
A hilariously sad tale of gender bias - juanplusjuan
https://medium.com/@trisha/a-hilariously-sad-tale-of-gender-bias-54919595e482
======
yummyfajitas
Ok, something about this story seems a bit amiss. Gayle Laakmann is
complaining about people thinking she is a recruiter, supposedly because she's
a woman.

Hmm, I'm curious - who is this person? How does she portray herself? Are there
any other possible reasons people might view her as someone working in the
general HR space?

[http://www.gayle.com/consulting/](http://www.gayle.com/consulting/)

I can't imagine why a consultant who helps with "Technical
Interview/Recruiting Consulting" (as well as "Acquisition/Acqui-hire interview
prep") would be perceived as a recruiter. Definitely due to gender.

~~~
mcv
If it was a man who claimed to be a programmer and who wrote the book on
passing technical interviews for programmers, would you doubt he was a
programmer?

But because she's a woman who knows both programming and job interviews, you
latch onto her recruiting aspect, and not her programming side. And note that
people assumed she was a recruiter and not a programmer _after she 'd been
talking code for an hour_, not after she'd been talking job interviews for an
hour.

It's not just about what she is, it's about how people choose to look at her,
based on her gender.

~~~
troupe
There is a difference between saying that her audience didn't think she was
currently a programmer and saying they didn't think she had ever worked as a
programmer.

If you look at her blog, you will not assume she writes much code now days. If
you look at the topics she speaks on, you will probably assume she doesn't
write much code. If you look at what consulting services she provides, you'll
assume that you can't hire her to write code for your company.

Perhaps this one talk was not listed on her site. Perhaps no one in the
audience looked up her website to find out who she was while she was speaking.
Perhaps, the speakers information was completely different than the way she
presents what she does on her website.

Or maybe they didn't think she is currently working as a programmer
because...well it doesn't currently look like she is primarily writing code
for a living.

~~~
gaylemcd
But, as I've said repeatedly, the comment wasn't about what I'm _currently_
doing.

Oh, and by the way -- still write a ton of code.

------
troupe
There are many stereotypes that go along with being a programmer that are
negative. There are stereotypes that go along with being a recruiter that are
positive. While gender may have something to do with people thinking she is a
recruiter it may not be the main factor. If you meet someone who is well
spoken, well dressed, writes books on how to interview, knows how to talk
about code, etc. might there be a greater chance that their job is something
other than writing code every day?

~~~
gaylemcd
Sure. And then if someone's talking about binary trees, dynamic programming,
depth first search, object oriented programming, don't you think you'd
conclude "was or used to be a programmer"?

Again THIS was the example. Stop constructing straw mans.

~~~
troupe
The quote in the article simply said that you can talk about code for an hour
and people still think you are a recruiter. Most people take that to mean that
people don't think you currently work as a programmer or more specifically,
don't think you currently write code as your primary job function. Yes I
agree, if someone talks for an hour about those technical topics, I'd assume
they have experience as a programmer. However, I may still assume you are not
currently working as a programmer and things I would use to make that
assumption have nothing to do with gender.

You appear to be upset when people point out that there may be some non-gender
reasons for assuming you are working in a role other than writing code. Please
keep in mind that from the article there is very little information about the
particulars of the talk in question. However, anyone who tries to fill in the
gaps by looking at your lists of topics for recent talks, your website, etc.,
is going to assume you don't current write much code and that most of your
work is done in the technical aspects of the interview process.

If I talk to someone who used to be a programmer but not is obviously working
in an HR recruiting role, I will probably consider them to be a recruiter.
This isn't an insult...it is just the way we categorize people by what they do
currently.

~~~
gaylemcd
What's frustrating is the continuous straw mans. People are creating new
situations, saying that those situations wouldn't be sexist, and therefore
using that to prove that I'm inappropriately assuming sexism. Straw man.

There _are_ situations where it's reasonable to assume that I'm a recruiter,
even if that assumption happens to be wrong. But _this_ situation wasn't one
of them.

It would also be fine to say that I'm not a programmer, depending on what you
mean by that. I am a programmer, just like I'm an author. If you define it
though as someone who is currently employed exclusively as a software
developer, then sure, I'm not a software developer presently. But again, this
isn't the situation being described.

This is a _specific_ situation in which someone was at a talk where I spent an
hour talking about big O time, data structures, algorithms, modularizing code,
and a bunch of other technical talks and then asked me about my time as a
recruiter at Google. It wouldn't matter if my website now said in giant
flashing letters "HELLO I AM A RECRUITER." The person wasn't looking at the
website (which didn't even exist then, at least not in that form).

------
shittyanalogy
Serious question, what is this representative of?

Random internet comments? Unscientific internet polls?

I honestly can't figure out a reason why any of this is any more relevant or
scientific than a youtube comments argument about why some band does or does
not suck monkey chode.

~~~
verroq
Clearly, people are not allowed to question the coding ability of a female
because it's sexism.

~~~
DanBC
Obviously it is sexism if you doubt the coding ability of a female because
she's female.

HN fucking sucks for these topics.

~~~
verroq
No one is doubting her ability _because_ she's female. But you should be
allowed to doubt their ability no matter their gender is.

~~~
mcv
How can you say nobody is doubting her ability _because_ she is female? RTFA!

Yes, of course you can doubt people's ability regardless of their gender, but
it doesn't happen _regardless_ of gender, it happens _because_ of gender.
People start out thinking: "Woman. Probably not a good coder. Ah, see? She
knows about job interviews! She's a recruiter! Not a programmer at all." Had
it been a man, they'd be: "Hey, this programmer knows a lot about job
interviews!"

------
Mikeb85
We need fewer assholes in every industry. It's not like tech is unique...

~~~
bluetshirt
No, but we have an opportunity to be a leader and not a follower. To be on the
right side of history, so to speak.

~~~
ddebernardy
For that, the first step should probably be to have more women in STEM classes
so they can get recruited in these industries to begin with.

I've no idea how it currently is, but back when I was studying the ratio was
something like 90% male in some curriculums. (There were exceptions, e.g.
chemistry or biology, but they were rather rare.) Has this changed since?

~~~
potatolicious
A large part of the reason we have so few women in STEM is _because_ of the
toxic work culture that surrounds it. We also lose graduates once people
decide they have better things to do than deal with sexist assholes all day.

I'm all for encouraging more women getting into STEM, but this needs to be a
two-pronged approach. Without dramatic improvements to tech culture
encouraging more women to study tech is mostly pointless.

FWIW, my engineering class was ~85% male. My working environments have been
consistently 95%+ male. The industry is doing considerably worse than
academia.

------
cowls
So her talk was on tech interviews and someone thought she was a recruiter?
Doesn't seem that big a stretch...

~~~
gaylemcd
The talk covered binary trees, breadth first search, dynamic programming, etc.
It wasn't focused on fluffy topics.

It'd be pretty unlikely to hear a recruiter talk at such a technical level.

~~~
danielrpa
Gayle, there is also the question of whether you are a programmer in the sense
that you "can program" or if you are a programmer in the sense that you
"program for a living".

Different people will interpret the term differently. Based on your website
and your book, you portray yourself as a Recruiting Consultant. So my
assumption after seeing all the material you presented is that you are a
programmer in the sense that you CAN program (and possibly well given the
success of your book) but you are not necessarily a programmer in the sense
that you don't do that for a living.

For me, I wouldn't call you a "programmer" unless you did "computer
programming" for a living, but that's just how I use the term. I would call
you a recruiting consultant, and for me that's no better or worse than
"programmer".

~~~
gaylemcd
Yes, that's fair. If you define "programmer" strictly as someone who
_currently_ holds a job title of "software developer", then sure, I'm not a
programmer. Nor is, by that definition, a technical founder who's built their
entire website. If that's the way you define the term "programmer", then sure,
I'm not a programmer.

Of course, if you define it in the sense of what someone can do, has been
employed specifically to do in the past, and continues to do as a core part of
their job, then I am a programmer.

But, again, that's not relevant to the situation being described. The
situation being described is not someone offhandedly saying that I'm not
presently employed as a programmer, or asking about why I'm no longer a
programmer [by some definitions]. You, and many other people, are creating new
situations and saying "well if someone said X after you did Y, then it's
totally reasonable." That's not the situation being described. It's the straw
man fallacy.

I am describing a specific situation in which someone listened to a talk about
data structures, algorithms, big O time, etc (yes, within the context of
interviewing) and saying "So when you WERE a recruiter at Google, ...".

The information on my website is entirely irrelevant.

~~~
danielrpa
I didn't refer at all to the event, despite this thread being about the event.
I was just making a point about the possibility of you not being seen as a
"programmer".

Possibly I wouldn't characterize you as a recruiter or a programmer based on
what you described.

I've been a development manager for many years and programming is an integral
part of my role. But I'm a manager, not a "programmer", since I believe it's
the dominant aspect of what I do.

So that choice of words could have been more influenced by a possible emphasis
on the interview aspect of your role, rather than its programming aspect. I
haven't seen the discussion so I can only speak from what I've read.

I've known many hiring managers who were not programmers and knew all of what
you mentioned. Some of them were even program managers with a strong CS
background - none of them programmers by any definition since they didn't
program at all, ever.

~~~
gaylemcd
So you're imagining a totally different situation and then saying that, in
that situation, it might be reasonable to call me "not a programmer." I really
fail to see your point. It sounds like you're trying to do this to argue
against gender bias being real. This is what's called "straw man fallacy."

If I were arguing that every single time that I'm called something other than
programmer that there is gender bias, then your point would be valid. But I'm
not arguing that.

~~~
danielrpa
I'm not trying to argue against gender bias. Gender bias is very real and I've
seen it many times. As I've seen age bias, ethnic bias etc. These are real and
I have been target of bias myself.

All I'm saying is that I haven't seen evidence in what I read that would
strongly indicate gender bias in this instance. You are making the claim so
you have the burden of proof. I'm just stating my skepticism regarding your
presented evidence.

The best way for bias to be taken seriously by others is to only claim bias
when the case for it is very clear. This helps combat people who say that
"anything today is considered bias".

------
ekr
>"woman who wrote the #2 Computer Science book on Amazon, about coding and
technical interview skills"

Computer Science has absolutely nothing to do with either coding or
interviews, it's a subfield of mathematics.

~~~
27182818284
This might be true outside the US, but certainly not from what I've seen in
the US.

In the US, a lot of curriculum in CS majors include coding, interview
practices and more—and that's a good thing because there doesn't seem to be a
lot of dedicated "software development" majors in existence.

I can think of a computer engineering curriculum that actually requires a
half-semester course in interview practicing and cover letter writing.
Similarly I can think of a major state university whose CS includes a semester
project for a company / organization outside the university in teams of four.
That same university has a required CS course where you have to _maintain_ the
code of previous students in the course, to give you a taste of that real
world aspect. And those courses are taken in between or while you take your
standard courses on algorithms, discrete math, etc.

Though true I know a professor of CS who ONLY works on a chalkboard, the
_vast_ majority don't and the vast majority of CS grads don't either.

~~~
vonmoltke
> and that's a good thing because there doesn't seem to be a lot of dedicated
> "software development" majors in existence.

Actually, I think it's a bad thing. The sooner Computer Science and Software
Engineering become separate disciplines, the better.

~~~
pas
SEs need to know results from CS. That might be seen as separate, but knowing
results and when to apply which, I think requires one to be at least a bit CS-
educated. So, no, they're not separate in the ideal case, but obviously,
results in CS are arrived at through mathematics and rigorous proofs, whereas
resutls in SE are usually produced via code.

~~~
vonmoltke
Physics and electrical/mechanical engineering are separate disciplines, but
electrical and mechanical engineers still require physics education.

------
possibilistic
Reading anecdotes like this makes me so disappointed in my gender. Why do some
people marginalize other groups so eagerly?

I see so much "bro culture" in our field, and it feels inescapable. Every time
I experience it, I literally cringe. I'm not even a party to being singled
out; I can't imagine what it must be like to have this garbage _directed_ at
you.

The sad thing is, I used to be picked on and ostracized by these types of
people. This was one of those things I assumed I was going to be getting away
from back in high school by choosing computing. I thought "nerds" didn't do
shit like this.

Apparently not.

I just want to wake up in the decade this is no longer an issue. That must be
nice.

~~~
ivraatiems
I hate to break it to you, but it'll never not be an issue. Humans stereotype.
It's a natural function for us. It may not be as much of an issue on a
specific topic (race, gender, sexuality, etc.), but it will never not be an
issue.

Also, you probably do it too. That's okay - we all do. The trick that people
haven't learned is not letting their automatic beliefs have overt influence on
their actions.

~~~
oddevan
I'll second this. Bias and prejudice are an unavoidable part of human nature.
I wish that wasn't the case, but it's the reality we live in. The most ANY of
us can do is 1) Recognize our biases and work to look past them, and 2)
Apologize when we get it wrong and try to improve

#2 is the difference between _acting like_ an asshole and _being_ an asshole.

~~~
possibilistic
Thanks for raising this point. It's absolutely correct, and I agree with both
of you.

It still irks me when biases are so _general_ and aimed at an entire set of
people. I know I do the same internally for some populations or interest
groups, but it still makes me mad when I see it done by others on the basis of
race, gender, sexual preference, etc. I'm probably guilty at some level too
sometimes... :/

------
programminggeek
This probably should be a blog post with deeper research, but I swear it must
be a human rite of passage to have the established groups treat some minority
or "new" group poorly.

For example, it wasn't but 100 years ago in the USA that groups like Irish,
Germans, Italians, Chinese, etc. were looked down on as poor immigrants who
were taking "real" American jobs. They eventually were accepted only to turn
around and put down people who were Black, Latino, Women, etc.

Acceptance of African Americans and Women has improved a lot, and in some
places Mexicans are more easily accepted than other places. However, there are
still plenty of people that treat those groups poorly.

Eventually, all the current minorities, including women, will be accepted only
to turn around and treat some other group like crap. Why? I assume it's
because it's human nature and it's the cycle that seems to happen for things
that are different. At some point we all get bullied and we all take turns
bullying someone else.

It'd be nice to just skip over the ugliness, but that's not really how it
works with people.

Also, let us not forget that getting treated poorly is not always a minority
issue. Some people are just plain jerks and they treat everybody like crap.
That's not an excuse, but no amount of positive change will get rid of jerks.
They are in every industry and almost every company.

~~~
icebraining
_Eventually, all the current minorities, including women_

Women are not a minority; not in the US nor in the vast majority of countries.

~~~
programminggeek
Obviously by number not a minority, but in the way they sometimes get treated
or by perception or whatever, they seem to be considered a "protected class"
or whatever the legal term is that you shouldn't discriminate against.

I think the point remains however that any group that faces a generation of
discrimination/hazing/whatever you want to call it seems to find a way to
revisit that same act on a later generation once they are in power.

~~~
gaylemcd
FYI (not really relevant for your post, but useful for people to know) -

 _Gender_ is the protected class, not women. This means that it's illegal to
use gender as a factor in employment, barring _very_ strict standards of when
something is a legitimate job qualification. (For example, if you hired
someone to stand in a women's locker room and hand out towels, you'd probably
be able to legitimately discriminate on gender. You could not however use
gender to only hire women for a teaching position at a women's college.)

Now, in practice, the court might be more lenient on gender discrimination
against one gender or another (and it might change based on job). Just like
the courts are likely harsher in penalties towards black people.

------
droithomme
Referenced article mentions a case where some random critic on the net
criticizes a CEO who writes books touching on recruitment issues from the
candidate perspective, claiming they are a recruiter. Random critic
essentially argues that CEO is not a programmer since they don't have code.

I think it's a legitimate practice in the field to look at whether someone
develops actual code and if their code works in order to evaluate whether or
not they are actually a programmer. This is because there are a lot of posers
and incompetents in the field. Seeing actual code and/or projects the person
has built cuts through a lot of Big Talk and claims.

In this particular case, the CEO has listed on her site several projects she
developed herself to solve real world problems. This is solid evidence that
she is in fact a programmer. Therefore, the random critic's claims are without
merit.

------
spacemanmatt
My subjective data point, as a male in tech: We don't just need more women in
tech, we need fewer assholes.

~~~
Shish2k
The company I'm currently working at doesn't have any assholes in the dev
team; and yet even after hiring every single woman who has ever even _applied_
for a software development role, we have zero women in the team :/

~~~
danielweber
What outreach have you tried to get more women to apply?

I'm going through the job hunt now, and so many places seem determined to be
as difficult as possible to deal with. One (I may have found it on HN) had a
picture of the office bullpen, and _every single person_ in the picture was a
twenty-something male, mostly all white with one or two Asians, more than half
wearing hipster goatees.

I wondered "why in the world would you show this in your job posting section?
What image do you think it projects?"

I'm not a SJW but the in-groupishness projected by that image was a _huge_
turn off for me. And I'm someone who mostly _fit_ the stereotype in that
picture (even down to the hipster goatee).

~~~
Shish2k
> What outreach have you tried to get more women to apply?

We haven't done outreach to any specific group (I'd guess because we aren't
"looking for women" per se, we "looking for good developers and gender doesn't
factor into it"); looking at the currently active developer ad, it makes no
explicit assumptions about gender of applicant and makes no reference to the
gender of the current team...

(Though there was that thing saying that "we are a strong team" is
subconsciously excluding of women, and we should say "we are a caring team" if
we want more women to apply, so there may be things like that that I am too
much of a white male to notice? :S)

~~~
danielweber
Outreach doesn't have to mean "we posted the job description at SWE," but it
can mean "we are going to post the job description in more places than just
the forums where current employees hang out."

It's silly to say "but our ad doesn't say anything about gender" \-- _of
course it doesn 't_.

And if no women are applying, there are probably other groups of developers
whom you are totally missing out on as well.

Try the following thought experiment: imagine there is a qualified candidate
that you want on your team, and they see your job posting for the first time.
What are you putting in your posting make sure that this person applies, and
what is in your interview process to make sure this person gets accepted and
encouraged to come on board?

------
exelius
To be fair, I looked at her website and she does kind of look like a
recruiter. This is likely because being an attractive blonde female opens a
lot of doors, and recruiting is a job where you need a lot of doors to open
for you. It doesn't mean she's not a rockstar programmer (because once you
look at her resume, she obviously is) but she does have a certain "look" that
doesn't jive with the stereotype of a software developer. Fortunately, most of
us learn early in our careers not to judge a book by its cover.

That said, the "asshole" in the article is a troll.

------
6nne
Is this sexism or is it just generalization? The vast majority of (white)
women I've spoken to from tech companies are recruiters. And generalizations
are very useful, in general. I doubt everyone thinks about how much coding
knowledge a recruiter would have. At what point is it "sexist" (and,
presumably, _bad_ ) to assume something given past experiences?

------
S_A_P
Its only silicon valley that you will see "C Level" people ranting and
dropping Fbombs on a blog. Time and place. Neither seems appropriate to me...

~~~
angersock
You've never been to NY or Chicago, I take it?

EDIT:

Or energy in Houston or the South?

------
SloopJon
Title should probably be changed from "We Don't Just Need More Women in Tech,
We Need Fewer Assholes" to "A hilariously sad tale of gender bias."

(Not sure if I should put a spoiler alert or something.) The author of a
popular series of books on preparing for technical interviews was upset that,
after talking about code for an hour, people assume that she's a recruiter,
rather than a programmer. I'll try not to make the mistake that the target of
this post made by assuming too much about the content of that talk, but is it
at all possible that the perspective of someone who writes books like that
comes off as recruiterish?

~~~
crazypyro
>Is it at all possible that the perspective of someone who writes books like
that comes off as recruiterish?

This was my first thought as well. As soon as she identified herself, I
immediately understood how someone could write her off as a recruiter, based
entirely on her body of public works. There are many people in the world that
will judge someone by the books they wrote and immediately have an image in
their mind about the author. It would be hard to overcome this inclination
that certain people have within the space of an hour and it doesn't help when
someone is especially suspicious because of your gender (Obviously this is the
not-ok part). I'm more apt to believe that Gayle Laakmann McDowell has a
slightly skewed viewpoint of being taken as a recruiter more often than the
average female engineer.

This is not to say that female engineers do not have legitimate concerns. I
think its helpful to look at the specific facts of this situation to
understand the frustration Gayle Laakmann McDowell experiences.

~~~
vadman
I actually went to college with Gayle - she was a TA* in one of my harder,
more rigorous classes. I never got to know her personally, but I find it hard
to believe that you can talk to her for an entire hour and not figure out that
her knowledge and understanding are way beyond those of a recruiter, even a
smart one. Says more about the listener, IMO.

Personal anecdote, take it for what it's worth.

*TA = teaching assistant, older students hand-picked by professors to conduct help sessions for the current year's crop, as well as grade homeworks/exams. I.e. you need to do well in a class to qualify.

------
oldmanjay
if you think you can solve the problems of people being assholes, you haven't
yet accepted that someone considers you an asshole too.

~~~
possibilistic
Are you sure that reverse mapping is universal?

I was going to go for a few anecdotal examples of people I would decidedly
consider as counter-evidence to your claim: the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Ghandi,
Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, ...

Then I realized that you're probably right. :(

~~~
dragonwriter
I still occasionally run into people who refer to Dr. King as a Communist
agitator (a sibling comment addressed the others).

~~~
humanrebar
The accusations of Communism are thin at best, but he was a plagarist and
adulterer, which is especially egregious for a pastor. I'd say it's fair to
say everyone has their selfish inclinations.

------
paulhauggis
We need good engineers in tech. It shouldn't matter if they are male or
female. This article is as gender biased as the people it is against.

~~~
paulhauggis
It's ironic that a post about not being gender biased is down voted on an
article about how we need to change gender bias.

It's the main reason why I can't really take it seriously.

------
techdebt5112
I'm guessing his assertion that the person of interest is no programmer has
more to do with Gayle's book being full of platitudes and errors than her sex.

~~~
pkinsky
He didn't seem to know who he was talking to when he made those criticisms.

