
How not to attract women to coding: Make tech pink - timr
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/How-not-to-attract-women-to-coding-Make-tech-pink-5602104.php
======
andrewflnr
I like "don't make it pink" as a slogan to combat tech gender backlash
nonsense. Love of math, beauty, and raw power are all universal, let's work on
that angle. But at the same time, let's make sure we allow gender-specific
themes from both sides to be involved, so we don't quash freedom of expression
while at the same time not excluding...

Never mind, it's probably going to take two generations to fix, regardless of
what anyone says today. Society will figure all this out when a generation
grows up in a time where this is all painfully obvious and not before.

------
judk
I don't know. NFL went pink and it attracted loads of female customers/fans.

At any rate, pink isn't _worse_ than black and red and shiny metal spinning
razor blades and ninjas. It's another niche.

------
detcader
There's a difference between female people and femininity. Not all women are
into femininity to significant degrees or to any degree, and some see it as a
questionable social construction [1]. The women in the article are simply
proposing that using extreme degrees of femininity to appeal to potential
female programmers is not a sustainable campaign, given that that's not what
the actual programming world is like. Role models do a lot more for children
[2]

[1] [http://feministcurrent.com/8789/femininity-is-no-joke-
nomake...](http://feministcurrent.com/8789/femininity-is-no-joke-
nomakeupselfie-and-manupandmakeup%E2%80%AC/) [2]
[http://reelgirl.com/2013/11/im-not-a-pilot-im-a-pilots-
wife-...](http://reelgirl.com/2013/11/im-not-a-pilot-im-a-pilots-wife-
says-3-yr-old-girl/)

------
Mz
_Excerpt:

To start, there were the pitches from college engineering programs in curly
purple typeface accented by flowery images. She started to notice that many
websites for budding female engineers are pink. Then there was the flyer for
an after-school program hanging in a hallway of her high school. Printed on
purple polka-dot paper, it read, "Are you a tech girl? Are you a web diva?"_

They aren't seriously doing this, are they? This is so gag-worthy. I am female
and I like fashion and all that and I don't like polka dots. Nor am I big on
wearing pink. I don't have an aversion to it but I certainly don't love it or
something. I like "classic" fashion design.

I thin if you have a STEM brain, you probably kind of have an engineer's
sensibilities. Why would that be particularly different because of what is
between your legs?

geez.

------
taeric
I find this quote interesting, "I'm very girly. My room is purple. I have
floral bedding. I think I'll probably be a very feminine engineer. I just
don't like the idea of being pigeonholed."

I don't necessarily like it when I'm incredibly pigeonholed, either. However,
I'm genuinely at a loss as to the complaint of the title. If not pink, then
what color? Would neon green suffice? What about puke? The article complained
even about purple.

Now, mayhap I'm wrong and there really isn't some effort at market testing
different designs. But, if there are, and it is showing that pink is
working... should they stop? A few data points showing that "girly" color
selection is bad does not indicate that it fails at large.

I say this as a man that likes the color pink. Used to have a few pink shirts
that I wore so much they literally fell apart. Looking to get new ones. Do I
wish more men were comfortable with pink? You bet. I genuinely cringe when I
hear fellow parents bemoan their child's color choice. No matter what color it
is. (Ok... I'll admit I would slightly regret puke green as a favorite
color...)

For my hypothesis, if you want to get more women in technology, you should
work on making men and women more comfortable working together. This is
especially tough on the stereotypical "geek" male. Heck, we have a hard time
working together period. Add a woman to the mix and most of us lose it big
time. Is it any wonder more of them don't wish to join us?

------
ivanca
That other article in the front page: "Clicking Their Way to Outrage", this is
exactly what it is talking about.

~~~
forgottenpass
Shhh. The only reason I'm reading the comments on this is for the drama.

------
randunel
I don't get one thing. If only 18% of the tech graduates are women, why do
people (see wsj articles and random blogs) complain about companies "gender
imbalance"[1] (not hiring 50% women and 50% men)? Wouldn't that be positive
discrimination? As this article states, 18.2% of the graduates are women, but
only 15% of the employees share the same gender, so the gap is 3.2%.
Personally, I don't consider that 3.2% as being hugely discriminatory, but
rather expected, see below.

The problem starts even before formal education. In the country I was raised
in, young women get an education which can be summarized by "get a husband to
take care of you, cook and have his children". As long as parents have this
mentality, their girls get no incentive to continue with college or anything
technical, because this path is unknowingly inhibited since childhood. Most
developed countries rely heavily on imported workforce, so a lot of Yahoo's
and Google's employees come from countries where the percentage of women
graduating in tech is far less than the 18.2% of women graduating in the US.

~~~
mrosethompson
Not necessarily. I'm not presenting this as fact, but merely as a a possible
situation and counterexample to what you describe:

Your reasoning would hold if you could assume identical skill distributions
between men and women graduates. However, it seems somewhere between possible
and likely that women graduates are of higher average skill than the men
graduating. With so many barriers and cultural impedances for a woman pursuing
tech, it takes at least the same skill (to pass the classes) as their male
classmates, plus enough extra competency to ward off the detractors and
skeptics that men don't have to deal with.

Again, I'm not saying this is reality, I certainly don't have the statistics
to back it up. But it fits my experiences pretty well, and I think your
analysis probably is too simplistic to be useful.

And, in regards to your second point, about starting much earlier: I
absolutely agree. The more the culture changes, the less this will be an
issue.

~~~
Timeroot
As a possible countereffect -- not one I necessarily believe to be stronger,
but one to consider -- is that women might be weaker due to the culture
they're coming from. Plenty of males have been encouraged to play with
computers from the age of 8 or 10, and so will have large amounts of [at least
some kind of] experience coming in to the workforce. Women are far less likely
to have had this experience. Additionally, males (who will have more male
friends) will quite possibly have plenty of coder friends whom they have
learned from. Females statistically will have less, and have less exposure
this way.

i.e. the culture not only makes it harder for women to get through learning
compsci, but they'll also have less exposure to it in the process. This could
potentially make them weaker candidates.

I don't know to what degree that actually happens.

------
oillio
From the article: "It seems so degrading," Wheat said. "If you're a girl
interested in building websites, you're a 'web diva.' If you're a boy, you're
a web developer."

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

I have seen many a job posting looking for web ninjas, rockstars, and the
like.

Our industry has a history of being rather informal, and often catering to the
narcissistic side of developers. Sometimes this is for the better, sometimes
not (e.g. the "bro-grammer" bullshit recently). I personally have no interest
in loosing our informal culture to the PC police.

~~~
detcader
You are missing their point. "Ninjas" and "rockstars" aren't particularly
gendered (they actually are and we both know it but who would be honest enough
to admit such a thing?) but "diva" certainly is. The writer's problem is not
the lack of formality -- is that really what you took away?

~~~
oillio
You just made my counter argument for me. Ninjas are definitely gendered.

Yes, the argument is about formality. The claim is that "diva" is degrading
because it is unprofessional and narcissistic, where "web developer" is gender
neutral and professional. My point is, there are many many examples of non-
gender neutral and unprofessional references in our industry. Diva is not
degrading, it is targeting a specific audience, as is Ninja.

We definitely have a gender imbalance in the industry. Should we be attacking
those trying to rectifying the situation because they do not match your
opinion on the extent that society should remain gender neutral?

~~~
detcader
How is that not taking liberties with interpretation? It's also possible that
the writer simply feels that the industry (who said anything about "society"?)
should strive to be gender neutral. More than one woman is referenced in the
OP article and they have opinions that differ by nuanced degrees.

------
thegeomaster
I have this exact same problem.

I see merchandise and slogans and whatnot targeting the "geek culture". I hate
that stuff, the "witty" and "nerdy" T-shirts with stupid inner jokes about
programming, I hate the "developer-targeted" ads with stereotypical geek talk
I'm bombarded with, I hate all that, and would never want to be a part of it.
I feel it's the same that these women get because tech is getting pink.

But I respond to this by ignoring what annoys me. I don't feel offended when
I, as someone who likes to program, is looked at through the eyes of these
"geek" stereotypes. Why are these women so offended because someone is
catering to some stereotypes that apply to women? I don't feel degraded when
companies try to get me to purchase their VPS hosting by targeting me with ads
that cater to stereotypes that apply to developers.

This kind of stuff will always happen to almost all demographics. Quite
honestly, from my position, I think this is overreacting.

Of course I would love to see more women in tech, and I would do all I can to
help that happen. But I think this is fighting a wrong fight. There ought to
be some work on helping teenage girls overcome the stereotypes about tech they
acquire in high school. But this just seems getting offended because of
something that happens to everyone who is part of a certain demographic.

I see that this kind of comment is strongly frowned upon, so if you downvote,
please be so kind as to also reply to me and explain your viewpoint on this.

~~~
watwut
Because stereotypes that apply to women are usually about us being stupid,
unable to manage finances, being weak, caring only about things like jewelry,
not understanding politics, philosophy or anything that requires brain. If you
see something pinkified or "for women", you can safely assume it is also
dumbed down. It is not always so, but it happens to be true often enough.

And mostly, while many people believe stereotypes about women and tend to
judge individual women through them, I found that people are less prone to do
the same with geek related stereotypes. If they know you are programmer, you
get the benefit of the doubt and people are willing to accept you are not
borderline autistic.

On the other hand, convincing them you know your stuff is harder if you are
women.

Probably related, negative stereotypes about geeks are equally irritating if I
hear them too much, but they are much easier to avoid. You just do not hear
nor read them as often as some stupid jokes about women. There are also many
positive stereotypes about geeks (geeks being geniuses), positive stereotypes
about women ends up pretty much with us being "nurturing".

~~~
detcader
Indeed, OP's claim that he has "the exact same problem" is a lie. There is
danger in obfuscating the realities of being part of a social class.

~~~
thegeomaster
Please elaborate.

~~~
detcader
I refuse to try to say something better than what has already been said if I
feel I couldn't do a better job [1]

[1]
[http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/tbettch/Frye,%20Oppression...](http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/tbettch/Frye,%20Oppression.pdf)

------
tzs
> Last month, Google announced its plan to spend $50 million over the next
> three years encouraging young women to give coding a try. The website for
> the project features articles about inspiring women, like Erica Kochi, who
> leads UNICEF's Innovation Unit. The first item on a page of coding projects
> for girls to try is a 3-D-printed bracelet.

> "It's insulting, not only because it's highly gendered, but also because it
> perpetuates this idea of women as consumeristic and narcissistic," said
> Losh. "It's kind of like a trifecta of badness."

Professor Losh needs to do some field research. A few hours hanging out in a
mall or other place popular with young people will show that a large fraction
of young women do in fact do seem to have quite an interest in jewelry.

Including a 3D bracelet project sends the message to young women who have not
considered coding that it can be a part of their current world. It's something
they can apply to their lives, not something they have to change their lives
in order to use.

What's insulting is Losh's implicit assumption that women who wear bracelets
must be doing it because they are narcissistic and consumeristic. Why can't
they wear them for aesthetic reasons? Or sentimental reasons?

~~~
detcader
Where do you think female interest in jewelry comes from? Are you implying
that interest in jewelry is inborn in women? You are begging the question.

The professor is concerned with general culture's image of women, which is
perpetuated when female programmers are shown to be printing pink jewelry and
perpetually enraptured by childish flowery borders. The existence of
individual women who enjoy jewelry for the aesthetics are of no consequence to
what the professor is concerned with. You are responding to an assumption that
isn't there, but rather one you've imagined as a substitute for an
understanding of the her social analysis.

>"It says that the only way you can be interested in technology is if it is
girly," said Wheat. "I'm very girly. My room is purple. I have floral bedding.
I think I'll probably be a very feminine engineer. I just don't like the idea
of being pigeonholed."

~~~
guard-of-terra
"Are you implying that interest in jewelry is inborn in women?"

This is an extremelly important question with regards to history of our
species, so if you by some chance have an answer be sure to share it with us
along with rationale.

~~~
detcader
It's not. Such a thing would be impossible. Look up "gender socialization" and
read about girlhood:

[http://www.metafilter.com/121190/teenage-girls-they-
havent-b...](http://www.metafilter.com/121190/teenage-girls-they-havent-been-
living-theyve-been-performing)

[http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-
blog/2014/jan...](http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-
blog/2014/jan/10/little-girls-deserve-better-toys-sexism)

[http://sodisarmingdarling.tumblr.com/post/34106027759/what-i...](http://sodisarmingdarling.tumblr.com/post/34106027759/what-
its-like-being-a-teen-girl)

[http://rebeccahains.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/is-my-son-
smart...](http://rebeccahains.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/is-my-son-smart-is-my-
daughter-skinny/)

~~~
guard-of-terra
The articles you quote, while flamebait, don't try to answer the forementioned
question. As for "impossible" \- why?

~~~
detcader
That women talking about being girls is "flamebait" says more about you than
the articles.

