
Why are women leaving the tech industry in droves? - prostoalex
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-women-tech-20150222-story.html#page=2
======
riskable
> She had built a prototype for a travel website, she said, a feature to auto-
> suggest cities and airports based on the first three letters typed into the
> search field, fixing a long-standing problem.

> Her male bosses told her she'd built it without permission. Then they said
> only architects within the company could pitch features — and all the
> architects were male. In the end, the project was handed to someone else,
> and she was assigned to less interesting tasks.

To me, this sounds like "business as usual" at large companies. I am a male
and I have encountered and will likely continue to encounter situations like
this often. It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with classic
enterprise problems like "silos", "not invented here syndrome", and just
general political BS like, "you/your team don't get to mess with _our_
product/project."

I have no idea if this kind of "default deny" mode of operation results in
less women in tech but if it's a major factor then I think it's safe to say
that sexism isn't the reason why women are leaving/not entering IT careers.

~~~
rabbyte
I'm curious. If the "default deny" theory pans out and we discover it does
indeed result in less women, why would you conclude that sexism is not a
factor? Seems to me it would be evidence of systemic sexism, reinforced by an
inability to see that the rules and structures provide more mobility for some
and not others.

For the record, I don't think women can't cope with "default deny" mode and I
do think all genders have to face the anecdote you selected. However, when the
hierarchy is dominated by one gender, there is an additional hurdle that the
privileged gender will not encounter.

~~~
riskable
How could you conclude that "default deny" has anything at all to do with a
persons's sex? People aren't being denied/excluded because of their gender
they're being denied/excluded because enterprise IT culture sucks.

It is the opposite of an "inclusive" culture but it should be noted how it
became that way: Through decades of non-technical people interfering with
technical decision making and a political culture that measures success--and
power--by the amount of people who work for you. Eventually you get to the
point where someone--an outsider--contributing work to your project feels like
a threat to your very existence.

> However, when the hierarchy is dominated by one gender, there is an
> additional hurdle that the privileged gender will not encounter.

What hurdle would that be? In addition to not being on the right team or
having the right job title you need the right sex? I don't think so. Silos,
NIH syndrome, and similar don't take sex into account. They impact all
genders, races, and whatnot equally.

I'm sure sexism exists in IT as it does in all industries and careers
(especially the subconscious kind) but the worker-hostile situations that are
all-too-common in IT are not sexism. They may drive out or scare off women--I
don't know--but they're not inherently sexist.

~~~
rabbyte
You misunderstood me. I specifically said all genders have to face that
behavior and that "default deny" likely has no unique impact on women. So I
don't understand why you think I'm arguing for the opposite case. Still, you
seem pretty confident that sexism exists somewhere at the same time you can't
point to it. Is it possible you're excluding possibilities to create a more
comfortable problem?

~~~
riskable
Sexism is pervasive. It's everywhere and it impacts both sexes (and especially
those who don't easily fit into typical sex stereotypes). When it happens at a
conscious or institutional level we can step in and correct it. When it
happens at a subconscious level we don't (usually) notice.

For example, if I say, "A schoolteacher friend of mine" in conversation what
do you think the odds are that people will assume I'm talking about a woman?
What about if I said, "my mechanic"?

They're stereotypes and they're pervasive, unavoidable, and can be quite
sexist. Whenever you look at someone or even hear their voice--even someone
you know very well--you will make assumptions about that person whether you
want to or not. There's probably nothing we can do about it.

What we _can_ do something about is institutionalized sexism. I don't think IT
has that. Instead what we have is institutionalized enterprise politics and
sociopath CEOs[1].

1\. [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2013/10/are-ceos-
an...](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2013/10/are-ceos-and-
entrepreneurs-psychopaths-multiple-studies-say-yes/)

------
littletimmy
She extrapolated all of this from the story of one woman who left before
becoming a manager? Where are the statistics on this? What a shoddy piece of
social commentary.

It is almost as if journalists have decided that feminism is now fashionable
and so _everyone_ must write about it. Gone are the days were ugly women like
Freidan and Hooks fought for women's rights. Now feminism's no-risk mainstream
and so the Emma Watsons and Sheryl Sandbergs rush in to co-opt the nobility.
What nonsense.

------
nkurz
I have a "game theory" interpretation for which I'd be interested in feedback:
women are often treated poorly at tech companies because it's simply not in
the self-interest of their well-paid currently-employed mostly-male[1] co-
workers to increase the size of the labor pool.

Currently, competent American tech workers are paid very high salaries due to
the lack of suitable replacements. If the size of the pool were to
dramatically increase, either due to a more open immigration policy or
improved gender balance, their ability to command their current salaries would
decline.

It's reasonably accepted that many American workers are against an open
immigration policy, and it is is possible to voice this concern in socially
acceptable ways. I don't know of any socially acceptable to say the same
regarding reducing the pool of competing women, but the self-benefit seems
about the same.

Many of the proposed changes are directed at changing hiring practices, but it
seems clearly to management's benefit to have a greater pool of qualified
applicants, and no particular reason to believe that they'd pass over the
opportunity to hire a qualified applicant.

But there's lots of reason to believe that an in-demand job holder would seek
to keep themselves in this position. This makes me think that if you want to
solve the "gender imbalance problem" in tech, it would help to make it in the
self-interest of the current well-compensated employees.

How would one do this?

[1] Interestingly, the same argument applies to women currently working in
tech: is it in their self-interest to have more women seeking jobs in tech? Do
the women in tech consistently treat other women well?

~~~
riskable
I don't think your idea holds water because it is based on an assumption that
women are treated poorly. Rather, more poorly than men. Is there any evidence
that women are treated any worse than men in IT?

Equal opportunity is not the same thing as equal outcomes. If the culture of
IT isn't appealing to women it doesn't necessarily mean sexism is involved.
Sexism seems like a heck of a lot easier to overcome than, say, NIH syndrome
or the fact that changing jobs is more effective at increasing pay than asking
for (or relying on) raises.

~~~
nkurz
I was temporarily accepting this, as it's the premise of the article. My guess
would be that there is considerable evidence, but little proof, and even less
quantification of effect size. There certainly could be other explanations for
why women would be avoiding high paying jobs for which they are qualified, but
there does seem to be something about technology that is different than other
demanding fields with lifestyle tradeoffs such as law and medicine.

------
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9091973](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9091973)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9091810](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9091810)

------
minot
Spoiler alert: They're not.

~~~
astrodust
Betteridge's Law applies, then, even to a question that starts with "Why?"

------
DownvoteMeToWin
I'm very interested if these theories-via-media used to explain women's
participation in tech are universal enough to apply to waste management and
construction industries as well.

Isn't testability important to theory?

~~~
darkwingduck
It isn't a theory as much as a religion, requiring faith rather than any kind
of facts as to problem or proposed solution. Welcome to the inquisition.

~~~
macho_pikachu
Its more like a cargo cult. Its not really actively harmful to talk about
misogyny in tech culture. Its just not doing any good. Like wearing coconut
headphones. Or an anti-drunk driving campaign by kinder-gardeners targeting
other kinder-gardeners.

------
DiversityWorks
Because there is rampant misogyny in the industry as the dismissive replies
and often outright hostile attitude you tend to see from the tech community
towards anyone raising these type of concerns.

