in the overall discourse, but isn't necessarily relevant for the merit of the
book's argument. Unless it can be specifically tied to what the book is
actually saying.

> That's where you'll find better data and better theories to explain the
> data.

If he wants to discuss the overall issue, and not just the book, there are
plenty of other research studies one could and should refer to.

> I think the article is correct to point out that tech is getting an unusual
> amount of attention given the gender disparities in other fields.

Again I don't see the relevance since we are talking about a book on this
exact issue. How do you correctly measure the amount of attention something
should have? I would say it is pretty safe to skip that discussion all
together and just argue the issues instead.

The majority of these points have now been about other things than the
contents of the book in question.

> The article is also correct to point out that redistributing work means
> taking women out of other sectors and displacing men to other sectors
> (although obviously hyperbolic in suggesting we just swap with nurses), and
> this change won't necessarily lead to better outcomes overall.

Even from the scare quote summary earlier in the article I can guess that the
book argues that this should happens because the state of the boys club isn't
the natural state, but an injustice. You could certainly argue that that
doesn't matter, but then you would also have to argue against being a
meritocracy.

> why is it necessary to "break up" the boy's club in tech when we clearly
> didn't need any such call to break up the boy's clubs in medicine or law.

Didn't we? In these discussions people tend to argue that medicine and law is
much more formalized and that it therefor is easier to effect change from the
top. Since the book presumably is about the informal structures in technology
that seem like a relevant argument.

> But note that while those fields overall are roughly gender equal, the
> genders have still segregated themselves into various specializations, eg.
> surgery is still male dominant, pediatrics is female dominant.

Which largely isn't the case in technology i.e. its an overall problem not in
specializations.

> The sexism narrative can't explain this, but the works by the psychologists
> the article cites actually can.

If you, like the article, dismisses the book in favor of a particular study
that might be the case, but that just isn't a very strong argument. To make
that a strong argument you would have specifically address the points, and the
overall thesis, of the book and then make a counter argument based on that.
That is exactly what I would expected and didn't get from the article.

> Anyway, I could trot out plenty of citations on this, and I have here on HN
> in the past, but there's little point. It almost always devolves into
> pointless squabbling.

I am not asking to write as long as you did. I much prefer one or two points
and we could argue. I just don't think there is much support for that in this
article which is exactly what I argued in my previous comment.

[0] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-01/women-
onc...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-01/women-once-ruled-
computers-when-did-the-valley-become-brotopia)

~~~
naasking
I'm not going to address all your points since as I said, these discussions
tend to go nowhere, so I'll only reply to some specifics about motivation and
appropriateness of the author's review:

> If it was true that Brotopia only contains anecdotes that can easily be
> dismissed then why do we even need the rest of the article?

Clearly because the viewpoint presented is not going away and is taken quite
seriously.

> Since we don't really get to know what the theory of the book is in the
> article I don't think that is that relevant either.

I'm not sure why you say this. The article is pretty clear what the book's
theory is: sexist, explicitly exclusionary practices are why women are
avoiding tech.

> How do you correctly measure the amount of attention something should have?

By consistently applying the principles espoused by the book, in this case,
gender parity. Inconsistency entails special pleading or an agenda that isn't
necessarily honest, which reveals implicit or explicit bias.

> The majority of these points have now been about other things than the
> contents of the book in question.

That's a fair point, but I'm not sure I'd expect anything else considering the
subject is a contested social issue and the book is a call for forceful and
radical change.

> Which largely isn't the case in technology i.e. its an overall problem not
> in specializations. [re: gender dempographics]

That's not actually true. There are plenty more women in project management
positions than there are female programmers. Which is tangential to the point
that a sexism narrative can't explain such voluntary gender segregation, while
alternative theories fair better on this measure.

> To make that a strong argument you would have specifically address the
> points, and the overall thesis, of the book and then make a counter argument
> based on that.

If the article is accurate that the book did not present any other possible
explanations other than overt and implicit sexism, then the article did just
that.

~~~
vhav
I abandoned my "mhjas" account, but I'll write a final comment.

My main critic of the article is that it doesn't address the arguments the
book is making, but instead dismisses them.

If one person says "chocolate ice cream is the best because it has so much
flavor" a merited response isn't "chocolate sucks, vanilla is pure flavor".
That is just an opinion. A response containing argument would be "the
chocolate flavor overpowers the taste of the cream, vanilla is better since it
has a more subtle flavor making it more balanced". Now we as readers can
decide among those argument, or make our own.

That is what we should get from the article. He should address the specific
points made in the book. If sexism is the main point of the book, he should
address that. He can't just dismiss those things by saying "toxic work
environment" and "sexism" in quotes.

The entire part of the article addressing the book can be summarized as with
this sentence:

"The point is simply that the complaints data does not suggest that Silicon
Valley is “rife” with sexual discrimination and harassment or worse than
California more generally. On the contrary, Silicon Valley seems better than
average."

Not only isn't that very interesting, but as others have pointed out actually
misguided. He doesn't perform any sort actual analysis of even the numbers
presented, nor does he compare them against other sources. He doesn't explore
the demographics, the consequences or the meaning of the data. These number
could be explained in many other ways including but not limited to that more
men in the workforce leads to less complaints, more white-collar jobs leads to
less complaints, more unbalanced gender leads to less complaints, tech
companies handle more complaints internally or that there isn't actually less
complaints when properly analysed.

There just isn't a strong basis for his claims.

Here is a study finding that sexual harassment is a problem in workplaces and
professions similar to those in SV. [https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24994/sexual-
harassment-of-women...](https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24994/sexual-harassment-
of-women-climate-culture-and-consequences-in-academic)

~~~
naasking
> If one person says "chocolate ice cream is the best because it has so much
> flavor" a merited response isn't "chocolate sucks, vanilla is pure flavor".
> That is just an opinion.

A flawed analogy. A more faithful analogy would be someone claiming "chocolate
ice cream is the most preferred flavour the world over", and the article's
response is akin to "they didn't even ask people if they liked vanilla". That
_is_ a proper response to the original claim. Even if he were to add a flawed
analysis like, "over half of the 50 people in my neighbourhood preferred
vanilla", that doesn't change the fact that the core of his rebuttal is still
correct.

You are correct that the article's math isn't definitive, but it doesn't need
to be (and he should have left it out IMO). The article claims that the book
is simply a narrative backed by anecdotes, and if that's the case, then all
the reviewer needs to do to undermine it is present an alternative narrative
that's equally or more plausible, which he did. This narrative is justified by
actual data and so is already more than the book (allegedly) provides.

> These number could be explained in many other ways including but not limited
> to that more men in the workforce leads to less complaints, more white-
> collar jobs leads to less complaints, more unbalanced gender leads to less
> complaints, tech companies handle more complaints internally or that there
> isn't actually less complaints when properly analysed.

So it sounds like you have mostly the same qualms with this review as the
reviewer has with the book. Except a) the standard for books should be higher
than book reviews, and b) if you disliked this analysis, then you won't like
the book which the reviewer claims is even sloppier, so he succeeded in
conveying that you wouldn't like this book.

> Here is a study finding that sexual harassment is a problem in workplaces
> and professions similar to those in SV

No one's denying that women experience sexual harassment. They no doubt
experience such harassment in _every_ field. The questions surrounding STEM
specifically is whether harassment or other such sexist factors _meaningfully
affects female retention_. That is not so clear, and as I mentioned earlier,
women have staked their claim in even more competitive and aggressive fields.

We should endeavour to reduce harassment and sexism everywhere as a matter of
principle, but the loud saber rattling implying that harassment entails lower
engagement, particularly at the levels seen in STEM, is simply unjustified.

------
adjkant
So this article criticizes a lack of data then only uses a single data source
(on complaints) that loops in all housing and employment data into one without
separation of type (say, by sexual harassment). That doesn't really show
anything beyond the bias of the author. Not to mention the inherent problem
with formal complaints vs actual number of incidents that is not discussed at
all. As mentioned by others, no accounting for income or any other factors was
done either. I wouldn't say any information of value lies in the "analysis"
here. Not to say the book is validated, simply that this is clearly hit piece
that's trying to disguise itself as a review from any point of neutrality.

~~~
bko
The author of Brotopia made the claim of a toxic environment without evidence.
The burden or proof lies on the person making the claim. The author of the
piece questions the claim with a single data source. Attacking his source
doesn't somehow validate the author of Brotopia

~~~
adjkant
I said exactly that it doesn't validate the book in my post. But showing a
single, very irrelevant stat is not a counterargument either.

------
malvosenior
There are an awful lot of Harvard educated journalists complaining about male
privileged nowadays. Chang probably makes more money than most of the techies
she attacks in her book. She has her own national television show and now book
that's being promoted in the mainstream media. Business Insider called her one
of the top 100 influential people in tech. Pretty good for someone who can't
code! It doesn't look like this so called discrimination has had any impact on
her career.

~~~
adjkant
What does her career have to do with any of this? Would you like to go the
anecdota to data route or are you trying to claim that she's clearly just made
all this up? Either point doesn't seem very sound, and why be so roundabout
with your point? Or are you simply trying to discredit something you disagree
with by attacking the author?

~~~
malvosenior
> _trying to claim that she 's clearly just made all this up?_

Yes. I'm using her own success as a direct refutation of her argument.

~~~
chipgap98
Your argument is that because one woman has had this level of success then
gender bias doesn't exist?

~~~
malvosenior
My argument is that someone as privileged as Chang ought not sling mud at an
entire industry and mark us a “brotopia”. I’m actually not ok with someone
labeling me like that. Extra galling given that she has succeeded wildly in
that very industry.

~~~
danielam
If her arguments are faulty, you ought to focus on the flaws in her arguments,
beginning with her strongest. Neither engaging in ad hominem nor making use of
ecological fallacies contributes anything.

~~~
malvosenior
The book is literally titled _Brotopia_ , which is an ad hominem slur against
our industry. Chang set the level of discourse.

~~~
chipgap98
Look at the gender ratio in tech. Look at the survey released yesterday about
how many female YC founders have been harassed. You are benefiting from your
gender by being in tech. That doesn't mean that there are no successful women
in tech or that every man in tech is a bro. Its a macro take on the industry

~~~
danielam
I would be very careful when appealing to gender ratio because the mere
presence of a gender disparity does not imply an obvious cause of the gender
disparity (nor does it necessarily imply a problem, for that matter). It may
very well be the case that women naturally tend to choose different kinds of
occupations.

For example, if a bro culture does exist, then it may very well follow from
the gender disparity which is itself the result of other factors. This may in
turn create an environment that is unappealing to the women who do enter tech.

------
arcaster
Glad to see more work from Quillette, strongly believe they're one of the only
strong less-bias sources of objective journalism in our world today.

~~~
aklemm
That’s like a liberal saying NPR is objective. There is no objective. They
might be serious and mostly honest (just like NPR), but Quillette definitely
has a bias.

------
craig_peacock
Text book example of a well researched and qualified article! A much needed
breath of fresh air, thank you...

