
“Most of the time, I don’t feel like a girl, I feel like a programmer” - hunglee2
https://sarahbradburyblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/caroline-clark-on-coding/?preview=true
======
trav4225
_" When you create targets, quotas, there’s a danger these get filled but not
by the best people."_

It was a refreshing surprise to see a quote like that in an article like this!

~~~
trav4225
Just to clarify: by "an article like this", I meant "an article on this
topic". :)

------
Bartweiss
Overall, I really like this. It's a fairly judicious take on the industry,
acknowledging that there is some unpleasant stuff but not painting it as a
universal experience (or, worse, darkly alluding to autism and acting like
this is about biology over culture). There were two things that threw me off,
though.

First, the citation of the github study. I don't know if the author or the
editor put it in, but it's a woefully incomplete, cherry-picked result that
shouldn't have made the press in the first place and shouldn't be repeated.

Second, the thing about IDEs. I don't disagree that they're bad, but is that
really a diversity issue? Most of the straight white male engineers I know
hate most IDEs with a burning passion. The general issue seems to be that
they're hard to build and ill-considered, not that they're made by the wrong
people.

Still, this is a good take on the real-but-limited role of gender in tech, and
the role of code as a tool rather than an end in itself. Thanks for sharing
it.

------
bpchaps
"..except when I blog"

My favorite and most technical women coworkers in the past never, ever mention
gender and actively avoid discussions about it. Professionally, it's
irrelevant and their quality of work and attitude completely overshadows the
quality of work of those who make gender an issue.

A very technical ex of mine would even go as far as calling those who make
their gender relevant, even towards posts like this one, idiots.

The problem with these anti-label canned posts (sorry, but when I see info
graphics like that, "canned" feels pretty accurate) is that they give off the
same vibe as a the usual "I'm $LABEL, so treat me as such" crowd.

There are clear problems with gender issues in tech, but I can't shake the
feeling that posts like this are more damaging than good.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
I feel the problem with such a response is that it feels like 'if I don't
acknowledge the problem, or refuse to see it, then its not a problem'.

~~~
bpchaps
That wasn't how I meant it to come off, and apologies if it came out that way.
I'm not suggesting that we don't acknowledge the problem. I'm more suggesting
that the problem is completely elsewhere, so locally addressing it does harm,
rather than good.

I have bipolar which causes ADD-like symptoms. When I try to address these
problems with requests like "Please don't install three TVs in my peripheral
vision", I'm often ignored, laughed at, or my problems are completely
minimized (eg, "My cousin was given an ADD misdiagnosis at 2, so clearly
that's the case with you", "Grow a thicker skin.", "Get used to it."). How can
we expect to address gender issues if we can't even discuss mental health
issues?

The problem doesn't start and end in employment, so treating it as a problem
within employment and implementing "fixes" on top of employment/employment
culture will only make things more complex and exclusionary (particularly for
the fringe). As with security, adding a layer of complexity can often have
incredibly undesired results, while making the implementers (HR) feel good and
secure with their "fix".

It would be nice as a culture to address things from the problem sources, not
just the symptoms. Any time I try to have similar serious discussions at
workplaces, nobody wants to talk about the root. It's incredibly frustrating,
particularly since protecting the fringe is something I'm personally vested
in.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
Sure, though I would probably argue with saying addressing it does harm,
rather than good. I agree that adding a quota or benefits or what have you is
not a 'fix'. The problem isn't solved. And they may even cause problems of
their own, like people getting positions based on who they are rather than
their merit - though that's also certainly prevalent in majority populations
as well (who hasn't worked with someone who is less capable but more
photogenic, or happens to be 'someone's mate'?).

But when there is an imbalance, or signs of general passive discrimination
like with woman in tech, then initiatives that may not be perfect but which go
some way towards helping address the problem ARE valid I think.

And if there are problems with a given approach, well, that's what iteration
and metrics/analysis are for right? Continuous Improvement?

~~~
bpchaps
Building a school in a far off country without any prior experience in doing
so can be good in the short term, but disastrous in the long run. These sorts
of initiatives feel good and do what they're supposed to do, but just because
it feels good and has a short term gain, doesn't mean it's a good answer and
especially not the best answer.

Replace "women" with "medicated schizophrenics" (no subtext there..) and
you'll find that the problems are very similar. A solution that addresses
workplace gender issues could potentially be used to address workplace mental
health issues. Yet, instead of addressing the problem with a wide and possibly
empathy based solution, we're stuck with incredibly specific solutions and
enormous gaps where solutions should exist.

I'm convinced that the whole issue stems from a lack of empathy in the
workplace, and studies like [0] seem to hint towards the same.

[0] [http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7724-empathy-college-
studen...](http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7724-empathy-college-students-don-
t-have-as-much-as-they-used-to)

Edit: another point to add - I once went to HR to talk about my mental health
issues. The HR head who had a degree in psychology didn't know what bipolar
was, outside of the fact that it's a thing that exists. The number of things
wrong with that talk was mind boggling, especially after literally zero came
from it. This was at a relatively large company, too.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
Building a school in a far off country without any prior experiencing in doing
so is bad, but certainly not the same issue as trying to artificially increase
diversity in the work place right? Quite different contexts.

I'm sorry that where you are seems like it doesn't deal with mental health
very well (or at all, it sounds like). I'm from NZ and we have both very good
gender equality (though not perfect, especially in tech) and very good support
for those with health problems, psychological or otherwise (though again, not
perfect - no government initiative can cover all scenarios and companies are
fallible like anyone else).

Rather than arguing that gender problems shouldn't be addressed or should not
receive as much focus, shouldn't you be arguing 'great, now can we also work
on other areas of difficulty like ADHD?'

~~~
bpchaps
They're different problems, but the the feelgood intent with large, unintended
consequences is what I'm referring to, rather than the contexts themselves.

I totally think that we should be using what we've learned from employment
gender/racial issues to help out mental health problems. Not saying we
shouldn't. I'm suggesting that the conversation should be much broader to
address it at the level of empathy, without resorting to ego
compartmentalization. If the empathy problems can be fixed, I highly suspect
that everything else will fall in line.

As bold of a statement as that is, it matches my experience where simply
telling someone "I have bipolar" increases communicative empathy. That's
almost never an option though, since the subject is taboo enough that
mentioning it has negative consequences.

Why should we wait until gender issues are "fixed" to try to address that
taboo?

------
sndean
> as though as the lone female developer you are “representing” all women
> developers. If you make a mistake it’s because you’re a girl, not because
> you’re junior. Or tired or hungover or having a bad day.”

Couldn't this be true for any group though? Not to lessen what she's trying to
say, but if you're in any way a minority in a field, aren't you in some way
representing that whole group?

~~~
sageabilly
Turn this around: If you're a man, aren't you in some way representing all
men?

(Answer: no. Same with anyone, regardless of minority status. Just because I'm
a member of a minority doesn't mean the entire minority is homogeneous.)

~~~
sndean
I was thinking more along the lines of how a newly-hired male nurse is
perceived by female nurses. If he screws up, is it likely that they'll think
"men don't make good nurses" and ignore the fact that he's new?

So, no I'm not suggesting that I represent all men. I'm saying it's possible a
male nurse may in some way be representing all male nurses to his female nurse
coworkers.

------
facepalm
That infographic needs a lot of citations. The reasons they give for the low
amount of women in STEM have not really been verified, it's just popular
opinion. The story about performance of boys and girls in STEM is also more
complicated.

------
hyperliner
Good points.

But it's sad to see this biased statement in a great article discussing the
negative effects of bias:

“It’s easier to create a software-based business: there are low start-up
costs, things move quickly, its dynamic – the people doing it tend to be
younger, more liberal.”

Younger? More liberal? hmmm.

------
tomp
_> I was recently talking to a guy who works in the city who bragged about
“collecting all the flags” through his exploits on Tinder. If I had to work
with chauvinists like that, it would be a different story.”_

Some people have sex for fun, some have sex for money, others pursue yet other
goals. What happened to sex-positive feminism? Oh, right, I forgot - non-
judgement is reserved for women only...

~~~
ktRolster
He's not treating the women as people, he's treating them as objects.

The reason it would make her feel uncomfortable is because he would probably
look at her the same way, because objectifying isn't something you just turn
on and turn off.

Also, it's not really a topic you should bring up at work.

~~~
stcredzero
_objectifying isn 't something you just turn on and turn off._

You can't. Objectification isn't a sin. It isn't inherently evil. Much like
stereotyping, it's an epiphenomenon of our finite human brains. We naturally
tend to jump to conclusions and take mental shortcuts from external
signifiers. (Stereotyping.) We naturally process our goal seeking in terms of
instrumental causes and effects, and we sometimes forget to take into account
the subjective experience of other people in our plans. (Objectification.)
This is why cultures have manners that encourage active mental compensations
for the deficiencies of our brains.

Are these manners as received from tradition perfect? No. There needs to be
some further iteration. But I would contend that taking brand new stances of
vilification and shaming will be just as toxic and problematic as such stances
were in the past.

Not defending any actions in the article. I just want to straighten out the
way people process these concepts: Objectification and stereotyping are
information processing problems, not moral ones. They are not sins!

~~~
foldr
Either you think it's ok to sexually objectify women in the workplace or you
don't. I think your comment is basically a long-winded way of saying that
you're ok with it, but you could have just said so without all the patronizing
verbiage and pseudoscience.

It makes no sense whatsoever to think about sexual objectification in terms of
"information processing". If men can understand other men as more than purely
sexual beings, then they can do the same with women. I hardly think that
taking the non-sexual aspects of any particular woman into account is going to
lead to some kind of information overload.

~~~
stcredzero
_Either you think it 's ok to sexually objectify women in the workplace or you
don't._

False dichotomy. Fallacy. I think there is a certain range of behavior that's
toxic. We would probably largely agree on what that is. However, no one who
actually understands cognitive and social psychology would say that people can
actually never objectify, no more than any expert would reasonably expect a
person to never stereotype.

 _I think your comment is basically a long-winded way of saying that you 're
ok with it_

I think your comment is a prime example of the toxicity that results from
people thinking of such things as a sin. Also, nice job projecting fictional
thoughts and ideas on someone with scant evidence. (Exactly what is your
evidence?)

 _without all the patronizing verbiage and pseudoscience._

Please provide a quote as to where I patronized anyone. As far as I an tell,
you are simply offended at my suggestion that objectification isn't a sin. (As
opposed to a potentially toxic side effect of the way humans process
information and goals.) Surprisingly and quite troubling, your primary focus
seems to be to ensure such a thing is seen as a moral issue. (Thanks for being
obvious about it.)

~~~
foldr
We're talking about sexual objectification of women specifically, not some
kind of generic "objectification". So I don't think most of what you're saying
is really relevant to the topic. If you can provide citations showing that
significant numbers of cognitive scientists and social psychologists regard
the sexual objectification of women as inevitable, then let's see them.

~~~
stcredzero
_We 're talking about sexual objectification of women specifically, not some
kind of generic "objectification". So I don't think most of what you're saying
is really relevant to the topic_

Generic objectification is the underlying mechanism, and the specific referent
in my comments. My whole point is that the underlying mechanism is morally
neutral. (Objectification as formulated by feminist scholars is largely
pseudoscience, and requires the addition of an arbitrary gender direction to
make ideological sense.)

 _regard the sexual objectification of women as inevitable_

Did you honestly think I was taking the position that the sexual
objectification of women is inevitable? You are the one primarily using the
words "sexual" and "inevitable." Please provide a quote where I say something
to this effect. It would seem you are engaging in a tactic of tacking on
adjectives to what another is saying. (Nice strawman fallacy.) This analogy
works well: Objectification is certainly avoidable, in much the same way that
hitting a pedestrian is. Willfully objectifying someone is harmful and morally
objectionable in much the same way that purposely hitting a pedestrian is. In
much the same way, objectification can happen incidentally in contexts that
are badly engineered. The correct approach is to change the environment in
ways that minimize the possibility of incidents. Likewise, automatically
ascribing a moral position in such cases makes as little sense as
automatically assuming a moral stance on the part of someone in an auto
accident. More information is needed beyond the mere incident to be able to
say anything about morality. (Thought about in this way, the various
formulations of avoidance of certain topics in the workplace makes eminent
sense.)

The addition of a the moral stance seems particularly useful in terms of the
use of such accusations as a power grab. The purpose is to enable vilification
of people based on subjective standards. Really, the equivalent of "You're
either for us or against us" should raise hackles in any humanist and liberal
worthy of the name. It was unconvincing to me when George W. Bush used it as a
silencing tactic to his opponents, and it hasn't developed any more substance
since.

~~~
foldr
I can’t really see any links between sexual objectification and the kind of
generic “objectification” that you’re talking about. In other words, you’d
need to explain how we can sensibly regard the former as a subcase of a
latter. As I mentioned earlier, it simply makes no sense to link the sexual
objectification of women to generic considerations of information processing.

I certainly do take a moral stance on sexual objectification — why not? It is
of course true that merely condemning people will not necessarily cause
behaviors to change, but you could use the same argument to show that we
shouldn’t take a moral stance against anything. That doesn’t show that we
shouldn’t condemn bad things, only that we need to do more than _just_ condemn
them.

And yes, you certainly seemed to be suggesting that the sexual objectification
of women was inevitable, since you linked it to “objectification” in your
generic sense, and argued that objectification in this sense is an inevitable
result of human limitations on information processing.

~~~
stcredzero
_I can’t really see any links between sexual objectification and the kind of
generic “objectification” that you’re talking about._

Feminist pseudoscience has basically filled the searches.

 _That doesn’t show that we shouldn’t condemn bad things, only that we need to
do more than just condemn them._

Please read the whole thread again. This is pretty much my position.

 _And yes, you certainly seemed to be suggesting that the sexual
objectification of women was inevitable, since you linked it to
“objectification” in your generic sense, and argued that objectification in
this sense is an inevitable result of human limitations on information
processing._

Be careful. Your biases are showing. Blind spots in a car are inevitable.
Collisions because of blind spots aren't inevitable, especially when there is
some caution, good design, and prudent driving involved. Just because a
certain kind of error exists, doesn't mean that a certain specific subset of
those errors are inevitable. That's another kind of fallacy.

~~~
foldr
If you don't think that the sexual objectification of women is inevitable, and
if you are opposed to it, then it seems to me that we are in agreement.

>Feminist pseudoscience has basically filled the searches.

I don't understand what you mean by this. I was asking you to explain the link
which you appeared to be making between sexual objectification and limits on
information processing capacity.

