
A female engineer's opinion on why there are fewer women in tech - jenthoven
https://www.kapwing.com/blog/a-female-engineers-opinion-on-fewer-women-in-tech/
======
nuna
Speaking not only as a Woman but as a Mother (Happy Mothers Day everyone)
nothing would of persuade me away from STEM career. My parents were both in
STEM and the love for science was as early as I can remember. HOWEVER on my
most difficult days I feel like it is so hard because of the awfully short
maternity leave, not enough vacation days to spend with family, no sick days
to care for sick kids, 40 hour weeks when I can be done my work in 30 or less.

I dont feel negativity about interactions with other males in the industry.
The bad interactions are usually from socially awkward individuals in general

------
heyyyouu
I think the author may really be onto something here. I have teenage and
twenty-something daughters. My youngest is very excited about her stats minor
but when I suggested computer science to her the horror that crossed her
face...like it was a personal insult. Another one is into math and science and
also wouldn't consider CS if her life depended on it -- physics or chemical
engineering, sure, but never CS. Both do have very active social lives --
maybe that's it, or maybe it's because their parent wants them to do it --
kids never want to do what their parent suggests. Whatever it is, as a mom who
fell into tech who would love her daughters to get a CS degree, I have yet to
find way to make the degree appealing to them, even though they like what I do
and actually find the act of coding enjoyable.

~~~
Gibbon1
> physics or chemical engineering, sure, but never CS.

I think ultimately a career in real engineering field would be easier and more
satisfying to your daughters than CS. Because CS is thick with toxic lord of
the flies man child's at this point.

~~~
heyyyouu
See, that's the thing: I haven't experienced that myself but I may just be
lucky -- I don't know.

------
ajkjk
Most of the theories I've seen about the women-in-tech gap don't resonate with
my experience because there was a very obvious 'women-in-tech' gap in about...
5th grade? in my (typical, I think) American elementary school.

It was nerdy boys, almost entirely (I remember one exception), who wanted to
stay after school playing games on the iMacs in our classroom, and I am pretty
sure that it would only be the boys in my class who might have, for instance,
received and gotten excited about a copy of "C++ for dummies" in ~2000
(granted, the book was terrible and I didn't really start coding for 6 more
years, but the spark was already there).

Sure, video-game-interest is not the same as going into tech, but it
correlated a lot as I grew up -- these kids ended up being the ones who were,
like, coding on graphics calculators or in HTML/CSS a couple years later.
There were a few more girls involved by then, but the ratio was still very
skewed.

~~~
nicoburns
An interesting data point here ia that girls at all-girls schools tend to take
much more interest in STEM subjects, which suggests that he issue might be
more to do with social percpetions of what is for girls and boys rather than
inherent interest differing between genders.

~~~
Zarath
Maybe, but there is selection bias when looking at just girls who go to all-
girls schools. Assuming they are mostly private, this would likely select for
wealthier families, which may have a correlation with STEM careers.
Furthermore, girls from all-girls schools have parents that are willing to
enroll them in all-girls schools, which likely correlates with a certain
personality type, whatever that may be.

~~~
wskinner
Not sure why this is getting downvotes. The point that all girls schools are
not even close to a random sample seems pretty uncontroversial.

------
kazinator
> _Go befriend a girl in your class or company. It’s not creepy._

"Honey, there is this random blogger who thinks I should befriend a girl in my
company. It's supposedly not creepy or anything. What do you think?"

If I didn't care what my wife thinks, I'd still have to think twice and
consider the gender-political climate of the modern age.

The mere _perception_ of having some intention of wrongdoing can harm you.

In all corporate ethics training courses, you're always hammered with the
message of avoiding even the _perception_ of a conflict of interests and such.

Usually, those "avoid perception" messages are with regard to corruption. The
rhetoric isn't used in sexual misconduct training, but the concept naturally
carries over. If I'm to avoid creating so much as the perception that some
official is being bribed into signing a deal, of course it must also be good
to avoid so much as the perception that I have some sort of designs of a
female coworker. I want simpler rules that are more general.

~~~
ryanobjc
Here's your simple rule: [https://medium.com/@annevictoriaclark/the-rock-test-
a-hack-f...](https://medium.com/@annevictoriaclark/the-rock-test-a-hack-for-
men-who-dont-want-to-be-accused-of-sexual-harassment-73c45e0b49af)

Quoting: "It’s as clear cut as this: Treat all women like you would treat
Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson." and "But definitely don’t hit on her. It looks
like she could kill you with the chair you’re sitting on."

It's really that simple.

~~~
kazinator
If someone happens to idolize "The Rock", the rule doesn't go down very well.

It possibly devolves to "behave like a bumbling star-struck fool around all
women".

Or possibly to "treat women like goddesses". Example: if I run a cafe, and
idolize "The Rock", should I give every woman a free coffee and muffin,
because that's what I would do if "The Rock" walked in?

People who are famous get all sorts of unwanted attention that would easily
amount to sexism or sexual misconduct if it were lavished upon a person
because she's a woman. Fans want to get near you, touch you, take a picture
with you and whatever.

~~~
Jach
Ctrl F: "People's" \-- 0 results found. Ctrl F: "Bottom" \-- 0 results found.
Ctrl F: "it doesn't matter" \-- 0 results found. Ctrl F: "smell" \-- 0 results
found.

Yeah I'm going to ignore this advice, I think any sane person ought to do the
same. Or at least if your mental model of the Rock consists of more than
generic tough guy in some recent films who may have hit people with chairs in
the past or something.

------
jdavis703
The first part of this had great citations to cite that women are more social.
Where the data was lacking is that 1) software is perceived as anti-social and
2) that other anti-social careers face similar problems to software
engineering.

For example if socialization was such a critical decider, why are some many
women maids or professional housekeepers? Most people in this career don't get
much on-the-job socialization. Or what about accounting and book keeping;
which is a professional, white collar career that also happens to employ more
women than men?

While socialization may be a part of the equation, there's a lot more going on
here and simply blaming women for being "too social" just panders to common
stereotypes.

~~~
stcredzero
_Or what about accounting and book keeping; which is a professional, white
collar career that also happens to employ more women than men?_

Women were programmers very early on. I think we should look for some common
thread between computer programming in the late 1950's/early 60's and
accounting and book keeping today.

 _While socialization may be a part of the equation, there 's a lot more going
on here and simply blaming women for being "too social" just panders to common
stereotypes._

I don't think you should be characterizing it as "blaming." Things are as they
are. I remember reading a paper in grad school finding that software engineers
actually had more need of interaction than other fields, despite stereotypes.
I think there is some important factor we don't quite understand.

~~~
drak0n1c
Programming started as a field very similar to Accounting. You manually
assembled a list of operations to get the necessary numerical result. There
was creativity, but in the same vein of creativity in accounting it was
confined to the realm of statistics and business intelligence. Computers were
used to calculate numbers from other numbers, and rarely did much else. The
set of computer instructions were limited, and nothing was automated so there
was a lot of tedium in physically writing programming out on paper.

With the advent of personal computers and monitors the fields diverged
rapidly.

------
arkis22
>Between the ages of 16 and 24, girls have more sophisticated social lives
than boys of the same age. Young women talk to their friends more often [1],
care more about their reputation [2], spend more time talking about their
friends [3], and assign more emotional value to close relationships [4]

I admire that she provided links for these, but I really don't believe any of
those statements. That list of 4 things is difficult to measure because they
probably occur in different forms for boys vs girls and the studies
consequently "found" what they were looking for.

Sexism is dripping in irony. Damore can't say there are biological differences
between males and females, but it's ok to say that as a male I care less about
my friendships.

Try to be nice, try to be fair, try to be honest. Ignore everything and
everyone else...

~~~
meowface
It seems to me that the author would generally be sympathetic to Damore's memo
(but who knows for sure) based on the views espoused in this post, so I don't
quite understand your point.

~~~
geebee
The point seems fairly clear to me. arkis22 is pointing out that this author
is making unfavorable generalizations about men, and stating that these
generalizations are probably partly due to biology. Here, it is that women
assign greater value to close friendships. Later, she states that:

"My experience confirms that teenage and college-age girls care more than boys
do about solving real human problem (as opposed to competitive, self-oriented
gain), forming close bonds with peers, and earning colleagues’ respect. I will
not comment on whether this is caused by society or by biology; likely, it’s
both and many factors in between."

This isn't wildly slanderous, but I think we can agree that caring more about
real human problems is more admirable that pursuing "self-oriented" gain (or
maybe not, randians might say self-oriented gain is the highest moral pursuit
there is. I'd disagree, and I suspect the author here would as well).

So, we have that men pursue self-oriented gain, and women pursue solution to
real world human problems, and this is partly due to biological differences
between men and women.

Personally, I'm really not offended or bothered by this. She has every right
to make this claim, and overall, I though it was a good essay.

I also think that arkis22 is interpreting these comments somewhat
uncharitably. I don't need someone to go through a million footnotes and
provisos and stating repeatedly that these are just averages. I am nearly
certain that this writer would agree that some men care deeply about real
human problems and relationships, and some women care more about self-oriented
gain. I certainly don't think it improves the conversation when people get
bogged down because they have to protect themselves against every possible
uncharitable interpretation of an argument (she didn't say that arkis22 cares
less about his friendships).

But we do live in a world where people who make comparable (perhaps _less_
dramatic) claims about women face pretty serious censure.

~~~
meowface
I see, their point is that this particular woman can talk about biological
differences but Damore can't. (I misinterpreted the poster as saying that the
author was contradicting herself by rebuking Damore, which she wasn't, but
that's not what they meant.)

That is a valid point. But the issue should be taken with Google's leadership
and the individuals who unjustly raked Damore over the coals (his post-
termination behavior notwithstanding). A reductive "women can get away with
saying this but men can't" complaint doesn't really help anyone. It has truth
to it, but it also feels unnecessarily confrontational and simplistic to me.

The poster also dismissed her claims with a mere "I really don't believe any
of those statements" and then backed it with what seems to be a random
assumption that the studies are biased and must have been seeking this
particular outcome from the start, without any supporting evidence. I think
the more sensible position is that Damore's gender difference claims and the
author's gender difference claims are both correct (at least with the
scientific evidence currently known). The us vs. them attitude is irritating.

~~~
arkis22
The nuance of male friendship and popularity is probably just as complicated
as female friendship and popularity. Complicated in a sense that I doubt any
questionnaire captures the real truth.

~~~
meowface
Of course, but friendships between males and females is a whole other dynamic
entirely.

------
tptacek
Are the rest of the STEM career paths seen as _more_ social than CS? Is
mathematics more social than CS? Because CS is almost (not quite: physics is
almost as bad) unique among STEM specializations for its gender disparity.

I talk regularly to academic math people (because cryptography) and the sense
I have is that if anything, CS is _far more social_ than the work they do ---
to get anything significant done in technology, you have to coordinate and
cooperate amongst teams of people. And yet if you go to a cryptography
conference and then a technology convention, the difference will be starkly
apparent: there are far more women in the former than the latter.

I don't think this is a persuasive explanation for the whole phenomenon.

~~~
ploxiln
I agree, Math and Physics are in many ways similar to CS, and yet have more
women. And I can think of a pretty good reason to explain it: Math and Physics
are more classically respected and authoritarian. CS is the wild-west by
comparison.

In Math and Physics in high school and college, you can just study what you're
supposed to study, do the problems you're supposed to do. You can mostly do
that in CS too, of course, but that's not ubiquitous. In CS you're
programming, and when programming you're running into bugs and devising work-
arounds. Some stuff does not work like it's supposed to. Sometimes the best
implementation for a purpose is a clever but not-quite-correct shortcut that's
way faster. Some of my CS classes had automated code submissions testing and
grading systems, and some students managed to hack the system in novel ways,
and were given full points for doing so. My experience in school is that the
smartest girls studied a lot more, and the smartest guys messed around a lot
more. CS is programming and programming is a lot of messing around.

My dangerous 2c ;)

~~~
stcredzero
_I agree, Math and Physics are in many ways similar to CS, and yet have more
women._

I think it might be useful to ask: In what ways are Math and Physics are
different from the programming field? I think the requirement to work together
on larger projects is different. What is the gender distribution of physicists
working at CERN?

 _My experience in school is that the smartest girls studied a lot more, and
the smartest guys messed around a lot more._

Sounds about right.

 _CS is programming and programming is a lot of messing around._

Is it? Back in the day, there were CS professors who proudly declared they
didn't like programming.

~~~
ploxiln
Back in the day, there were a few more women in CS :)

I still agree that CS being "less social" is a huge factor. But have to admit
it seems like there's some other factors too, and I think the "less social"
and "wild west" combo is pretty significant.

~~~
curtis
> _Back in the day, there were a few more women in CS :)_

I actually think this is probably wrong. Back in the day there was a _higher
percentage_ of women in CS. It's possible that in absolute numbers there are
as many women today in CS as there was then. That's because there's probably a
lot more _people_ in CS overall.

I also think it's likely that back in the day most college-educated
programmers had EE degrees, not CS degrees, so what you'd really want to look
at is the percentage of women in CS and EE, not just in CS.

------
eecks
> young men are less likely to approach women and invite them to join a study
> group or happy hour, poker night, or whatever else they do with their male
> peers/coworkers.

As a man I've never been approached and invited to anything like this..

~~~
mikeash
Maybe you should invite some others, then. Be the change you want to see, and
all that.

~~~
wieghant
But I'd rather stay up all night and clear Black Temple.

------
jandrese
Interesting that popular perception is that it is hard to be a woman in STEM
because you get so much unwanted attention, but in this case it was exactly
the opposite. She wasn't able to find lab partners for projects in male
majority classes and felt lonely.

~~~
throwaway84742
I just don’t see how that could be. When I was studying, we had 2 girls in a
peer group of roughly 90 people. All they had to do to find a lab partner is
have a pulse. Interestingly, both have graduated, and neither is using her
degree now.

~~~
princekolt
I have a hard time believing your anecdotal data point about a third person is
enough to claim a person exposing their own experiences is wrong.

------
Safyia
I am a female engineer and I studied CS in Europe. I never had issues
socializing. My classmates were fortunately very inclusive, maybe because the
men-women friendships have a different dynamic in Europe, or I was just lucky.
Either way, my class was still 95% male. I would say we have to look at even
younger girls to see the issue.

I have a brother who is really into computer games. When we were children, my
parents got him games and didn't mind when he was sitting behind the computer
for hours. I also liked games and I was trying to write stories, draw, install
programs to get(ehm, pirate) music too. We had one computer and when my
brother was using it I had to wait for him to finish playing. When I was using
it, I was sent to play outside or read. Computers were always a boy thing, so
I was never really seriously considering studying CS until we did a career
test in high school where they encouraged me to go to a STEM field and do
something like math or computer science. I gave it a try and loved it.

I think we have to start early and stop dividing professions into for men or
women. Let men be nurses and women firefighters. Look at your childrens
personalities and let them grow in whatever they enjoy, girly or not.

~~~
jorgemf
I think you just pointed the biggest issues in the article: the problem starts
before any of the solutions proposed. You can do whatever you want during the
job/university but if you still get 95% males it won't fix the issue.

> I think we have to start early and stop dividing professions into for men or
> women. Let men be nurses and women firefighters. Look at your childrens
> personalities and let them grow in whatever they enjoy, girly or not.

I would just add that we should do this even if it doesn't change anything.
Just let people do whatever they like and don't judge them with stupid
stereotypes. Don't force girls to be CS and boys to be nurses if they don't
want to.

------
stcredzero
It's funny that the author disparages this Quillette article as, "discouraging
theories of biological superiority," when a fair reading of it actually
includes the author's point. Much of it addresses skews in preferences. Even
James Damore's memo devoted a portion to consideration of preferences, and
suggested changing the field to better fit preferences.

[http://quillette.com/2018/02/15/sex-stem-stubborn-facts-
stub...](http://quillette.com/2018/02/15/sex-stem-stubborn-facts-stubborn-
ideologies/)

Many fields have demographic skews, and many of these are a result of
preferences, some in favor of women, even in highly technical areas. (And
these can change over time for non-nefarious reasons.) No-one you should take
seriously thinks men are somehow biologically anointed to be "superior."
However, no one you should take seriously thinks men and women are
biologically identical blank slates, particularly if that is really motivated
by an ideological feel-good story.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8)

 _Part 2: As a profession, computer engineering is perceived to be [X]_

There is some important kernel of truth to this. I've known women who can
code, but who definitely don't want to, including my wife who actually feels
sorry for me whenever she tries to imagine what my day is like. Furthermore, I
would say that there aspects of the culture of programming which act to
degrade its meritocracy, and some of those are culturally skewed against
women. I don't think that an attitude of witch-hunt and inquisition is the way
to do that, however. Rather, I think the kind of discussion which James Damore
thought he was going to have when he penned his memo is the solution. Note
that this is entirely independent of what he said in his memo -- the kind of
discussion he reportedly imagined would happen.

As jdavis notes below, accounting and book keeping employ more women than men.
Computer programming was once seen as a preferred career for women in the very
early days. I suspect that there's a common thread here, which is mediated by
culture and social factors. One which is not nefarious, and one which would be
useful to figure out.

------
danans
Normally, this would be pedantic, but since the author is delving into terms
from psychology, they should avoid conflating the terms pro/antisocial with
social/asocial.

In particular, antisocial [1] means something _very_ different than asocial
(preferring a less active social life). Plenty of people are asocial but
thankfully very few are antisocial.

It matters in the case of the article because it juxtaposes pro-social
behaviors like community consciousness with _asocial_ behaviors. These are
different dimensions. One can be simultaneously asocial and pro-social, and
one can also simultaneously be social and anti-social.

1\.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disor...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder)

------
Symmetry
I notice that the big decline in female enrollment in CS came around the time
the Hollywood stereotype of a computer programmer changed from a well-
intentioned labcoated professional whose creation might have gotten a bit out
of control to a basement dwelling hacker carrying out a solo fight against the
bullies, the man, etc.

~~~
ghaff
Which also corresponded to home PCs and gaming consoles becoming common. So
computers became more about a hobby with often limited social interaction as
opposed to being solely about something that college students and adults
pursuing computing as a profession did.

Which arguably also led to this idea that if you haven’t been doing computing
recreationally since you were a kid you obviously are not Passionate enough to
join $disruptive_startup.

~~~
walshemj
I have to admit if you only started programming after you went to University
your going to struggle with the course and afterwards work.

You would not expect to do a Degree in English lit and have done no reading of
the cannon before getting to university.

~~~
ghaff
I’m honestly not so sure about that. The number of Western classics the
average incoming English major has read is probably pretty small.

And it really isn’t true of just about any other branch of engineering or
science. How many bridges do you think someone majoring in civil engineering
has designed?

The fact that a lot of CS curricula only address those who have been
programming as a hobby is a bug not a feature.

~~~
walshemj
Many other countries mandate that you study at school the subject (or direct
precursors) you take at Uni.

You not going to study Physics at Oxbridge if you don't have GCSE and A levels
in the Subject why is EE and CS considered different.

Some lists of the "English" cannon are 200+ texts and that's not counting some
of the classical authors you should have read - and that's not counting any
BAME texts you might want to look at for diversity.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
The English cannon should be shot.

:-)

The word you're looking for is "canon".

~~~
walshemj
And Dyslexia sucks :-)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
And now I feel like a heel for picking on your spelling. :-<

------
jd75
I personally love me some alone time, but yeah, as a lady, tech is a little
too lonely even for me. Something that I think would help is if the social
types in the engineering department (often men!) would post interesting tech
events in Slack.

Maybe I don't enjoy sports or poker; maybe you don't enjoy sci-fi book
readings or craft nights, but chances are we both want learn some new tricks
(with free beer and snacks). I suppose the risk there is that it can feel like
an obligation -- and I actually had a boss accuse me of networking for my next
job by going to tech events.

~~~
godelski
> Something that I think would help is if the social types in the engineering
> department (often men!) would post interesting tech events in Slack.

I think this is really important. But should add that if you want to do
something don't be afraid to make said post. If you feel lonely, reach out.

I moved across the country and had no friends there (into an engineering firm,
in an engineering town, with few people my age (mostly engineers)). Being
mostly an introvert I was fine being alone 99% of the time, but everyone needs
friends. I figured out that when I need friend time that _I_ had to be the one
to organize such events. If I didn't then no one did anything, or the groups
that already existed would just do their own things. (Can't blame them for
excluding me. Not like it was a malicious act. Just no one knew me.) It can
just be something simple as "Hey I was going to do $X on $DAY, want to come
too?" (direct works better than an open invitation) After learning this I did
actually develop friends and got invited to things.

So what I'm saying is that if you feel lonely _you_ have to reach out. I
completely understand that this sucks as an introvert. But you do have some
control over this and you can't completely rely on others to invite you to
things.

------
JoeAltmaier
Anecdote: My niece was on a female floor in her dormitory. Supposed to foster
a supportive environment for the women to pursue STEM. What happened? A few
gave in, turned to Liberal Arts. They began to chatter to the rest about "why
bother". After 1 semester, only my niece was still in a STEM field (ChemE).

------
indoorfish
If someone could please explain to me how this is an issue entirely completely
uncoupled with the rise of "Tech" to be trendy (read lucrative) and the
insistence for some people's assertions that THEY deserve this as much as
others, it would be much appreciated. It feels like everyone is just turning a
blind eye to the obvious parallels in deep sea welding or some other gender
dominated profession because they don't want anyone to get hurt feelings and
start a witch hunt.

~~~
ravenstine
Because "tech" as of late has become comfortable and more publicly accepted,
even garnering a certain cachet and prestige because of get-rich-coding
billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg. It'd be a non-issue if tech was full of
geeks with slide-rules who only make an average salary and have to wear a tie
to the office.

------
ChicagoDave
I've never understood the anti-social stereotype of working software. In order
to do the work, most of us need to interact with users of all stripes. It's
rare that we're isolated in a bubble of men. There are business analysts,
project managers, users, stakeholders, scrum masters, QA testers, story
development meetings, and daily scrums.

It's one of the most social professions one could arguably enter. Sure we have
to code in a cube for most of our week, but anti-social?

Hardly.

In fact, the most successful software engineers are the ones that _are_
social, understand complex social environments, listen well, and know how to
engage.

I do agree with the OP that there's a _perception_ of anti-social stereotypes,
but I'd argue the problem is that there are few women in tech, men would
_love_ to find a tech-oriented partner or date, but the odds of that one woman
in your group lining up in all other ways with us is narrow (we're analytical
daters - we do the math), we tend to just resign ourselves to staying away
from disappointment. And there is the whole sexual harassment aspect too. When
we're doing the coworker math in our heads, we're worried about saying
something stupid.

It's a self-fulfilling cycle. An unbalanced gender environment creates
discomfort by both genders.

We need to actively reconstruct social dynamics within tech circles to break
this cycle or it will just continue.

~~~
ChicagoDave
How do we break the cycle?

Colleges need to get out of the business of teaching CompSci the way the do it
now. Less emphasis on science and engineering and more on team building,
project management, business analysis, and more. Don't make programmers. To me
that's like forcing everyone that plans to work on cars to only understand how
to repair brakes. There is a whole lot of car outside of repairing just the
brakes.

Colleges need to engage in team-oriented software development practices. It
shouldn't be computer science specific. It should be business oriented,
social, teams, projects, testing, planning, white-boarding, _and_ programming.

This is how a lot of businesses run, so we should mimic the environments these
graduates will end up in.

If we made this one valuable change, we'd possibly attract a more balanced
gender population, create social environments for men to evolve properly,
allow women to feel comfortable and respected, and generate advocacy for
diverse and respectful work environments.

~~~
yosito
Are you implying that science and engineering are problematic for women? ಠ_ಠ

~~~
ChicagoDave
Hell no. I’m saying our current working population is out of gender balance
and women who would otherwise choose software engineering probably prefer to
turn towards gender neutral professions, especially given all of the news of
places like Uber.

We need to change the foundation of tech education to weave in other
disciplines so gender balance is achieved.

Granted, if a college tried and they still struggled to meet the goal of
gender balance, my theory goes out the window.

But except for brave and determined women, this imbalance will remain. Let’s
take the need for bravery out of the equation, if it’s possible.

------
cbradshaw
Is CS really “lauded as a haven for antisocial people?” Ouch. Some of the
evidence in this article is anecdotal (female friend at a hackathon gets
excluded by males, etc.).

Has no one else seen the plethora of “Women in Tech” meet ups, events and
hiring fairs? Anecdotally, I have several female friends that have interviewed
and been hired at companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon. I understand
this isn’t statistically significant but does the cause have to be the fault
of men (being less social, being perceived as weird, not welcoming women to
the industry)?

Maybe there are less women in tech because women (generally) are less
interested in the field?

~~~
peoplewindow
"Women in tech" events are a good example of how women exclude themselves. A
typical event has the following attributes:

\- Men strongly discouraged or banned from participating.

\- Many of the attendees are "women in tech" but not "technical women", it's
common to see women who describe themselves as co-founders, activists, HR
staff and so on but relatively rare to find someone who actually spends all
day banging out code.

\- As a consequence of the above most of the talk at these events revolves
around gender politics, not tech.

Source: girlfriend has learned to code and attended one or two meetup events
advertised as being for women in tech, also from reading agendas or blog posts
about such events.

Meanwhile the men are creating inclusive events that focus on knowledge
sharing about hard tech topics. They use what they learn to build new things,
they scope out each others talent and form professional relationships that can
be used to build companies. True geek girls go to these events and are in the
minority. The rest self-select out and create the exclusion they then blame
men for. I have no sympathy.

~~~
meowface
That's an interesting theory, but do you have any evidence that most of these
events are more political in nature than actually talking about programming
and technology? Your girlfriend's one or two anecdotes aren't really
sufficient to make a generalization like that.

~~~
peoplewindow
It's not a theory, it's a description of my observations.

I've presented my sources. Why not go find counter-examples? I bet you'll find
it's harder than you expect. But OK, I'll make my case more strongly.

Here's a simple exercise. Pick a buzzword, say blockchain, search for "women
in X" and let's look at some of the top results.

[https://www.womenontheblock.io/](https://www.womenontheblock.io/) \- check
out the speakers. The first is a PhD student in cryptography, not a bad start.
But then there's a co-founder, another co-founder, another founder (of
"Investing in Women" i.e. an activist), a lawyer, an actual software engineer!
Sort of - in 2011 she was an intern, she spent two years doing support tickets
and is now a PM, but hey, that's at least something. Then we're back to a
lobbyist, another founder (of a foundation), another lawyer, "Chief Discovery
Officer" whatever that is, lawyer, digital content lead, shareholder (?), co-
founder, business development executive, CFO, lawyer, CTO of the World Bank
Group whose background is actually management consulting and "thought
leadership", sales, "human capital officer" etc etc.

You get the picture. I just worked down the list and of all the people listed,
only two appeared to do anything actually related to writing software: a
cryptography student and someone who spent a couple of years as a support
engineer but then quickly moved into product management.

Notice the pre-ponderance of women calling themselves founders and co-
founders. That's very common. They are not what HN readers would recognise as
a startup founder. Often they've founded entities that don't do anything, or
are just organising more "women in X" meetups, or in the rare case where
they're making software, have partnered with men / outsourcing shops to do so.

Here's another example: [https://www.blockchainbeach.com/live-2018-women-in-
blockchai...](https://www.blockchainbeach.com/live-2018-women-in-blockchain-
summit/)

Look at the agenda. It starts with a basic intro to blockchain, ok, slightly
technical but nothing you can't find on YouTube. But then we're right into a
discussion of "her time in the middle east and dispelling misconceptions about
women in that region" i.e. about general women's issues, not tech. Then a
panel whose first listed topic is "social impact" and one of the members is a
musician (at least two of the women do appear to be at least somewhat
technical). Then a marketing pitch for some random alt-coin whose relevance
appears to be mostly that the marketing person for NEM is a woman. Then a
keynote on "diversity in blockchain" \- women's issues/feminism again. Then a
panel on "women empowerment and inclusion". Useful observations like "42% of
all the women in the world do not have a bank account" (men's problems of
course don't count). And so on.

Really, if you have never investigated these events before - don't bother.
They are mostly just non-technical feminists complaining about men, engaging
in outrageous sexism and generally making the whole feminist cause look bad.

------
belorn
I read this article and can't help to see how much cultural views and media
representation is blending facts with fiction. Starting with the statement
"Compared to almost any other industry, women are underrepresented in
technology", looking at gender segregation statistics per profession paints a
very different picture. Taking Swedish statistics (which get collected as part
of taxation and made public), technology profession are usually very average
with around 75%. It sounds huge thinking that for every 1 woman there is 3
men, but that is about average for every employed swede for both men and
women. You take a random person of the street and there is around 80% chance
that the person is working in a profession which has higher than 2:1 gender
ratio. The official definition of a gender segregated profession is 60/40 or
higher, and 88.5% of the population falls in that category with about 12%
women and 13% men working in gender equal professions. Going from the other
end, I am manually looking at the list and there is 40 professions with 90% or
higher gender segregation none which clearly fits as a technology profession.
Top 1# is midwife with 99.7% women (total 5692) and #2 is floor installation
with 99.4% men (total 3581). The first recognizable technology profession
(system programmer) is listed with 80% men, ranked #75th worst of a total
listed 156 professions (including the few gender equal profession).

Without this context, discussing numbers like "women hold only 25% of
technical roles" is impossible. 75th position means (given equal distribution)
that taking a random person of the street should give a 50% chance of them
working in a more gender segregated profession than technology.

What is causing half the population of Sweden to choose gender segregated
professions where the majority outnumber the minority with 80% to 20% and do
the theories of the article explain it? Personally I don't think so. If social
behavior would be a major source then we should be able to predict which
professions would be dominated by men and which by women if we ranked the
social engagement in the work place, but such prediction model seems poor when
I manually go through the top worst segregated professions where both male and
women professions are mostly team based.

[http://www.duochjobbet.se/nyhet/nio-av-tio-har-jobb-med-
ojam...](http://www.duochjobbet.se/nyhet/nio-av-tio-har-jobb-med-ojamn-
konsfordelning/) (for a 2012 list that was easiest to grab, but one can always
go to the Statistics Sweden (SCB)).

------
fortythirteen
> In addition to these perceptions about people in tech, tech actually is less
> social for women than for men. It’s harder for women to make friends and fit
> in, both in university classes and at tech companies. Because it’s unnatural
> or might be taken the wrong way, young men are less likely to approach women
> and invite them to join a study group or happy hour, poker night, or
> whatever else they do with their male peers/coworkers. They don’t just sit
> next to women without a desk neighbor, ask them unsolicited questions, or
> offer to help. They’re less likely to joke with them, complement them, or
> even chat with them casually. The exclusion is unintentional, not malicious,
> but made worse by the fact that women are more socially aware than men at
> this age.

I wonder how much of that has to do with how young, male engineers are
hammered with the social mores of creepy, harassing nerds pushed as one of the
reasons for less women in tech. Maybe they're trying to take the safe route
and just not interact.

------
jehlakj
I like to compare STEM to Harry Potter when it first came out. I remember
being one of those dorks in middle school who couldn’t get enough of it, and I
thought not many people enjoyed it as much as I did. Only a handful of people
mentioned it, and I was pretty social back then. Then the movies came out
followed by the “cool kids” going crazy over them. Suddenly you have to like
Harry Potter in order to fit in!

The only difference is that STEM isn’t labeled as cool by “cool people” yet.

------
timavr
I am just confused.

I think we might agree that how social women vs men are in the certain age
group are relatively constant through time. IE in 60s men is about as social
as they are now, but the number of women in STEM decreased through the same
time period.

I think it is just market forces in play plus gender roles in childhood. Women
get discriminated in tech(study and jobs), resulting in subpar outcomes for
women. This information propagates through the market so women choose not to
participate in that kind of work because opportunity costs are too high and
they choose to do something else.

Very similar situation growing up where gender roles and parents push girls
away from STEM.

If companies and educational institution in STEM treated men and women the
same, we would get much better distribution.

Not rocket science here. Education plus equal treatment.

------
opportune
I see this as a problem companies need to solve, not individuals.

A man intentionally going out of their way to befriend a woman has much more
to lose (potentially being considered a “creep” leading to a poor reputation
that may spread) than they stand to gain compared to if they tried to befriend
another man. But the main reason that can occur is the intentionality of
making an “approach” like that. And yes, it will be construed as creepy a
significant portion of the time, especially if you are unattractive or have
poor social skills - that’s a fact of life.

If instead your boss/professor mandated a few small social events to get new
hires to meet each other and existing employees one-on-one, there’s no way you
can misconstrue getting to know someone as trying to flirt with them.
Everybody wins.

------
masonic
That Google photo[0], which the author thinks is a good example of diversity,
properly reflects the current SV definition of "diversity": (a) all white and
Asian (b) 25% female (c) all in their 20s and early 30s. No older females. No
older males. No black females. No black males. No apparent Latinos ( _perhaps_
far right in the second row).

[0]
[https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/IKDqAFRmbc_c4-rbLJ5WjCq58H...](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/IKDqAFRmbc_c4-rbLJ5WjCq58HPUTBfXDmSXP2LZn_AcBSM5iWj7vWfSYZYJk4SxGc5WBgF1jgaAVaGllJ8HqcHE8VP_r3emAaNHdpDIQlbG9qPiDtampzoqKKZ7bPoG9zjOQzPU)

------
alexbecker
The cited statistic "Women make up 57% of the workforce" is very misleading.
Chasing down the chain of citations, this number appears to be the percentage
of "Professional and related occupations" jobs occupied by women according to
the BLS
([https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat09.htm](https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat09.htm)).
But by far the largest sub-category of this is "Healthcare practitioners and
technical occupations" which is heavily female--outside of this sub-group the
gender ratio is roughly 50/50.

~~~
yosito
You can't just cut out parts of the workforce that you don't want to include
in your data.

~~~
alexbecker
I'm not advocating that. I'm just saying that this is, contrary to how it is
cited, a specific subset of "the workforce", and pointing out that this subset
furthermore is not necessarily representative of what one might think of as
the "professional" workforce.

------
dgudkov
Tech in general and software in particular is hard to learn. So hard that you
can't progress beyond mediocre level unless you have strong passion for it.
Only that passion pushes you to spend hours and days fighting a problem. Only
that passion makes you stay awake late night reading about beautiful
programming concept. Only that passion gives you a bliss when you finally
figured out something and made it work. Better social interactions won't
replace that passion. So no, I don't support her theory. Innate interest in
technology is necessary and sufficient.

------
ravenstine
What I read from this is that women are less interested than men in a job by
itself and more in what the job fits their desired lifestyle.

I and many other programmers I've talked to got into the career they have
because the craft is naturally compelling to them, with the lifestyle of
programming being secondary or even tertiary. I don't think most male
programmers do what they do because they particularly like each other, nor are
they necessarily interested in an anti-social atmosphere. Sure, some are going
to have contrary preferences, but if it wasn't generally true that male
programmers are primarily interested in their craft, then I wouldn't expect
the most horrendously competitive tech companies wouldn't still get plenty of
male applicants and even fewer female applicants.

Put simply, I think tech companies could all be run like sweat shops, and
you'd see nearly as many men working for them and probably fewer women.

Yet again, we have a woman who enters an arena that women don't want to
enter(by her own account) and requests that it be changed to fit her and other
women. These are the suggestions she makes for making tech more hospitable to
women:

* Create communities (set people up with “buddies”, mentors, lunch groups)

* Emphasize tech’s potential to impact humans and community wellbeing

* Invest in social events

* Offer opportunities for engineers to do user- and team-facing work

* Confront unconscious bias

* Go befriend a girl in your class or company

As a man, these are all distractions from getting my work done. I am
intellectually excited about software development but, when it comes down to
it, I want to show up to the office, accomplish things, and go home. Being
overly concerned with the wellbeing of others is not that interesting, and I
don't have a job to make friends; if I make friends, that's through
happenstance. I want to be the best at what I do, but I don't need
communities/buddies, social events, unconscious bias training, or the opposite
sex to do this.

> Go befriend a girl in your class or company

I wish someone would tell women the same thing of men.

Coming from someone who has more female friends than male, there's a lot that
can go wrong in a man trying to befriend women, especially at work. On many
occasions, simply being friendly has clearly lead to a woman perceiving that I
was interested in her. If you're lucky, you're met with distance and radio
silence, but most men are going to be treated as "creepy". As engineering is
going to be made up of a lot of nerds who already have experience in being
"creepy", there's little incentive for those nerds to willingly subject
themselves to rejection when they weren't even looking to court these women in
the first place.

Again, I have lots of female friends, including some from work, but that's
because it took an incredible amount of effort to get to know them without
setting off the "creepy" flag. For most guys, this effort isn't worth it.

~~~
Zarath
Right, given the option for a man to try to befriend two people: a man and a
woman, it's far lower risk to try and befriend the man, assuming both
friendships have an equal probability of being fulfilling.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
> Part 1: Young women are more pro-social then young men.

That's just another gender stereotype.

~~~
meowface
Backed by science.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Science doesn't back stereotypes.

~~~
meowface
But stereotypes can be backed by science.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Stereotypes aren't backed by anything. They're just things people beleive for
no good reason.

------
onewhonknocks
Likely an unpopular view, by why is this a problem? There are unequal gender
splits in many fields, but I don't hear a big outcry that men are
underrepresented in Nursing as an example, or that there aren't enough women
lumberjacks.

Not everything needs to be in a 50/50 balance.

------
hn_throwaway_99
> [If you’re a dude and you’re reading this article] Go befriend a girl in
> your class or company. It’s not creepy. Include her, ask her for advice,
> introduce her, learn about her work and her life in the same way you would
> with any male friend or coworker. If you’re an investor, professor,
> journalist, or manager, take it on yourself to sponsor a young woman’s
> career.

While I totally agree with this advice, I think this is very difficult to get
men to do in the tech industry. There _is_ a real concern, and to be honest I
don't totally think invalid, that many men don't want to be perceived in any
way as doing something that could be construed (or misconstrued) as
harassment. I think there may be an subconscious/unconscious evaluation going
on where men think "Well, I might be socially awkward talking to this girl
anyway, so I'll just avoid the complication."

I think one of the unfortunate unintended consequences of the #MeToo movement
is that men don't want to even get close to the line of doing something that
could be perceived as inappropriate, which unfortunately results in _more_
isolation of women, not less.

~~~
lilactown
JFC. If you're afraid of accidentally harassing or molesting someone I think
you have the wrong idea of how to interact with people.

~~~
Mythanar
What you think is harassing might quite well disagree with target female view
of what harassing is, complicated by the fact that HR department might
disagree with you both. And should that whole thing become public, you'll be
judged by the entire office, with the entire spectrum of views on what
harassment is.

Personally, as a male, you have absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to
lose. The most rational thing is to not engage at all.

~~~
lilactown
> as a male, you have absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to lose.

Having friendly, healthy relationships with your colleagues isn't valuable? Or
just with the ones who are women?

Some of my best friendships/allies/contacts have been women who I worked with.
I'm very thankful for the opportunities they have provided me and the value
they add to my life.

The fact that you see /zero/ value in having genuine connections with women
has me even more worried than the fact that the OP was afraid of harassing
someone accidentally.

~~~
xcvbxzas
I think you are seeing a more extreme position than they were taking.

It's not that there isn't value in having friendly relationships with your
colleagues no matter their gender. The issue comes up in comparing the value
of a specific relationship with the potential costs of it (or attempting to
create it).

Right or wrong, befriending a male colleague has virtually zero risk. The
chances of anything happening to severely damage your career or social
standing are essentially nil. Even in a severe situation, there isn't much you
can do to cause a problem without acting in a pretty horrible way that's also
documented. There just isn't much you can do there to really provoke a highly
emotional reaction or scare HR.

The same cannot be said of attempting a relationship with a woman. People are
very sensitive about sexual harassment and HR wants absolutely nothing to do
with it. The exact lines for sexual harassment are necessarily a bit blurry.
Even if they existed, continually just barely not crossing them would seem
like harassment to me.

Is the friendly relationship with a woman coworker so much more valuable than
a man that it is worth taking on additional risk? I don't think so.

I don't intend to have a particularly strong relationship with all my
coworkers and I imagine most people are the same. This means I get to be
choosy about which ones I engage in this way. The risk-reward ratio just
doesn't seem favorable to engaging women in this way.

Now, personally speaking I have slightly more female friends than male
friends, unless we're counting people I might talk to once every few years. My
oldest friend, by far, is female. I would never suggest men should not be
friends with women. That's insane. I'm just not sure what the incentives are
for me to try to specifically befriend female coworkers.

------
amai
Having many social interactions can be a competitive disadvantage:

"Army scientists recently found that the best, high-performing cybersecurity
teams have relatively few interactions with their team-members and team
captain."

[https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?article=3209](https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?article=3209)

------
morethanmachine
Thanks for posting this, a refreshing perspective, on which I couldn't agree
more. I founded and operate a software startup, and have > 20 years of
semiconductor manufacturing and software development experience. As a very
extroverted male, when I meet new people they almost always show genuine
surprise when discovering what I do for a living. It’s a fact: there’s a
social bias in tech. Personally, I can’t stand the term nerd, or anything like
it - it’s derogatory to me, making it appear there is something lacking
socially. Thanks for the positive advice here, I am already practicing a lot
of it in my daily work life. And you’ve given me a couple more things to add
to that practice.

------
tripletao
Total aside, but where did her "baggy-eyed programmer in a dark cave with Red
Bull or a unintelligible savant who can’t get a date" picture come from? Know
Your Meme just says "unknown".

[https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/9L-mUL4tDVCe322V-fYpUHbQxP...](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/9L-mUL4tDVCe322V-fYpUHbQxP-
JXijDKg47nj_Nuv-87M3XJjHVV1b8aLepZ_1BXX3DiApCMz61Ruwk_NsaLLJUk6eQ5kpV-
dML615Xpb57AtkTJy4TTLTlwdtrld4KJkehvPj0)

Was it a staged stock photo, or was it just some guy? If the latter, I wonder
how he'd feel about his role in her article?

------
dennis_jeeves
Here is the politically incorrect view, most people at the high end of the IQ
are men. Like it or not, nature is not egalitarian. Why is this so f __*ing
complicated? Programming as a profession roughly falls under the high IQ
spectrum. Ok, now some of you egalitarian nuts reading this _will_ interpret
what I wrote as discriminatory, _waits for the backlash_

~~~
poke111
source?

~~~
dennis_jeeves
poke111, I looked at your other posts and I belive you really needn't be
convinced with a source as such.( if by source you meant a research paper) I
noticed that you have already figured out that there differences in IQ among
races. Anyway - my 'source' is my observation over the years, the smartest
people that I'm aware of, both among developers or otherwise are
disproportionately male. As a corollary some dumbest people are also
disproportionately male. Never in my circle of acquaintances have I seen women
being discriminated solely based on their gender. Infact I have on occasions
seen a clear discrimination against men. I did do a quick search to see if
there were research papers on the subject, I could not find it. The few that I
could find did not show significant differences. Now ofcourse the broader
question to ask is, do we take main stream science at it's word always, ? No,
is my answer. A large proportion of mainstream science is biased and rigged. I
have heard/read that any research paper that shows difference in IQ among
genders or race is unlikely to be published by journals.

------
hn_throw_334
I'm not fond of talking about how much "experience" I have so I've made this
throwaway. I've been programming for most of my adult life. I've worked on
every level of the tech stack from writing byte code for CPUs by hand to front
end web development. In my college classes I helped many people survive by
offering advice on tooling, implementation, and even sometimes direct one on
one tutoring. I would never say I know everything about software development
but I've had a lot of practice and I know how to find out how to do anything
and I can teach and or exercise that same skill to anyone.

Unfortunately though I am what this author would call "a baggy-eyed programmer
in a dark cave with Red Bull or a unintelligible savant who can’t get a date."

I'm extremely nervous in social situations to the point where I don't enjoy
ordering something different from restaurants I've already been to for fear
that the person behind the counter will ask me to clarify something and I
won't know what to do. I've been getting much better at talking to people and
I'm usually extroverted when I'm around people I've already met.

As for what the article asks as a solution, as many point out, this is very
difficult.

> [If you’re a dude and you’re reading this article] Go befriend a girl in
> your class or company. It’s not creepy.

I'd consider the engineers I work with to all be my friends and that's only
because I work with them on a day to day basis and I had time to acclimate to
them.

The women who I've met university however did not pan out this way. I have
many male friends. Many of whom have either noticed me, or who I have noticed,
have terminals open and have been vigorously typing during a lecture. Whenever
I see this I make a point to lean over and ask "what editor do you use?",
"what class is this for?", "that's cool! Do you have any side project that you
do outside of school".

I've made some very good friends by doing this but women for the most part are
creeped out. It's understandable. I'm a weird looking dude with a 12 year old
thinkpad that sports stickers from OSH Park and I'm likely going to be talking
to people who I already know about anime or something else equally as strange.

One thing that has never happened to me, and that I've never seen happen
anywhere, was see a women lean over and do what I have just described.

Unfortunately just due to the nature of the possible sample size (<20% of my
degree track's population) this may just be a coincidence.

I love teaching and I want to get better at making friends. It's just very
difficult for me, and the many others like me, to be the one to reach out. I
think it would generally be positive if encouraged women to try and ask "what
editor are you using?"

I'd definitely go to meetups, talk shop, work on projects, etc with someone
else in the NYC area. I've got a lot I can teach and much more that we could
learn together. I just don't know how to make that happen. Facilitating an
environment where that could happen is probably the best bet if this author is
correct imo.

~~~
hkmurakami
An aside, but I would absolutely want to approach someone with a 12 year old
thinkpad and ask what the internals are like, how the keyboard is holding up,
which model you chose and why, etc.

------
jtchang
Up till the middle of the article the arguments could be made either way (if
we were somehow in a parallel universe and 75% of the CS workforce were
females).

The part that got me thinking was whether CS is less social compared to other
industries and careers.

I think that is the perception and reality. If by social we mean interaction
with other human beings than a lot of the interaction we do is between a human
and a computer. Not human to human. Of course there are lots of exceptions but
expectations are there as well. The expectation that you are solving a problem
as a group or by yourself.

Even in a number of CS programs you can't work together on problems. We have
programs that scan your homework to see if you "cheated". Other business
classes I took though regularly focused on group projects early on. CS early
on is about learning to code and interacting with computers.

------
montzark
Thoughts about picture "The APMs at a social event in Napa"?

The lady is kind of left out. Not sure if it's american hover-hand culture,
but to me it looks one of the problems.

------
yosito
Pretend you're a woman and then read the comments on this post. That makes it
pretty obvious that one of the reasons women have a hard time feeling welcome
in tech is because men don't listen to or empathize with them when they speak
about their opinions or perspectives.

~~~
as1mov
I've been browsing this thread for about 45 minutes. Not a single comment is
rude, most of the comments are trying to debate about the issue.

If you post a submission on a forum and expect everyone to blindly agree with
you or you else you consider it as "hate", then the problem is perhaps with
you.

~~~
turingcompeteme
They didn't say rude, they mentioned empathy.

Julia Enthoven shared her experience as a Woman in tech, and this thread is
filled with nitpicking, asking for sources, disagreement, alternate theories,
debates, etc.

There is no empathy here. So I'll start:

Good for her for sharing her thoughts and experiences. It's a tough topic to
talk about, and as we see here and elsewhere, people will immediately pick
apart everything you say. Individual experiences like these are useful to read
about for people like me who recognize that there is a problem but don't
really know what to do about it. So thank you, Julia. I'm sorry it is such a
difficult topic, but I hope you keep talking about this and that others are
encouraged to do so as well.

~~~
peoplewindow
That attitude doesn't help the cause of women in tech. It makes things worse.

Machines don't have empathy. They do not care about feelings. Code is harsh.
So are professional code reviewers. Therefore if you're a programmer, you will
in fact spend a lot of time dealing with nitpicking issues, finding sources
for claims you make, debating alternative theories and so on.

If women can't even do that in debates _they start_ then they should give up
in being programmers. They won't make it and they won't get along with their
colleagues.

I don't think they _are_ incapable of such things, as I always get the
impression posts like this one ("why can't you just respect her opinion") are
actually written by men. But her compiler won't give her opinions automatic
respect. Why should anyone else?

~~~
yosito
Wow, please get that toxic attitude out of tech.

------
modbait
> Go befriend a girl in your class or company. It’s not creepy.

As an unattractive computer nerd, I've been regularly reminded my entire life
that I _am_ creepy. Skipping.

~~~
JPKab
I have a talented, and wonderful, female dev on my team.

One thing though:. She has described to me some of the male coders as being
"creepers".

When I asked for specifics, she couldn't provide them. She simply stated it
was a "feeling".

The one commonality I found with the creepers is that they are pretty clearly
below average in looks. The question is whether this is a correlation or a
casual factor.

But definitely challenged her to try to focus on actions rather than "vibes".

~~~
bitL
There is definitely something else going on in the background:

[https://twitter.com/ekp/status/991817194987114496](https://twitter.com/ekp/status/991817194987114496)

I frankly found this shocking and absolutely disgusting.

~~~
ropeadopepope
Be attractive. Don't be unattractive. Your job now depends on it. Unless you
work 100% remote and don't use video chat.

~~~
pseudalopex
"Incels" are a self-identified group that don't represent all sexually
frustrated men, and "What are you going to do about it?" can have answers
besides "root them out and fire them".

~~~
ropeadopepope
Not in this case. To some women, all 'creepy' men are potential rapists and
now, thanks to the media, potential terrorists too. Do you really think women
are going to 'feel safe' in their working environment if there is even one man
there who is 'creepy'?

------
forapurpose
It's sad to see so many people here saying that social situations, especially
with women, induce so much fear. Here are some tips from a geek who was in
that position, learned a few things, and now has slightly less crappy social
skills:

* _Stop objectifying people_ : 'Objectifying' is a kinda intimidating word, but the meaning is _essential_. Stop making people objects in your mental model of the world; stop making them characters who play a role in your private theatrical narrative of rejection (and whatever else you've lived through). That big scary monster who might reject you - that's the object. The real person has their own entire private universe, like you, of fears, desires, perspectives, priorities, needs, worries, and theatrical narratives. They haven't read your script, don't know their assigned part, and most importantly, don't want to play it - they want to be themselves! You and your interaction play a tiny role in their lives; the reason they respond in X way likely has little to do with you; they may be as scared as you are. Instead, be curious about them - who is this person completely distinct from you? There's a vast universe of emotion and experience you know nothing about - so much to learn! Give them plenty of space and assume nothing because you don't know shit; the variety is unfathomable; if they don't surprise you, you're doing it wrong. More importantly, step outside yourself and _care_. Grasp that they have a hard time too - this mortal coil sucks for everyone - and be compassionate about it. Genuine compassion is your greatest tool; it also turns your attention away from your fears and outward to others, and you also do a good deed. Humans crave it. (I'm not blaming you for objectifying; I know why; it's hard.)

* Be genuine about your emotions. That is, be honest. You're not hiding them nearly as well as you think; people have evolved and learned throughout their lives to pick up very subtle emotional cues, consciously and unconsciously. (It's a matter of survival for the organism - 'Will the one next to me kill me? Feed me? Parent my children?') And here's the trick: If you aren't honest with yourself about your emotions, then obviously you can't be honest with others. Too many males are raised to treat emotions like a crippled, angry dog they're forced to feed - great, you just kicked out the strongest leg of your little table of stability and capability. Your intellect is not nearly enough to compensate, but you probably noticed that by now; your emotions are actually your best friend and tool - amazingly powerful and they also provide stability if you take care of them. Be emotionally genuine and honest or you're _lying_ to the other person (and maybe yourself); people don't like liars. That doesn't mean you have to act out on them (yell when angry) or announce them at every moment or that you shouldn't have some composure (be able to manage them), but be honest with yourself and don't pretend. Try this: 'I'm such a nerd! Talking to people terrifies me.' That's genuine, shows you can be trusted, and allows them to genuine.

* Pay close attention to their emotions. Ask yourself, 'what is their emotional affect[0] right now?' and also, 'what is their unsaid concern, what is their agenda?' Yes, it takes effort and concentration to do those things while also paying _close_ attention to their words. That's called _listening_. And it also makes you shut up, stop interrupting, and again focus outward on them and not on your fears or the game/work you're obsessed with. When people see and feel you do it, they really appreciate it; it's like magic. And you'll be amazed what you learn from other people when you let them talk.

* Back way the f-k up and give people (emotional) space, lots of it, enough that they can go anywhere in their conversation and not meet any resistance from you (an uncomfortable look, an interjection, etc.). Enough so that they can develop an incomplete idea or pause without at all worrying that they'll lose the floor to you. Give them freedom; give them control. If you're like me, that's hard; bite your tongue, literally if you must. And that means that if you get the emotional cue that they don't want to talk right now, then swallow your fear and respect their completely legitimate wishes. Your fear, your insistence that they respond as you want, is about that object in your mind (see the first point above). That's on you, not them; they aren't there to serve your emotional needs. If you give them space when they want it, you'll find that they trust you when they are ready to talk. If you don't, then why would they want to come back?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_%28psychology%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_%28psychology%29)

EDIT: Some minor edits

~~~
Mythanar
Or alternatively: Skip the females at workplace and focus on the job at hand.

------
cde-v
> Compared to almost any other industry, women are underrepresented in
> technology.

Except for the many industries where women dominate like:

Preschool and kindergarten education

Nursing

Accounting

Social Work

Psychology

~~~
crankylinuxuser
Note the pay on those careers.

"Women's Careers" pay significantly less. And they're all 'emotional' and
'soft skill' jobs.

That's a problem.

Edit: So, at -3 currently. Is the -1's a "disagree" or "stfu"? Please state
where I am wrong.

~~~
leshow
Don't they pay about as much as the male dominated jobs?

brickmason, drywall installation, crane operator, roofer, etc

All of these jobs have 95%+ males. I can't imagine they pay very well.

That's genuinely a question, not trying to be smart. It seems to me like jobs
on both ends of the spectrum might not pay the best.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
Stonemason - $42,370 -
[https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472022.htm](https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472022.htm)

Drywall/Ceiling tile installer - $49,250 -
[https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472081.htm](https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472081.htm)

Crane and Tower Operators - $55,690 -
[https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes537021.htm](https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes537021.htm)

LPN - $45,030 - [https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/licensed-practical-and-
li...](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/licensed-practical-and-licensed-
vocational-nurses.htm) !Requires licensure

Social Worker - $47,980 - [https://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-social-
service/social-...](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-social-
service/social-workers.htm) !Likely requires graduate degree

Preschool Teachers - $28,990 - [https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-
and-library/presc...](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-
library/preschool-teachers.htm)

Home Health Aides - $23,130 - [https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/home-health-
aides-and-per...](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/home-health-aides-and-
personal-care-aides.htm)

\----------------------------

Long story short, the trades (AKA: jobs that primarily men do) requires a time
of apprenticeship, then you can work. Whereas the "women majority" jobs all
pay around 45-50k and they require advanced degrees or state licensure. The
nonlicensed primarily-women based jobs pay around 20-30k.

~~~
stcredzero
So for women-dominated jobs, it's get a degree, get 20k more a year. No wonder
women are getting more degrees!

(What's more, this would seem to indicate that class disparities might be
increasing more for females than for males. Maybe this explains the vehemence
of radicalized females.)

------
thucydidesofusa
>Invest in social events: It can take a lot of time to set up opportunities
for your team to hang out , but casual socializing is awesome for the
extroverts on your team and crucial for retention... and go out of your way to
include everyone.

Going through this at work. The extroverts took over my department and now our
(mandatory) team meetings have (mandatory) fun events that give extroverts
time to brag about what they have going outside of work and give the
extroverts an audience who can't refuse (the introverts who do the work). And
it's awful for people who dislike forced socialization at work. And these are
like 11 am meetings on Tuesday so it's dry and interrupts concentration
workers.

But this article didn't seem very interesting - these points have been
discussed before and it struck me as the bleats of an attractive-enough women
who's upset that she has to put in effort and other people aren't giving her
the attention she feels entitled to.

Say what you will about traditional corporate cultures, but things seem to
work better for everyone when the decorum is universal, clear/well-documented,
and free from empathetic demands.

~~~
dang
> _bleats of an attractive-enough women who 's upset that she has to put in
> effort and other people aren't giving her the attention she feels entitled
> to_

Between this personal attack and the rest of your gender-war comments, we've
banned this account for violating the site guidelines. Please don't create
accounts to post like this.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
ebbv
Great article. Appreciate the point of view and I think all the advice is
sound.

~~~
jiveturkey
Agreed. not a perfect article but much better than most on the subject.
Factually presented and yet it rings on an emotional level.

------
KaoruAoiShiho
Nice theory. Sexism is still the most compelling reason though. What her
mother told her was sexist. Most of her negative experiences can be
categorized as sexist. The excuses about social stuff seems like bs coverings
for general sexism that people try very hard to be in denial about. This is
plainly obvious if you talk to women from other cultures who don't experience
this stuff.

