I did wonder whether I should post the comment. Take a look at the site. The photos show how many folks showed up at the event. Guys aren't prohibited and in fact are often leading the seminars.
Stereotypes or not, the format works. When I go to traditional developer meetups only single women who aren't moms tend to show up. You have to, at some point, wonder whether the format of the events has something to do with the low turnout of women.
But yeah, let's focus on the stereotypes. I've been here long enough with a low karma that I don't really worry too much any more about being controversial.
I think this is different than stereotyping, though.
One thing is to say "women today ditch startups because of children, so women don't really want to do startups because they'd rather have children instead". This is stereotyping.
Something along the lines of "we want to improve women attendance; today women might not be able to attend at night events because they have children; let's put it on saturday morning and see if it works" is not stereotyping IMO. It's looking at (apparent) causes and try to find a solution to work on them.
Causes don't go away just because you don't want to stereotype. If you want to make a lasting change in the mindset you need to find ways to attract more women, working against what might impede them in today's society. You have to start somewhere, and I think this is a good place to start.
While neither is a stereotype, the second part of the first one ("so women don't really want to do startups because they'd rather have children instead") is ascribing a motivation that does not necessarily follow from the first part.
Semantics over a poor choice of words. I took the OP and the original TFA to mean "women, more so than men, choose family over careers. that doesn't mean they didn't want their career, just that they ultimately chose a different path instead.
Agreed. And would a man be welcome at such an event? Why name the event/group/org based off of a gender? Why not name it "learning code", and have marketing based towards women. Why exclude an entire gender, even if it is potentially already dominating the given market.
I personally am not a believer in excluding, to argue for including. It seems counter productive.
Hi there! I'm Heather, the founder of Ladies Learning Code. Men are welcome at our events, and we have had a few men attend each workshop. The name was designed to be a specific invitation to women, but we don't exclude men. (That being said, I personally support the idea of separate men's groups and women's groups in general, so I encourage someone to start "Men Learning Code" if they are so inclined.
"Women are welcome at our events, and we have had a few women attend each workshop. The name was designed to be a specific invitation to men, but we don't exclude women. (That being said, I personally support the idea of separate women's groups and men's groups in general, so I encourage someone to start "Women Learning Code" if they are so inclined."
I'd just like to point out, without opinion one way or the other, that I believe the above paragraph would cause major outrage and claims of sexism and separatism, along with "this is why there are so few women in software".
I have to point out that this exercise makes no sense (at least not to me).
Taking a minority empowerment effort and turning the tables around will obviously emulate a majority empowerment effort which is matter of fact an empowerment of prejudice.
If a minority group is not biased, then they have failed and will not have an effect in the status quo.
I actually hadn't thought of this. So it's okay to do this because of the idea that most men are not interested in nursing, and most women are not interested in programming?
It's ok to discriminate when you're trying to
target/encourage a specific minority (i.e. women in
software), but it's not ok when you're targetting
a majority, because it looks like you're trying to
encourage the majority while discouraging the minority
Whether or not people say this out loud, or think it consciously is a different question.
"Ladies Learning Code" is discriminatory towards men, but it's less of an issue because it is in the furtherance of encouraging a minority (women) into the field. On the other hand, "Men Learning Code" seemingly discourages women, who are already in the minority.
This is very close to my feeling too. The "principled irate male" demographic tends to get upset over the double standard. But it's all a big case of a bad optimization metric.
The point to organiations like this isn't to eliminate "discrimination" in the abstract. It's to eliminate the inequality of opportunity. There is a very large practical and moral difference between being excluded from a single meeting of techincal people and being excluded from (or have limited access to) an entire career path. Spending a few "discrimination" points on the former to reduce the cases of the latter seems like a good idea to me.
Thank you, ajross and pyre, for clearly and reasonably explaining why this sort of targeted marketing is not also discrimination (the bad kind).
(Yes, upvotes say this too, but now that votes are not public, I wanted there to be a visible commendation. These sorts of things set the tone of the thread.)
That sounds implicitly like most other programming / software / engineering workgroups out there, to be honest. With the exception of hackerspaces, which in my city seem to successfully remain relatively gender-neutral and respectful.
Yes, I think you're right that the default expectation is the modified paragraph - which is why it's necessary to create organizations like Ladies Learning Code that explicitly contradict that.
I would submit that events restricted to members of a certain class are not in and of themselves evil. If someone sets up a workshop for “Right-Handed People Learning Code”, I as a left-handed person would not react with outrage.
But when members of one class are systematically excluded from some role in society, exclusionary events are a problem if they contribute to that system. A workshop for “Men Learning Code” is a bad idea... and so is a workshop for “Women Learning To Teach Preschool”.
I think "Gentlemen Learning Code" would be a great name for such a workshop. And we would wear monocles and brown tweed. It would be both educational and ironically hip!
In all seriousness though, LLC is doing some great stuff, and I'm glad to see it getting some recognition here.
The answer to the question of "how to get more women into tech" is simply "get more women into tech" — if women see other women in the tech industry, they'll be more likely to perceive it as a viable career path, and their numbers will go up.
But when you have the present situation — where women are still a minority — it's hard to start that positive feedback loop. Women don't see other women in tech, so they're less likely to see it as a potential career path, and their numbers stagnate.
So the idea behind an event like this is to help break the perception that "women don't do tech." If you have a concentrated event with lots of women programmers, women are more likely to show up just because they see at as an event they are welcomed at.
Having an all-womens' programming event also helps alleviate a lot of the pressures that prevent women from showing up at coed events. Ask a female programmer you know about how it felt showing up at their university's computer club, or a hackathon, when they were still relatively inexperienced: they'll probably attest to feeling as if they needed to "prove" their geek credentials, or they'll talk about being afraid of looking like some incompetent girl (as opposed to simply incompetent). All-female tech events help women build up confidence so that they feel "equipped" when/if they choose to tackle the larger tech community.
I think it's funny that you got hung up on the idea that it was a 'ladies only' event. I think the post you were replying to was referring to this part of the parent post:
> If you're a woman with a family, it's probably
> preferable to carve out a Saturday morning, let your
> partner (hopefully, if you have one) take care of the
> kids and come home (not sloshed) to your family than
> it is to head down to the bar after work to have a
> couple of pints. It's just a lot more feasible.
Obviously the only thing that is holding women back from going to other tech events is that the schedules aren't 'family friendly.' This conclusion would only make sense to me if there were some evidence presented that most/all of the women at the event had families of their own.
Thanks for bringing this up -- it frustrates me when people correlate making things more female friendly with supporting children, flexible work hours, etc. Guess what? Men have kids too! And, there's a lot of women who don't have or don't want children (like the author of the piece). This topic gets a lot of attention, but I think there are many other issues.
A fairly large number of women coders have children for much the same reasons a lot of professional women have children in general. Also, many women don't like attending male dominated events because of how poorly they are treated by a small minority of men (or drunk men) at those events. I have no idea which is more important, but I don't think they are care just as long something they are doing works.
PS: People are lumping in 'nerdy' activity's when think it's a little more general than that. You can make attending a gun show a lot more inviting to women based on the same basic ideas.
As tempting as it is to simply look at the raw facts, context does matter in a situation like this. The software industry is still male-dominated, and that can be intimidating and draining for people who are not male.
Have you ever gone to events where you're the odd one out? Its not a comfortable experience, and even if you force yourself to keep going back, it takes an emotional toll. Think of events like these as a harbor for them to recharge at.
I'd also note that the group isn't exclusionary. They do allow men. They just cater to women. As much as I'd like these types of group to be unnecessary, I'd still say their existence is valid.
Have you ever gone to events where you're the odd one out?
Yes. At the last two companies I've worked at, I've been the only non-Indian. I also live in India more than half the time (my current company is based there). When I'm in the US, I practice FMA, and I'm often the only non-Filipino in the room. I plan to travel to Cebu city soon to kick up my training, and I'll likely be the only white guy in my gym. At a yoga class, I'm often the only man.
Does this make me the "odd one out"? I could choose to view things that way, but I don't. At work I might be the only white guy, but we are all there to build a great product. At FMA, we are all there to learn how to kick ass. At yoga, we are all there to become stronger and more flexible.
If you attend tech events and focus on the differences between yourself and everyone else, you'll feel left out. And you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
This is a great point. "Feeling" excluded is often how you view the situation.
I had an Asian friend tell me he doesn't like travelling in the southern states (particularly small towns) because people stare at him. He views this as racist behavior.
I told him that they stare at me too. I'm a middle-aged white guy, but I'm obviously not from the south either. He views it as being a race issue where I view it as being an outsider issue. Bothers him, doesn't bother me.
Same can be said of women who feel they are being excluded. I've worked with groups of women and often one will feel the environment is "unfriendly" while the other women say it's one of the most inclusive environments they've encountered.
What's the saying? "Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
I think the key difference between your situation at your company and women in tech is that your situation is not systematic. There are a lot of other male, white role models doing startups, and they are very visible.
There are very few white male role models in Filipino Martial Arts. The only one I can think of with any visibility is Matt Damon, and he's hardly an expert [1].
In spite of that, I'm not the odd man out. Instead of thinking "omfg, I don't have slanty eyes like these guys what'll I do", I'm thinking "I'm a bit taller than most of these guys, how can I use this to my advantage?"
[1] FMA looks distinctly different from Chinese/Japanese/Korean arts. To distinguish the genetically modified supersoldiers in The Bourne Identity from regular people, the director had them all learn a bit of FMA.
Which is why I limited my response to the situation at your company.
I could hypothesize on why you don't feel uncomfortable in the other situations you described, but really it's your own personal experience, and there's no reason to assume your feelings would generalize to everyone in that experience. I see the analogy you're trying to make, but I do not think it applies to women in technology, because there are a lot of other factors (stereotypes of computer scientists, the "brogramming" culture, the fact that you are going to classes in the US [I assume] not in the Phillipines, meaning you are still part of the dominant majority, etc).
How is excluding a dominate group beneficial? I find groups based on gender and race to be questionable. Leave the segregation in the 20th century. How are we to break stereotypes if people keep on grouping themselves into groups defined by what they claim to want to overcome? To me it seems ironic at least. Let's focus on the root issues and solve them organically.
The root issue is that women are being treated unfairly in a certain market. To alleviate this, some women have come together with ladies-specific events within this market. This way, women can progress while fighting against discrimination.
The main problem with the way you're thinking is you're ignoring the inequality and acting like a women-specific programming event is exactly the same as a men-specific event.
While I'd agree that the root cause is unfair treatment, "ladies-specific events" only server to further divide groups. I like the parent's use of "organic" - let's keep the doors open to everyone, and let the system reach equilibrium on its own.
Keep the doors open to everyone? Have you talked to actual women about their experiences in tech? I have for many years, and I tell you true: open doors are not what all of them are seeing.
I'd like to see your evidence that women-specific events only serve to further divide groups. The participants I've talked to see it as an opportunity to learn new skills in a safe environment. Skills that they then go out and apply at regular companies. It's not like they then go on to work at women-only companies and then found women-only startups themselves, after all.
My wording may have been off. By "keep open" I didn't mean to imply that all doors were open - just that we should make an active effort to prevent doors from closing.
And women-specific events reinforce a divided image by presenting the events as specific to a group. It highlights a division between groups, and not based on a functional difference relevant to the field. What's different from a women-specific coding meetup and a meetup open to all? I can see sexual harassment / feeling out of place as something that may happen. And that sucks. But retreating to exclusive events (in name and branding at least) is not the solution.
The difference is absolutely relevant to the field to the extent that men and women have different experiences in the field. E.g.: http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Gender/why.html Pretending otherwise won't get us anywhere.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion that somebody else's solution to a problem you don't have is wrong. But unless you're planning on doing something better, I'm not sure why you think your opinion is relevant. As with any open-source project, "patches welcome" is the order of the day.
I realize this is a bit pedantic, but the event is not exclusive, and it is open to all. They welcome men to the event as well, they just advertise it to encourage more women to come.
Ok, skipping issues of fairness for a moment because I think they are unhelpful because one cannot actually discuss them objectively.....
The argument for excluding a dominant group would be that people in a non-dominant group may have a different perspective that might otherwise be drowned out. Trying to ensure that one has a strong majority locally in an industry-wide minority can provide a space for a different kind of social interaction. Heck if other coding workshops occur without many (if any) women, then very often times you can get the guy-interactions going anyway.
I think the same does apply to ethnic groups. And it's not a matter of systematic exclusion so much as its an issue. The issue is social and cultural space.
