The Cornell study she links to doesn't really address whether gender diversity leads to better results. It talks about informational diversity, value diversity, and a bunch of other stuff all rather gender neutral. It also finds that it's informational diversity that seems to have the biggest positive impact. I'm not sure if gender diversity is necessarily that important to info diversity. The first page or so of that study is also fairly interesting in that it references a bunch of other studies which when taken together paint a rather ambiguous picture regarding the positive impact of any kind of diversity.
I don't feel her second point says much about the need for gender diversity either. It seems to me that it's the people who use the internet that actually write this history rather than the people who merely build the architecture. I think it would be far more useful to see gender diversity in online arts, writing, social activism and so on, rather than in the teams who build that blog engine that allows all genders to express their ideas.
I don't see how the last point has anything to do with gender either. If it's technology that will produce most jobs in the future then we should encourage all people to take more training in technology.
I read the article precisely because I was interested in an answer to that why question and also because I was happy to read that she does not think asking this question is offensive (it's often the opposite). I'm not very satisfied with her answer though. I'd appreciate it if someone else could contribute to this discussion.
That study is really quite interesting. Here's my summary.
They looked at the effects of a few kinds of diversity on assigned work groups. They looked at "informational diversity", which they measured using educational background, job background, and position in the company; "social category diversity", which they took to be age and gender; and "value diversity", which they measured with a questionnaire.
Looking at their regression analyses, we see:
Informational diversity significantly increases actual performance (a number of .30), mildly decreases group efficiency (-.05), and mildly increases perceived performance (0.05), satisfaction (0.09), intent to remain (0.06), and commitment (.10).
Social category diversity moderately increases perceived performance (.16), satisfaction (.14), intent to remain (.12), and commitment (.16), while mildly decreasing actual performance (-.07) and group efficiency (-.03).
Value diversity moderately decreases group efficiency (-.17), actual performance (-.12), perceived performance (-.10), satisfaction (-.11), intent to remain (-.19), and commitment (-.19).
How about just "because disregarding/discouraging half of our potential talent means half the geniuses, half the coding buddies and work friends, half the workhorses and half the inspirations. It is a virtual certainty that in those millions of missing engineers is a software revolution we never rode. We are all missing shoulders to stand on, and see less far as a result.".
Even if you disregard the engineering shortage, doubling the pool and taking the to half dramatically shifts the curve of ability and passion of our workmates. We're all missing out.
It's way more than 50%, though. What about the whole culture surrounding things like programming? Is it your average Joe (man) that is a programmer? No, it seems to be predominantly nerds. So what about people who, due to circumstances and upbringing, were never introduced to programming? Maybe they would have liked it better, or found it more approachable, if they didn't have to be and act like nerds to fit in? Maybe they had other hobbies that the typical nerd who might be a programmer doesn't, so these two people never really get to meet and have a oh, I might be interested in that applied logic thing moment.
This goes of course for any profession that has a specific culture attached to it.
Is the industry missing out on 50% of the talent pool? In this day and age, where basically everyone has the opportunity to at least try something like programming, but wherein it is incredibly easy to isolate yourself from lots of types of people and viewpoints and live in your own bubble, and based on how free we really are as individuals, even though we legally have most freedoms... that figure could be anywhere from 30% to 95%, depending on your viewpoint.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that Jeff was replying to Shanley with what he considered to be a better approach to the topic. I think the lack of attribution was an oversight, and I don't think anything in Jeff's post "plagiarizes" or comes close to it.
I also find Shanley's demeanor extremely rude, off-putting and counterproductive to a discussion on any topic.
I'm not sure Jeff's lack of attribution was an oversight since there's a pattern of behavior there. His earliest blogging didn't even have formatting differences between his comment and "quoted" parts, making it seem all his own. Some people stand on the shoulders of giants, but I often wonder if Jeff kicks giants in the shins and then stands on their backs. However, this isn't much (if any) of plagiarism of Shanley - other than the title.
In any case, while I also have a hard time with Shanley's demeanor, I do try to separate the emotion and personal manner from the good points. It can be hard sometimes, that's for sure
Hurts. Same with Steve Jobs. But those fellow are mostly revered despite their attitude, because of their accomplishments. I'd find it hard to believe anyone who claims that a bad demeanor helps one's cause, male or female.
rude, off-putting and counterproductive to a discussion on any topic.
Manners were an invention of the aristocracy.
my opinion is that Jeff was replying to Shanley with what he considered to be a better approach to the topic.
Except that Jeff can't even bring himself to acknowledge Shanley in his post while stealing her title and structure after making an ass out of himself on Twitter such that he deleted the (MLK-splaining, among other) tweets before writing that post. He's participating in bad faith and being I-know-better, but what does he care? He has no skin in this game; he's got his.
Manners are a solution to the problem "Disagreements escalate out of control and only come to harmful resolutions." There were expectations of civility long before there was a concept of an aristocracy.
Which I find humorous, because I just finished reading both, and the only thing the two articles share are their titles. Shanley's article is written with an actively aggressive tone towards men, while Jeff's seems much more reasoned and thought out. And both articles answer the question "what can men do" differently. So why the hullabaloo?
If the two articles existed in isolation, I would be inclined to agree (though I think Jeff's is actually pretty poorly thought out -- as the man himself said: https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/273551344533639169). But there's a clear, obvious chain of events here that starts with Jeff reading Shanley's post, criticizing it, then writing his own version with the same title without acknowledging why.
For the record, I don't like either piece (cards on the table, I don't really care for Sara's either). Jeff thinks we shouldn't drink at work functions, because men + women + booze = sexism or something, and Shanley wants us to reverse the (perceived) discrimination with some sort of affirmative action for ladies.
I was just pointing out that the two pieces have the same topic and the same 4 word title (because Jeff was being snarky. If that's a crime, lock me up now). Otherwise, they couldn't be more different. Shouting "plagiarism" in this case seems pretty disingenuous, and feels like people are manufacturing outrage just for outrage's sake. Being that this is the internet, I can't fathom why I expected anything different...
After talking with a couple of the commenters in question, it sounds like some people are using "plagiarism" not to mean that he specifically stole words from her post verbatim, but to mean that he "rewrote" what she wrote without giving her credit. It's not how I'd use the term, but I think that's what people are getting at with it.
It's gotten a little weirder now, since Atwood is communicating with people about it but appears to be justifying not crediting Shanley by saying she was too negative, which is a little appalling: https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/459796782164103168
He used the same title and wrote on the same topic. That's where the similarities end. Shanley says:
* Get company funds diverted to the cause
* Start a feminist bookclub for men
* Get better management training in your company
* Get women hired
* Don’t speak at events or on panels where women speakers aren’t represented
* Encourage diversity at conferences you go to
Jeff says:
* Abide by the Hacker School Rules
* Really listen
* If you see bad behavior from other men, speak up
* Don't attempt romantic relationships at work
* No drinking at work events
The only place they overlap in their respective messages is each of them saying "be the change you want to see in the world" in their own way. So I still don't get the plagiarism claims, even with the warped definition.
As for Atwood saying that he didn't link to her piece because it was too negative: There are two very different tones to take when writing about this (or most any) topic. Jeff, in his piece, acknowledges the issue and maintains a pretty even keel. Yes, it's a problem, here's how I think we can fix it. On the other side, Shanley is writing in a very aggressive tone towards men. It feels less like she's trying to affect social change, and more like she's shouting at passing men from the top of a soapbox.
Truth is, if I were writing a piece that was taking a subtle jab at Shanley's writing, I wouldn't link to her either. If I felt like she was trying to contribute seriously to the issue, then I would in a heartbeat, but that's not how her piece reads.
Edit regarding your edit: I agree with some of the issues the author had about Atwood's take on things, though I think claiming that Jeff not linking to Shanley is yet another way men dismiss or marginalize is grasping at straws. Imaginary straws.
Jeff called her out on it, making an unfortunately cliched reference to Letter from Birmingham Jail and people got heated again. His point has been constantly missed but he's not backing from it too much and in some places the meta discussion about the discussion has been somewhat enlightening itself. Jeff and I had a very good conversation on twitter about it with a woman saying we were tone policing, which I didn't even know was a thing people felt when talking but it is apparently.
> it sounds like some people are using "plagiarism" not to mean that he specifically stole words from her post verbatim, but to mean that he "rewrote" what she wrote without giving her credit. It's not how I'd use the term, but I think that's what people are getting at with it.
Do you consider yourself an intelligent person such that upon reflection you might be able to come up with at least a couple of possible answers to your own question? Just curious.
I'm glad that Sarah is being so open on this topic because, after reading the entire article, I remain unconvinced. Please allow me to share my experience.
I'm part of a small multicultural team of 8 engineers, 4 of which are women. The team is a professional outfit, makes consistent effort to remain inclusive, and ensures that everyone has a comfortable way of voicing their opinions, thoughts and other intellectual contributions. Despite this, all 4 of our female engineers prefer to avoid product discussion (be it 1:1 face-to-face, group, email, etc) and as such, their contributions amount primarily to SVN commits of what they're asked to build. In my 4+ years of working closely with them I never observed them having an impact on our deliverables that could be attributed to their gender.
Our operations team of 30+ people has only 2 female system administrators. This is a pair of fantastic individuals who are kind, positive and wicked-smart. Their experience and skills command respect and people like them because they're enjoyable to work with. In my observation, they have these qualities because they are:
a) Excellent engineers
b) Excellent human beings
Both of the above traits can be displayed equally well by both men and women, making gender a completely moot point in the comparison.
I completely agree that we need more excellent engineers and more excellent human beings in our line of work regardless of their gender, however nothing I've seen so far indicates to me that we need more women specifically.
You really contradict yourself here. Why is it worrying that your cultural diversity isn't representative of the demographics of California and yet it doesn't worry you that women are under represented?
Because we're going to have a discussion on diversity regardless of my personal convictions and I would prefer that we focus on being more inclusive of minorities and spreading "hacker culture" to low income neighborhoods (ie: people for whom the barrier to entry may be as high as simply being unable to afford a computer to code on).
I don't understand. I get the idea for us to self organize and bring about more diversity to the tech industry. What is lost on me with all these posts/comments/arguments is that they act as if white males are trying to stop women and other minorities from entering the field. More than most fields, getting a job as a developer is based on objective facts. Can you solve x problem. Especially in a market where good talent is hard to come by, I can't imagine an employer saying, "well, you have the technical chops, but i'm not going to hire you bc you're a woman". This just doesn't happen.
Yes, let's be open minded and work on making programming as accessible to as many ppl as we can. But, let's not start affirmative action here.
Of course they won't say "well, you have the technical chops, but I'm not going to hire you bc you're a woman." What they might say is "she isn't technically qualified" when an identical technical demonstration by a man would have been perceived as proficient. Unless your technical assessments are purely-objective exercises graded by a machine, you or your coworkers are probably subject to these biases without realizing it.
> Women in 10 years need to be able to provide for themselves, and their families
I had women professors in college. I have a woman software manager. I work with many women. And these women generally wanted to work in software development. Of course we aren't "building the internet" over here or making "internet history". Just some Joe and Jane Schmos plugging away.
I see no need to push an agenda for more women in tech. More women will continue to join the field, but I wouldn't expect it to be representative of the population.
The agenda is to make the tech community a more hospitable place for women who WANT to be in tech. It's not an agenda to force women into the industry just for the sake of numbers.
>Get women hired. Make your workplace give a fuck about hiring diverse teams. You are in a wonderful position to advocate and agitate for more diversity in your workplace. Draw attention to your company’s demographics internally, bring in speakers on building team diversity, start a committee dedicated to auditing and improving the hiring process. Oh and make sure this doesn’t just end up in a position where you just hire a few white women and call it a day. Not good enough.
I don't agree with diversity for the sake of diversity. So no, I'll hire the most qualified candidate regardless of race/gender.
No one is saying hire a woman who is less qualified just for the sake of diversity. In that comment, Shanley is asking you to CARE about diversity and look at your hiring processes and company culture to see if what you're doing can be improved. Maybe your company is all white males because you're recruiting at events where only white males go? Maybe you can host a Women Who Code event or go to women's conferences and attract top talent there.
However that does sometimes become the end result due to a shortage of good, diverse candidates. In the end you have "hire anyone who meets these demographic criteria just so we can check diversity off our list and call ourselves 'inclusive'".
It seems obvious to me that there are good reasons we should want more women in tech. I just don't think we should expect things to be so different once that is the case, we'll still have (most of) the same shitty problems. It's a worthy goal, because we should have all kinds of people in our field, and they should not feel excluded or unwelcome. But I doubt things will be any better, we will continue to have the same sorts of recurrent problems… just with more women.
I agree with this, but I have to say that my favorite piece of writing on the subject still has to be Lea Verou's blog post: http://pensieve.verou.me/post/54853162595/on-women-in-tech It's also a bit more substantial than this (fairly short) piece.
If you're not interested in the subject matter, you should at least look at the article to see all the typographic features in the font.
Apart from the gender, plagiaristic issue, I think Jef Atwood really needs to learn about analogies. He was trying to conflate Autism with Sexism in his post.(And did you know that autism skews heavily towards males at a 4:1 ratio?)
In the post about Aaron Swartz, he compared that to rage-quitting, even though he stated that he "understands depression is a serious disease".
He wasn't doing that at all. His point was that autism skews male and then suggests that the traits of Aspergers make good programmers. It was a comment on why there are more men than women in tech fields. Relevant excerpt below:
"In an earlier post I noted that many software developers I've known have traits of Aspergers. Aspergers is a spectrum disorder; the more severe the symptoms, the closer it is to autism. And did you know that autism skews heavily towards males at a 4:1 ratio?
Interesting. I might even go so far as to say some of those traits are what makes one good at programming."
He's confusing his correlation, tantamount to saying being a White Protestant are traits that makes one a good President of the United States. That the historical traditions of programming may have selected for those traits does not mean that the traits make one better at programming than others. It may just be that hiring managers came up through that history and select for culture fit based upon their identity.
I think educating our young about technology, computer science, the hacker mindset, etc. is a good thing.
As a kid, I'd really wished there'd been more mentoring, education, and general support available for young hackers. I would have been seriously pissed about discrimination -- and I daresay rightly so -- if exactly the sorts of things I wanted to participate in had existed, but had been closed to me because I was the wrong race (white) and gender (male).
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the "get girls to code" idea. "Get young people to code" is a better idea, since it's more inclusive.
It's always seemed strange to me how many people seem to think that the right way to solve discrimination is with more discrimination, just in the opposite direction.
> It's always seemed strange to me how many people seem to think that the right way to solve discrimination is with more discrimination, just in the opposite direction.
Is that as strange as believing that ignoring a problem will make it go away? Because the only alternatives I can see to "Actively try to attract more of the underrepresented group" are "Do nothing about the gender inequality" — which obviously won't fix it — and "Try to push away more of the overrepresented group," which is not what anyone wants.
Also, your use of the word "discrimination" here is a bit odd. It seems to imply that men are being excluded from tech by these programs, which is demonstrably not the case.
I think that's a false dichotomy. Don't attract discrimination by the opposite discrimination. Attract discrimination primarily by exposing and removing the discrimination. Also (in this example) try to nurture more talented females, growing their skills to the point that they can be hired even in head-to-head competition with males.
I think you need to define what you mean by "discrimination" here, because the obvious definition of "excluding someone based on certain traits" doesn't work here. Men are very much not being excluded from tech fields, nor is anyone attempting to do so, so what do you mean when you say "discrimination"?
And how to you "expose and remove the discrimination" in this case?
If I'm hiring for a programmer position, and I have a man and a woman who have applied, and I don't hire the man because he's a man, that's discrimination. (Note that this is identical to hiring the woman because I don't have enough women.)
What I meant by "expose and remove discrimination" is point out that the team atmosphere is hostile to women, and start disciplining people until that changes. Or, realize that Fred is automatically rating resumes lower if it has a feminine name, and confronting Fred on that. Or... you get the idea. If there's something going on (other than lack of viable candidates) that leads to fewer female programmers, find it out and fix it.
The remaining problem is lack of viable candidates. To fix that you have to fix problems outside of your own organization - problems in the education system, in homes, and in society in general. That's a tall order, and it's beyond any one person's power. But still, when you see obstacles that differentially harm females (or blacks, or gays, or whoever), don't just ignore them. Do what you can to expose and try to fix them.
But I did have something of a point too, namely that the lack of females in programming jobs is not just due to discrimination in the hiring organizations. Some of it (not all) is due to there being more male candidates than females who meet the same qualifications. Like it or not, that seems to be the current reality.
So what I was trying to say is that we need to address that. We need to fix actual discrimination in hiring organizations, and we need to address the supply of qualified candidates. (I was not trying to say that there are currently no qualified female candidates, but I see how that line could be taken that way.)
Women who come into tech say there is a problem. So there is a problem. Don't start with pipeline, or Aspergers, or toys. Women drop out of CS courses, and leave the industry. Fix the problems we have. But start by ackowledging them.
Obviously, educating all young people about computer science and technology is great. However, providing specialized groups and targeting minorities in the field is a great way to provide those folks with mentors and people they can look up to. It's nice when you can see someone like yourself who made it to the top of their field. Sometimes that is hard to see if you're a minority.
I am a female programmer and started really young. In 7th grade, I remember being afraid that people would find out I liked computers and had a website. I was afraid of standing out and being labeled a nerd. I didn't know any girls who liked computers and probably wouldn't have signed up for a program that wasn't specifically for girls. Being a kid in middle school is a tricky time and having a safe environment to learn and be yourself around like minded people can make a big difference.
To this day, I still feel quite a bit more comfortable at women coding events than tech talks where I am one of 3 women with 100 guys. I definitely think specialized groups can provide a more conducive place for learning when you're in a minority group. I think calling it discrimination is a bit short sighted.
> It's always seemed strange to me how many people seem to
> think that the right way to solve discrimination is with
> more discrimination, just in the opposite direction.
This is a very common and very strange non sequitur, that presumes that the total supply of opportunity is fixed.
There are plenty of people who don't want women in tech, but no blog post will be able to change all of them. They have traditional values and that is their right.
Thankfully, their time is passing. All we can do now is get more young women into technology out of high-school/college.
I'd love to see someone, anyone's thoughts on encouraging young women to become interested. I think it's possible, but I think programming needs a makeover of culture before that happens.
If memory serves me, it's more of this generation that doesn't like women in tech. The one before us, or perhaps two before us, was very female-friendly. In fact, some famous photographs of computers and people working on them, display women in them, actively working. The modern perspective is that the lady is the equivalent of a Booth Woman, just there for eye candy; but a historical account from the woman herself was that she as an active participant and it wasn't strange for her at all to be on the team. I don't remember exactly what article it was, so if anyone could bring it up. A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests it was in the 40's ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing#Timeline_of... )
If your response is "I hire based on merit alone so this is invalid," a) good for you, but that's demonstrably untrue in aggregate and b) you're basically saying "LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU THERE'S NO PROBLEM HERE."
I don't feel her second point says much about the need for gender diversity either. It seems to me that it's the people who use the internet that actually write this history rather than the people who merely build the architecture. I think it would be far more useful to see gender diversity in online arts, writing, social activism and so on, rather than in the teams who build that blog engine that allows all genders to express their ideas.
I don't see how the last point has anything to do with gender either. If it's technology that will produce most jobs in the future then we should encourage all people to take more training in technology.
I read the article precisely because I was interested in an answer to that why question and also because I was happy to read that she does not think asking this question is offensive (it's often the opposite). I'm not very satisfied with her answer though. I'd appreciate it if someone else could contribute to this discussion.