This topic is radioactive. No matter how kind and understanding you are, many people on many sides will misinterpret your statements and demonize you. The only way to win is not to play.<p>And yet, because I want to further the discussion, I will play...<p>I think the most effective way to reduce discrimination in tech is to go underground. Do not think of yourself as a crusader for (insert topic here). Keep your identity small[1] and simply attack bad ideas no matter where they come from[2]. Blind yourself when evaluating candidates. Make sure that you do not know the name of the person applying for a position, since that information highly correlates with their race and gender. Musicians figured this out long ago: all that matters the sound. Likewise, with programmers all that matters is the code. If your code is good, you are good. If it's not good, be glad: you get to learn something new. Appreciate it, because until recently, learning new things was a rare event.<p>I think this mentality can help us not only with this specific problem, but with similar problems that we will encounter in the future. We owe it to each other and ourselves. We need to advance our field and pursue excellence no matter where it comes from, no matter where it leads to.<p>1. <a href="http://paulgraham.com/identity.html" rel="nofollow">http://paulgraham.com/identity.html</a><p>2. Likewise, endorse good ideas no matter where they come from. If it helps your ego, think of it as taking advantage of your enemies.
> Don't attempt romantic relationships at work. (...)The women usually get the rough end of this deal, too, because men aren't good at handling the inevitable rejection. Just don't do it. Have all the romantic relationships you want outside work, but do not bring it to work.<p>I find this incredibly childish - the idea that men (not <i>some</i> men, just <i>men</i>) are childish and cannot behave like grown ups, up to the point in which the company has to step in and tell them how to behave.<p>I'm not sold up either on the idea that I'm not allowed to date anyone in the one place where I spend most of my day, where I'm surrounded by people who share my interests and where I met most of my friends.<p>I'm all in for bringing in more women, but this points sounds too much like "let's protect this delicate, defenseless flower" to me.
He specifically mentions "no subtle sexism via public debate" but then he goes on to do just that near the end of the article.<p>> women usually get the rough end of this deal [office breakups], too, because men aren't good at handling the inevitable rejection.<p>Not sure I agree that males are likely to act negatively; anecdotally I'd say it's about equal.<p>> Men, plus women, plus alcohol is a great recipe for college. [...] But as a safe work environment for women? Not so much.<p>Both sexes are taken advantage of and subject to unsafe environments while drinking.<p>I think that the actual recommendations he's made (no dating/drinking at work) have merit, but they could have been supported better.
I honestly think no drinking, no dating should not be on that list. This sounds like a married 40+ year old who's forgotten what it's like to be 20-30 (and I must admit I'm starting to forget!). It's so easy to forget that's simply not how the world works at that age and this debate is not the place to start proselytizing middle-aged parent morality that you definitely didn't have when you were 25.<p>You even mention university. Is college sexist then? Do we need to protect women at university from all those drunk, lecherous men? Enforce a no dating rule at university?<p>Women can't be equals if you refuse to treat them as equals.
So it's a horrible inequality that more programmers are men, and code would be so much better with more women.<p>In Sweden, 57 percent of judges are women[1]. Where do I hear the feminists shouting that judgements would be so much better with more men? Again in Sweden, 52% of women gets accepted to University, but only 36% of men[2]. Where do I hear the feminists shouting that University would be so much better with more men?<p>The feminist agenda is "more women, more women" and is one way - much more sexist than any other ideology out there.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Nyhetsarkiv/2014/februari/Flest-kvinnliga-domare/" rel="nofollow">http://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Nyhetsarkiv/2014/februari/Fle...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.hsv.se/publikationerarkiv/pressmeddelanden/2012/fortfarandeflerkvinnoranmansomvaljerhogskolestudier.5.485f1ec213870b672a680003105.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.hsv.se/publikationerarkiv/pressmeddelanden/2012/...</a>
"No drinking at work events."<p>".. If you want to drink, be my guest. Drink. You're a grown up. I'm not the boss of you. But don't drink in a situation or event that is officially connected with work in any way."<p>I think this idea is due to the <i>over</i> consumption of alcohol that seems to be the norm in the U.S. now. Europeans, on the other hand, seem to have much more mature attitudes around alcohol.
It doesn't matter how many women there are in the field. If men and women are of equal worth, then why are you looking to get more women in? The men there aren't good enough for you?<p>Now, I understand that some women avoid working developer jobs because they get mistreated by some men. That is an issue. But it's not an issue limited to developers, and it's not an issue limited to women. If anyone is treating anyone else like shit, then they should be fired. Sex doesn't come into question -- being a decent human being does. If you're afraid to work a job because someone might mistreat you, then you're afraid of working every job.<p>Even if we eliminate cases like those of Github/Hovarth, it doesn't necessarily mean there will be a 50/50 split. And it doesn't matter. It's not important how many people of a certain gender there are -- what's important is that people are judged on their skills and character alone. If that means there is a gender divide, then so be it.
Why is it that every time one want to compare programming to other professions, we look at professions with low social status like car mechanic, nurses, metal worker, secretary and so on.<p>Instead, I suggest that we compare high education professions with other high education professions. Psychotherapy for example is a highly preferred female profession with about 80% female to male ratio. Veterinaries are 90% female to male. Both is similar to programming in that they are heavily sought of, has high competitive path to employment, and both require years of higher education.<p>So turning to this article, I wonder, is the advice the article has actually sexist? Would they work in equal manner to get more male therapist or veterinaries, or is the comic strip in the middle of the article much more relevant in actually getting a change in the ratio of profession male and female programmers.
I don't understand this post. The first part seems to be justifying why there are more men in the computer field with some pseudo-science. But then he goes on to amend himself and proposes solutions to the problem. All this is very ambiguous to me.
> In an earlier post I noted that many software developers I've known have traits of Aspergers. Aspergers is a spectrum disorder ...<p>No it isn't. After an epidemic of overdiagnoses about ten years ago that forced psychologists to accept that they had no way to reliably identify it, it was voted out of existence by the editors of DSM-5, the current diagnostic manual. Before you object that Asperger's exists whether or not psychologists believe in it any more, think about what you're saying about psychology's scientific standing.<p>Psychologists rarely abandon established diagnoses, in fact it's happened only once before. Can you name the behavior, now regarded as a civil right and defended by a number of federal laws, that was branded a treatable mental illness until the 1970s?
Generally this is nice and balanced, but there are a couple of things that I don't agree with:<p><i>Do you run a company? Institute a no-dating rule as policy.</i><p>I don't really thing that's wise. On a personal level, it's great advice — I'd imagine that's something most people would take into consideration on a personal. We've got a "try not to get into a relationship at work, but if you do, don't be a dick, and make sure we know about it so we can deal with the fallout if required" policy, and that's more than enough. We're adults, not children, after all.<p>Also, this:<p><i>No drinking at work events.</i><p>Okay, work events shouldn't be focused around alcohol, and heavy-drinking macho culture is bad. But it's exceptionally difficult to construct an enjoyable and realistic working culture when you're making an effort to exclude an activity that lots of people (a majority, maybe?) partake in and enjoy.<p>So have some wine and cocktails at company events; don't feel ashamed to go for a couple of drinks with colleagues after work on a Friday. Just make sure that your culture is sensitive enough that you have a diversity of events so that individuals who don't want to drink aren't excluded, and don't focus your events around alcohol (c.f. github's infamous drink-ups).<p>But I guess what terrifies me most is stuff like this:<p><i>I like to refer to the anecdotal story of the Apple Store glass stairs. While visually appealing, there was one unforeseen consequence to their design: the large groups of strange men that spend hours each day standing under them looking up. As a woman, the first time I saw them I thought “thank god I’m not wearing a skirt today.”</i><p>I find it really understandable that stuff like this rubs men up the wrong way. It shouldn't, but my immediate reaction to that is "wtf, we shouldn't be compromising things that we want to do because there are people around who would do that kind of thing!" - I guess is naïveté in some ways, because I can't imagine doing that, or being aware of somebody who was doing it without tackling them on the issue.<p>It's easy to feel like it's a personal or biased attack on "all men," and I think that's probably the biggest barrier to overcome. When someone complains about sexist activity, it's rarely a personal attack, but it can be hard to remember that sometimes.
> Figures vary, but somewhere from 20% to 29% of currently working programmers are female.<p>> Less than 12% of Computer Science bachelor's degrees were awarded to women at US PhD-granting institutions in 2010<p>So men who study computer science are actually <i>less</i> likely than their female classmates to end up working as programmers?
1.
"So, on average, only about 1 out of every 5 working programmers you'll encounter will be female."<p>2.
"And did you know that autism skews heavily towards males at a 4:1 ratio?"<p>3.
"Interesting. I might even go so far as to say some of those traits are what makes one good at programming."<p>1 & 2 => 3 smells an awful lot like equating correlation and causation.<p>Additionally:<p>4. "In an earlier post I noted that many software developers I've known have traits of Aspergers."<p>Looks like unquantified extrapolation and using anecdotes as evidence.
A while ago the law changed in the UK to allow women to do the official book signing bit at weddings. Nowadays, if you go to a wedding, it is almost certain that the person in the role of registrar/vicar is female. For whatever reason a once exclusive male shop is now dominated by women.<p>If we look back at the time before the internet, in the days when Wordperfect was king, you could find that the typical office had more computers in the hands of women than men. In those days plenty of women went from secretarial jobs to more technical roles in computing. IT was far from what you might call a closed shop, women barred from entering. Far from it.<p>The internet, or rather the www, has created plenty of new opportunities in programming, design and content creation. Everyone had a fair crack of the whip, no universities barred women from doing Comp. Sci. degrees and many, many employers would prefer to take on a female candidate for a programming role to a male candidate given key criteria of skills are met. Yet here we are in our gender stereo-typed roles. The die has been cast.
A lot of commenters disagree with the "no dating" and "no alcohol" recommendations. But how many of these commenters are men and how many are women? For men to reject a recommendation put forth in the interest of women might be self-serving and establishmentarian.<p>A tally of both the ayes and nays to those recommendations from women would be most interesting to me.<p>For the record, I'm male and I'd be fine with those rules even if they didn't make the workplace more supportive of women. I don't pick my job based on whether I can date at work or drink at work (as long as there's no policy against pursuing those things with colleagues outside of work). But perhaps I'm an oddball because I prefer my relationship with coworkers to be strictly professional by default, and only override that on an individual basis; however, the norm in tech companies seems to be shifting away from this (even outside SV).
> "No well-actuallys. "Well, actually, you can do that without a regular expression.""<p>I don't think that's quite what is meant by "well-actually". In Miguel's blog, he gives the example of someone injecting a <i>non-sequitur</i> well-actually to shift attention to themselves and their superior intellect.<p>The reg-ex example given isn't (necessarily) an example of that. I can easily imagine a situation where I'm discussing some code with someone and if they're using a regex for something that's easily achieved without one, it's almost universally a good idea to do the other thing and I should point that out. That's not "showcasing my superior intellect", it's teaching.
From my experience (in North West England) having worked many contracts in both the private and public sector, I'd say there are far fewer than one in five computer programmers is female; I'd guess it was closer to 1/15.<p>Of course, and this is all completely anecdotal, but at my first job after university (at a medical data company), there was only one woman in the 'software' section, and about 70 men.<p>It's a pity.
We all agree that building a better internet is important, but do the suggested policies actually lead to better products? Will the diversity gained from a "no well-actually" policy outweigh the quality lost from people being unwilling to suggest improvements? Are the gains from a team drinking together bigger or smaller than those from having people who wouldn't join such a team?
Equality is not the answer. There is no equality in nature. We have a discrimination problem, but the opposite of that is not equality, it's respect. Somewhere along the way, people started assuming that if women are equal to men, they would be respected. No. You don't want to be respected because you are equal to other respected people. You should be respected for who you are. If you are a woman, great. Make sure people appreciate that. But don't try to be equal.<p>Gender equality is a dirty term. Let's end this and stop using it. Gender collaboration and respect is what we need.
Next an article on religion, maybe race or maybe politics.<p>I feel compassion for anyone who tries to share their thoughts on topics like these. Because <i>whatever</i> your opinions are you <i>will</i> be shouted down.<p>As @chroma says it's 'radioactive'; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.<p>It would be nice not to see so much vitriol but hey, a lot of us are good with computers because we are/were rubbish with people. So it's probably to be expected, but something we can all try to work on.
women bought into stereotypes 10 or so years ago which prevented them from learning the key skills. Quite recently geek has become sheek so those stereotypes are no longer a barrier to entry, but never the less the belief in those old stereotypes already skewed the numbers heavily in the favor of men. Programming just has not been "cool" long enough for enough women to have learned the skills... it takes years, perhaps decades to become a strong developer
I think a lot of rules shouldn't be created. It's just enough to speak up.<p>Someone behaving bad while drinking? Talk to the person the next day.<p>Two people starting a relationship at work? Talk to them about having a bad time at work when they break up.<p>There should be only one policy: everyone is equal and deserves respect.
>Less than 12% of Computer Science bachelor's degrees were awarded to women at US PhD-granting institutions in 2010.<p>There's your problem right there. I have a hard time believing that there is a systematic effort to keep women out of CS programs.
Social constructivism again. Including, as usual: 1) cherry-picked statistics, 2) made-up anecdotal explanations without any scientific base, 3) a couple of dogmas about how it can and should be, and 4) a made-up solution wihout any scientific base.
I don't think there are two real strong reasons for wanting to see representative distribution in a profession: distributing power & vestiges. Power is the important one.<p>1. Power - Near equal representation in some professions is more important that in others is because these are positions of power. Law, medicine, journalism, film etc. Are expressions and sources of power and status/<p>The central component of discrimination against woman or minorities was always disempowerment. Most things stem from that. Under representation in positions of power is a way that disempowerment is expressed.<p>There's a self re-enforcing dynamic to these things. Under/over representation in certain professions also create and enforce the power dynamic.<p>Women becoming lawyers, journalists & politicians was both a cause and an effect of a more equal distribution of power. This leaks into other areas. A housewife in a world of female ministers and lawyers is more powerful within her family.<p>So, is programming a position of power? Does the profession have that kind of importance. In my opinion, it is. Technology is <i>the</i> agent of change in our times. Programming & engineering are the root and stem of technology. It's not a traditionally important profession, but I think it is one now.<p>2. Killing off vestiges of the old discriminatory world.<p>A male dominant profession can be hard for women to penetrate just because of momentum. Take a simple example from the list of female dominated professions: maternity nursing or child care. Maternity leave, career breaks & part time are probably more common and therefore tolerated in these fields than in construction or truck driving.<p>OTOH, many variants of political correctness are awful and dehumanizing. Sometimes they're a price we need to pay for just social change, but IMO it is a price. <i>(3)If you see bad behavior from other men, speak up. (4)Don't attempt romantic relationships. (5) No drinking</i><p>This is one of the things which leads to (and has led to) a neutered, reserved and false work culture. It encourages trolls who find ways to misinterpret intentions and "take offense." It creates this dualism where people must discipline their work avatar. I don't want to single out female inclusions. This is a complicated issue and I don't have all my thoughts on it straight. There are a lot of casualties in honesty. Part of this forced reservedness is just the need to be diplomatic and reserved in general.<p>For me, this falseness of the "corporate me" people play is what makes work unpleasant. So, when I here someone cheerfully suggest some simple rules like Jeff has, I see a cost.
Basically, with rule (1, hacker school rules) they are asking to lower the standards. That's not how things work. Would it be OK if this was about Medicine, not programming? Would it be OK that your colleague does not know where the bladder is? Have a surgery without anesthesia? Sometimes you can't change the culture without substantially changing the standards, and it is NOT OK to hold women to lower standards of rigorousness.