What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/what-really-keeps-women-out-of-tech.html <comment><USER2> Ok so I'm a girl who codes/programs and I'm my take on the issues she raised:

Stereotypes about STEM fields putting girls off

I can only talk about my own experience but I saw very few negative stereotypes about STEM fields growing up. Definitely not enough to put off girls.

However, while I did start coding at a young age, I didn't apply my skill to a work/business purpose until my twenties.

Why? I think this issue affects both genders actually. I was simply never exposed to people or situations that showed me you could built really cool projects/businesses with code. I never encountered anyone/anything until ~20 that inspired me to take it seriously.

Maybe it has something to do with my gender but I think a lot of people these days are being forced way too early to commit to an education/work track without being given to chance to explore what their options are.

It's hard to discover you like a topic by learning it a classroom. I think co- ed / internship programs at a much younger age will help a lot. It definitely would have helped me discovered my true passions younger.

About being feminine

I don't feel un-feminine in any environment where there are more guys than girls. Rather, I think the problem is, the professional/business world as a whole rewards and values masculine traits (competitiveness, talking highly of yourself and accomplishments, etc.) much more than feminine ones.

Even in dress, women are encouraged to dress like a man (power suits, solid colors, etc.) in professional settings to be taken seriously.

Thus as a girl, you're forced to act more masculine to achieve business goals. But it's hard to suppress your natural state of being. Additionally girls are still expected to (and want to) act feminine in their personal relationships so women "who want to have it all" have to toggle back and forth between being masculine and feminine. It can be exhausting.

<comment><USER3> Great post though I'd like to add some thoughts to this bit: _the professional /business world as a whole rewards and values masculine traits (competitiveness, talking highly of yourself and accomplishments, etc.)_

I'd argue those are better classified as extroverted traits rather than masculine traits. Believe me, there are more than a few males that suffer from this being the dominant culture in business (or anywhere). Of course it makes sense though - introverted culture is more introspective thus not as dominating by nature. If there was ever going to be a winner, especially if the business has a focus on sales, it was going to be the one that rewards competitiveness and confidence.

I'd say the next big battle in workplace equality is going to focus on treating introversion fairly. I've seen MBTI's, a kind of personality test, used to define who a business hires and fires despite them claiming otherwise (forgetting that MBTI tests are pseudoscience). You can guess which personality types they prefer, regardless of gender. They want "rockstars".

<comment><USER4> This is a sort of culture (in geographic terms) thing to be honest. There was a very nice article somewhere that compared the values of the East and the West. Talking highly of yourself actually comes off as negative in the East. In the East, humility is considered far more respectable, where as the same comes off as weak in the west.

<comment><USER5> That's not as much a "east vs west" thing as it is an "US vs rest of the world" thing in my experience; as someone who lives on northern Europe.

<comment><USER6> Thats exactly what I was thinkng. I have read on here that Sweden is a very humble country in term of bragging about achivements in job intervews. It would be interesting to see some data on numbers of women in tech there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One question. Why is it important to make, quote: "computer science more attractive to women..."?

I mean I get that the sex discrimination stuff and treatment of women we read here on hacker news is bad and of course it would help if there were more women in tech.

But other than that, if you think of the women in general and not some "diversity would be good" (which it probably would be), why the worry?

Why aren't we as worried that not enough men show interest in being nurses or kindergarten teachers or social workers? I know from experience that it would be very important to get a more "balanced" look at things in those fields.

Are we still treating women as little girls who we need to be worried about because they "only like superficial things and nail polish" and can't really take care of themselves unless we make changes so that "important stuff" is more attractive to them? I think this is a very patronizing attitude, and dismissing the stuff some women may find more interesting than "hard sciences"

<comment><USER8> The greedy answer: because systematically discouraging 50% of the brainpower of the human species from entering one of our most productive and simultaneously short-staffed occupations is bad for technological progress and the growth of global wealth.

The humanist/utilitarian answer: because computer science is intrinsically awesome and rewarding, so global utility is maximized by ensuring that anyone who might be interested has an unimpeded path towards experiencing that awesomeness.

<comment><USER9> We don't know that 50% of the brainpower relevant to computer science is female. Male and female brains differ, and it is quite possible that they choose to specialize in different areas.

<comment><USER10> You're right. It could be that women are in fact far more effective programmers than men, and we're missing out on 70% of the brain power.

hard to say.

<comment><USER11> That is unlikely. Otherwise women would have already dominated programming industry.

<comment><USER12> That doesn't follow in the slightest. There's more to "dominating" an industry than being effective at a job (I'd put that fairly low on the list as long as you hit some threshold, actually).

<comment><USER11> What are more important reasons for dominating in the industry [other than being effective at a job]?

<comment><USER12> Are promotions handed out to only the worthy? Are technical decisions always made by the expert that should have been there? Is every interview candidate perfectly evaluated and ranked relative to their competitors? Are only expertly programmed and well tested code bases valued at billions of dollars?

Of course not. Political skills, connections, self promotion, being in the right place at the right time etc etc are all hugely important. Ask anyone giving advice on everything from getting a job to advancing your career to funding your startup. Within a huge ( _huge_ ) swath of ability, your technical chops just aren't correlated with your eventual success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> No matter who you are, applying broad strokes to the industry is going to paint many incorrectly. The idea that there is one factor that "really" keeps women out of tech implies that the other reasons are false. In reality, it is very subjective. I would also have been put off by her experience with pressure to "act like a man" and I'm a man. But, just as anecdotally, I only encountered this once: the cs department of umass. Every job I've held has been much more diverse in terms of interests than one would think reading this article.

Perhaps not speaking for huge swathes of people based on anecdotal evidence would lead to better insights. I see the hiring pipeline as a problem. A college professor might see high school as the problem. The high school might see the parents as the problem. The parents might see society as the problem. Etc etc. In reality, there are so many opportunities to become persuaded or dissuaded the idea that one dominates requires extraordinary evidence.

Personally, I'm a queer, anti-authoritarian, emotional, book worm nerd. I feel repulsed by nerd/tech culture several times an hour. It's honestly embarrassing to be associated with it. If ONLY that were the only problem.

<comment><USER14> I am a software engineer, male, Asian. Somehow I can relate to the article. Although I was always one of the top students in math and science and enrolled the top university, I was both intimidated and kind of disgusted by the culture stereotypes at the beginning of my career. I had self doubts if I would ever become a good software engineer, since I was far from the stereotypes. Sometimes, I was deeply disgusted by the childishness and shallowness of the stereotypes.

I rarely play video games. (I played some in college, simply for finding bugs and backdoors so that I could win easily, not for the fun of playing itself. After one year, it became boring and I stopped.) I don't like Star Wars. I am not in particular interested in Sci-fi. I think the time can be better spent in other books. For example, the non-technical books I just finished are Madame Bovary (translated by Lydia Davis. Highly recommend), On the Move (autobiography by Oliver Sacks). I am re-reading The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Also, I don't like beer. When I go out with colleagues, I drink wine or strong liquors.

I can tell my colleagues what I like now, but it was different when I first joined the industry. I cram-watched all the Star Wars, most Star Treks, etc. I forced myself to finish some popular sci-fi novels. I drank beer when going out. It was like you are trying to fit yourself into a model that is not you. I still remember one scene during the first week of one job. All the engineers were playing Guitar Hero, loudly, when waiting for a push. They invited me, which I greatly appreciate. I said I didn't know how to play and I rarely played video games. They were astounded. One engineer said, "It is not a game. It is a life style."

<comment><USER13> So—first, empathy, I don't _get_ video games at all.

Second—this strikes me as fairly standard cultural shock. It's one thing to find yourself immersed in a culture, it's quite another to find that you _have_ to immerse yourself in that culture to reach your teammates. This is an experience I have not encountered before; people have surprised me with the lengths they go to ensure a healthy diversity in company culture so that everyone feels like they have an opening to communicate. Why would you NOT want to get to know your teammate? If they have different interests, it's an opportunity, not a problem.

That said.... sometimes you need to be the person to push for the cultural diversity, and unfortunately, that's not going to be easy for most people regardless of sex or industry. I would even imagine non-tech companies actually have a much worse case of this where EVERYONE feels alienated from their coworkers based on my personal experiences.

It's complicated. But monocultures are certainly terrible teamwork oriented groups of people—I think we can all agree with that.

<comment><USER15> Veering a bit off-topic: I used to get video games when I was younger, and played them obsessively, but around the age of 18, I almost completely lost interest. I occasionally will play online games with friends nowadays, but I do that more for the "hanging out with friends" enjoyment. The game is just a vehicle for that.

I can't play a single-player game for more than 5 minutes without losing interest.

<comment><USER13> Yea, it really stands out to me how much the narrative matters to me now as opposed to when I was younger, when it was all about gameplay. I get bored basically once I've figured out the controls and what the character does, etc.

However. I really like playing Mario Kart in a group. But then it is more of a social thing, not a hobby.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > What really keeps women out of Tech?

It is because they don't want to be there. The opportunity is there for everyone to take thus men and women. I actually think women have an advantage in this space and it is up to them to see it and advantage of it.

As a woman, I am tired this. If you want it, go and get it. There shouldn't be any special treatment. Prove you deserve to be at the table, prove you deserve to be there based merits etc.. Not because of gender, race etc.

People are going to wonder why this conclusion? Because when people see you as a women trying to achieve something, a lot are willing to help and push you. Don't moan about it, go ahead and just get into Tech if you want it that bad.

<comment><USER17> I tend to agree with this. For whatever reason, girls just don't like the work. When I stated studying, the ratio was 50:50 split. By graduation time, it was down to 80:20 as he girls transferred into different courses or dropped out. I was friends with many - as they changed or dropped out they all said they don't like the subject matter or the type of work.

By the time we all started working, it was further down to 90:10. My office recruited a lot of female grads, we had a female department head who positively discriminated. One of my first mentors was female. In that respect I think my early experience was atypical.

But they kept dropping out as time went on, transferring into different streams/jobs.

There are some things that need to be done - particularly at helping parents understand their school age girls like of STEM - but ultimately I don't think it's worth trying to socially engineer and entire field to be 50:50 when you'll struggle to find that many women who want to study it, learn it and work in it for decades.

<comment><USER16> @Brc, I agree with you a 100%. Obviously this has to be discussed and does stir emotions. It is fine but people have to understand although you can raise a kid a certain way, they won't always do what you want. We also have to consider external factors that influence such decisions and why a person decides to choose a specific field. It will be nice for the ratio to be 50:50 when it comes to these things but it does not work that way.

Not going to hijack the thread but I am going to use myself as a guinea pig. I am a young black woman who likes hanging out here. I personally don't believe things should be handed to me. I expect to be judge based on my merits and as such. Did someone force me to come and be on hacker news? No. It a place I really like and learn alot and has been welcoming. So if women want to be in tech, they just need to make the effort and show the desire for it. They can start by choosing courses in universities and seeking out help and asking questions. They can also do research and see where like- minded individuals hangout if they are really serious about learning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is it true that there is a "rise of pop-culture portrayals of scientists as white or Asian male geeks"?

I've seen a little bit of TV this year - every hacker I saw was female, and most were goths. Doing a google search of "top TV 2014" and looking up the ones that are likely to have a hacker as a character, I discover "Arrow" (female hacker), NCIS (female hacker), 24 (female hacker), Criminal Minds (female hacker), Person of Interest (male and female hacker), Agents of Shield (female hacker) and The Strain (female hacker).

Why do we believe that pop culture portrays scientists or computer people this way at all?

<comment><USER19> > Doing a google search of "top TV 2014"

Hollywood has a history of being a canary in the coal mine when it comes to stereotypes...both good and bad. For example, when homosexuality started becoming more accepted in American culture one of the first signs were prominent gay sitcom characters.

<comment><USER20> > For example, when homosexuality started becoming more accepted in American > culture one of the first signs were prominent gay sitcom characters.

I suspect that was a cause, not an effect, of widening acceptance of homosexuality.

<comment><USER21> It's both - there's a feedback loop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Am I the only one here that finds more issue with the open secret embedded throughout this article? The article is written from an assumption that we're powerless to overcome the desire to brand ourselves by the outward facing image of our chosen interests.

I should be careful not to state I'm not taking the position covered by the well-worn pre-rebuttal in the article. I'm not scoffing at this phenomenon. It's real and I'm wondering: why aren't we trying to make kids immune to it?

Instead all I see is people that want to exploit it and steer people into selecting careers such that the superficial representation found on a spreadsheet makes the commentariat happy.

e: It just comes across as working to makes your metrics look good, without reaching the underlying goals the metrics are less-than-perfect at measuring. If there really are societal issues keeping people that would have otherwise entered a "tech field" out, shouldn't fixing it be about helping everyone overcome the obstacles in achieving that step of self-actualization? Instead I just see social engineering designed to balance the gender ratio.

<comment><USER23> Well I'd say changing human behavior is harder than changing perceptions. And most of the article (outside of the behavioral bit about the sexism she experienced, which is unfortunately a harder problem) is therefore focused on perceptions, which seems very justifiable given this bit:

"As Dr. Cheryan points out, stereotypes are only partly true, and _women who actually take classes in computer science don't hold the same prejudices as women who get their ideas from pop culture_."

So the male nerd culture aspects inside the system _aren 't_ as offputting as however the current popular stereotypes make them out to be. Sounds like there are some lower hanging fruit than changing people's desires.

(As to why we'd want to fix it in the first place... I don't know many tech companies right now that are satisfied with the size and depth of the talent pool. Getting more education to more people to become potential candidates could only help with that, and increased demand for a major tends to increase department size, so I don't think it's a zero-sum game with males losing out here. More people with at least a cursory or exploratory level of education in science could eventually lead to better policy around it, etc, too.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> _if they are shown a classroom (whether virtual or real) decorated not with "Star Wars" posters, science-fiction books, computer parts and tech magazines, but with a more neutral décor — art and nature posters, coffee makers, plants and general-interest magazines_

This would seem to be a bit of a bait-and-switch... If you aren't interested in "computer parts and tech magazines" then what exactly is it about computing that makes you want to do it?

"For the money" is a valid answer of course, a job's a job for most people, but let's call a spade a spade.

<comment><USER25> I don't see how this is bait and switch. I am a programmer and I cant't stand star wars or the vast majority of science fiction. Neither do I enjoy running around with geeky tshirts. You do not have to be nerdy to enjoy working with computers.

<comment><USER26> I think the parent was complaining that things which definitely have nothing to do with STEM fields (sci-fi and star wars) were interspersed with things that are germanely related (computer parts and tech magazines).

You wouldn't fault an anatomy course for having skeletons in the room or a Physics classroom for having copies of Science laying around, so the parent argues that it's also weird to tell technology educators not to display computer hardware (for instance).

FWIW I ultimately agree with you. Computer hardware and pop sci/tech trade rags have nothing at all to do with most of the Computer Science field.

<comment><USER27> > things which definitely have nothing to do with STEM fields (sci-fi and star > wars)

I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly. Many enter these industries because of their love for sci-fi. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Space X or NASA employee who wouldn't attribute at least some of their aspiration to the creations of Carl Sagan or Gene Rodenberry.

<comment><USER28> True but incomplete. Some of us got interested in scientific fields because we were interested in science (not science fiction). For me, it was a good teacher at a critical time in HS. Not a role model, as I did not and really do not wish to be a teacher. But somebody who opened a door into something that excited me.

<comment><USER27> Could you square that circle for me where you are interested in science, but not science fiction? I'm not talking about science fantasy, but fiction rooted in science and the ramifications of scientific development.

<comment><USER26> This isn't strange at all. I interact with scientists fairly regularly and very few are fans of science fiction in any sense of the phrase.

Most scientists are normal people with an aptitude for a certain discipline, enjoy working on interesting problems, and had the luck of having encountered a mentor or two who steered them toward research. None of the ideas that drive the creation of sci fi are necessary to be a scientist. It really is just another career.

In fact, I can't think of a single scientist I (personally) know who became a scientist because of sci fi. (Which isn't to say that they don't exist.)

<comment><USER29> I'm a scientist who doesn't like sci fi much. I don't hate it, I enjoy some of it, but not the genre as a whole. I like Star Wars for the big pew pew spaceships as much as anybody but I don't like Star Trek at all.

To me, a lot of it just comes across as unimaginative. Oh sure, we've travelled half way across the galaxy to meet an alien race and it turns out they're Space Russians, or Space Jews. Maybe Space Ancient Romans for a change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > female students are more interested...if they are shown a > classroom...decorated not with "Star Wars" posters, science-fiction books, > computer parts and tech magazines, but with a more neutral décor

> If the actor wore a T-shirt that said "I CODE THEREFORE I AM" and claimed to > enjoy video games, the students expressed less interest in studying computer > science than if the actor wore a solid shirt and claimed to enjoy hanging > out with friends

So all we need to do is overhaul computer science's anti-women culture is remove computer magazines, computer parts, computer games, futurism, and coding.

<comment><USER20> > So all we need to do is overhaul computer science's anti-women culture is > remove computer magazines, computer parts, computer games, futurism, and > coding.

Best comment on this submission IMHO.

Making a subject more welcoming to folks who aren't actually interested in it just seems ridiculous. I wouldn't want a physician who doesn't actually care about bodies and biology; I wouldn't want my care designed by someone who isn't really into reliability, moments and materials; why would I want software written by someone who doesn't hunger and thirst to manipulate symbols and code?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This was a very well written and balanced article. I want to contribute a reason why I think that many men in tech hold back from fully endorsing this viewpoint.

The reason is that there is a very fine line between saying that you don't _have to_ be nerdy to be in tech, and failing to acknowledge that in general being nerdy is a disadvantage in society, and many people found a refuge in tech where they were mocked and often bullied outside[0]. To fail to acknowledge this is to risk promoting the same negative attitudes towards nerds within tech, as exist outside it.

So I would say that we should all encourage tech to be as open an welcoming as possible, and to avoid any implication that you have to have a certain personality, appearance or interests to succeed in tech. But we shouldn't dismiss the traits of people who currently are overrepresented in tech as a "stereotype", much less a "negative stereotype". I also don't think this is what the author was suggesting. As the article says, "stereotypes are only partly true, and women who actually take classes in computer science don't hold the same prejudices as women who get their ideas from pop culture."

[0] E.g. see [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/08/programmin...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/08/programming- saved-me-from-bullying)

<comment><USER32> Speaking as a nerd who grew up in the early 1990s: persecuted nerds do not have the right to (in any way) cordon off computer science as a refuge for their culture. But a lot of male nerds think they do!

<comment><USER33> Do persecuted non-nerds have the right to (in any way) cordon off computer science as a refuge free from nerdiness? Because that's what articles like these seem to be suggesting we'd need to do, by saying that nerd social cues like Star Wars and geeky T-shirts are excluding women.

<comment><USER32> I think that's an overwrought reading of the article, for two reasons: first, the article isn't prescriptive about Star Wars, and second, it's reporting simple facts; whether you feel comfortable about it or not, nerd culture's coupling with software development does alienate potential entrants to the field.

But let's not bother deploying dueling readings from the article, and instead see how much you and I actually disagree:

I do not in fact think it's reasonable to suggest that individual software developers should avoid nerd signifiers to avoid alienating people. I feel safe presuming we agree about that.

Do you feel like it's reasonable for _companies_ to avoid aggressive identification with nerd culture? To not ask candidates what their favorite Star Wars movie is, or to try to balance out outings and fringe benefits so they only appeal to sci-fi fandom?

<comment><USER34> Do companies do that? I've never experienced any embrace of "nerd culture" at any place I've worked.

<comment><USER32> Sure! Here's an example I'll ruefully draw from the last company I helped manage: all-hands offsites at local breweries.

<comment><USER34> I'm a hardware engineer. Most hardware companies are too tight fisted to have offsites (making physical things is expensive). The few that I've been on have been very tame because the last thing management wants is an offended employee.

Having an offsite at a brewery is kinda shitty because not everyone likes to drink. Did anyone try to suggest another venue?

<comment><USER32> Yes, or at least, the concern was raised (among the small minority of people who weren't excited about going to Three Floyds).

It's not, like, a management decision I'm super duper proud of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> So the salient point to me seem to be:

Girls are put off by how computer culture styles itself in nerdy ways.

Ok, i can kind of get that. On the other hand, i don't like it much because she seems to be saying "hiding positive expressions about things you like could be helpful".

I'm all for increasing diversity, but that should happen by bringing in more things and widening horizons. If that means "Sex and the City", then yes, please.

The article does also kind of lose its red thread when she compares offputting styling with outright attacks against her. Maybe she's trying to be less contentious by not outright calling them out as bullshit that should get people shitcanned by HR. But really, that's what should be said about that, not comparisons with star wars posters.

All that said, i like the bit she mentions at the end, about introducing computing earlier. If done emphatically it can have a real chance of leveling the playing field.

<comment><USER24> _i don 't like it much because she seems to be saying "hiding positive expressions about things you like could be helpful"_

Quite. The person who happens to like sci-fi isn't motivated by excluding anyone; they like it because they like it and will share their enthusiasm with anyone. Has that person intentionally done something _wrong?_ And if not why should they be censured for it? That is the elephant in the corner of the room here. There is no conspiracy to keep women out of tech, never has been, and demonizing decent people for innocent things, doesn't ultimately help anyone.

<comment><USER36> " _The person who happens to like sci-fi isn 't motivated by excluding anyone; they like it because they like it and will share their enthusiasm with anyone._"

You sure about that? I know quite a few people who are seemingly only interested in science fiction and gaming it its various forms and _aggressively_ disinterested in anything else. Maybe you know some, too: people who use terms like "sports ball" and whatever the current incarnation of "mundane" (as a noun) or "muggle" is. Believe me, it's no more appealing than hanging with a group of, say, serious football fans (for the appropriate value of "football").

I don't feel the need to demonize anyone, but decent people doing what they feel are innocent things can successfully masquerade as a conspiracy for as long as you care to watch.

<comment><USER15> I think you'll only find that in personality types that most of society probably isn't too fond of. That's not a gender thing, that's just a pretentious, insular, obnoxious personality.

And frankly, I don't think that's very common in professional settings. A basic rule of polite conduct is respecting other people's interests and beliefs.

That said, I myself do sometimes say "sports ball" because I think it's a humorous way to address a topic I know absolutely nothing about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I don't get something.

There seems to always has been a problem of diversity in tech. Yet US has done just ok with males (white and asian) doing this stuff. Ie better than anybody else in the world.

Why is this a problem (something the writer - who is a literature professor, by the way) considers a given? Is there any proof that increased diversity has any effect (except employment opportunities for the otherwise underrepresented)?

<comment><USER38> Our society has agreed that if any specific subset of the population is being biased against its wishes to pursue a path, then this is an injustice that shall be remedied. Distinctions include but are not limited to race, gender, socioeconomic background or current status, geographic origin, sexual orientation, and preexisting medical conditions.

It is an implied social contract that forms the foundation of our modern American society, irrespective of functional necessities or efficiencies. Efficiencies are not the point here.

<comment><USER39> > against its wishes

That's the bone of contention here. Nobody is keeping women out of computer science; they're largely just preferring not to enter the field. The point of the article, echoed by many commentators over the past few years, is that it's a "problem" that women are largely staying out of computer science.

If you believe in the blank slate theory of human nature, of course it's a problem, because under this worldview, women's default preferences are the same as that of men, so some external factor must be pushing them away from computer science. The teach for this factor has become increasingly desperate the past few years: now we're down to Star Wars posters.

I believe it's more parsimonious to reject the blank slate theory and understand the world through the lens of innate differences in life preferences between genders, and that it's this innate difference that leads to different gender balances in various fields.

<comment><USER40> > Nobody is keeping women out of computer science; they're largely just > preferring not to enter the field.

Ted is the new kid at school, and he wants to make friends. At recess he approaches a group of smiling, laughing boys to introduce himself. But as he nears the group they get quiet. Ted says hi and his name, and mentions he's new and wants to know if they play "tag" here. The boys reply, "we don't play tag, we play Weasel Escape." Ted asks how to play, and they say "How do you not know how to play? You needlefish. Needlefish!" The other boys laugh, but Ted doesn't get the joke. They walk away and Ted feels embarrassed. Over the next few days he continues trying to befriend the group of boys but they have so many inside jokes! There's one nice kid in the group that explains the jokes to Ted, but most of the time one of the other boys loudly interrupts and teases Ted for not knowing, and nobody really enjoys standing around explaining things because standing around means not playing. Ted eventually decides that the boys he's been trying to befriend aren't very nice, and that even though he enjoys playing weasel escape now that he figured out the rules, it's less degrading to spend his recess in the library playing Magic cards with the weird kids. They actually seemed excited to explain their inside jokes and how the game works.

Nobody is keeping Ted out of that group of friends. He just largely prefers not to join them. But of course, why he prefers not to join them changes the story.

<comment><USER39> If I understand your parable correctly, you're suggesting that men deliberately mock and reject women trying to enter the field. In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth. I have never, not once, witnessed the behavior you describe. I've seen nothing but welcoming behavior toward everyone who wants to learn software.

Even among proponents of the systemic discrimination theory, the consensus these days seems to be that bias must be subconscious, since overt bias is practically extinct in the wild.

<comment><USER41> What???

My childhood best friend and college roommate shocked me by calling one of our CS classmates a "huge bitch" for not going on a date with him after they had lunch together our first week of college.

I've lost track of how many sexist lines I've heard, like:

"make me a sammich bitch, haha",

"don't be an emo bitch about it, haha",

"if we don't let people freely express themselves on the CS listserv, then this is a tyrannical school that has been ruined by feminists (this one after of course, a guy posted a several page rant about why women are bitches, 'haha')".

Also, let me tell you this story of two friends I knew who applied at a certain internet start-up on Market Street in San Francisco in 2014:

A was male, 21 years old, a stoner and business school drop-out with a portfolio consisting of a Java tower defense game.

B was female, 30 years old, with several years experience doing QA on computer peripheral drivers who had re-trained herself as a web developer and had a Rails StackOverflow clone and a Meteor KhanAcademy clone for her portfolio.

A got offered a six-figure full time position.

B got offered an internship.

Final point, I've seen so much elitist and arrogant behavior from MEN directed towards OTHER MEN. Nothing could be further from the truth than software being completely welcoming. Of course it's still a very good industry overall; it's by no means the worst.

<comment><USER42> > "emo bitch"

"that guy was kind of a dick" is an offhand comment that just means "rude" or "jerk" and you hear it all the time from college age women when referencing the slightest deviations from their standards of behavior. It refers to the male genitalia in a negative connotation and is terefor far more explicit than the dog word.

<comment><USER41> It sounds like you're trolling, but if you aren't:

1\. One wrong does not make another wrong right.

2\. "Dick" is used as an offhand comment usually because it is considered less offensive than other words with the same meaning, like "asshole" or "piece of shit".

3\. I agree that women treat men badly as well. People suck.

4\. Imagine your daughter or mother being called an "emo bitch" because they reacted angrily to an insult. Would you tell her "well at least they didn't explicitly insult your genitalia?"

<comment><USER42> > One wrong does not make another wrong right.

True but the two neutralize each other when thinking in terms of a running tally of gender-specific offensive terminology.

> used as an offhand comment usually because it is considered less offensive > than other words with the same meaning

the fact that it's considered less offensive simply illustrates a bias towards the acceptance of gender-specific negative remarks or "putdowns" when they're directed away from the feminine and towards the masculine. This goes to my point that actually women do throw a lot of these remarks around but we've just learned to tune them out. If a man makes a 'putdown' remark towards a young lady in class which references the female reproductive anatomy then he's on shaky ground and theoretically could have to worry about a lawsuit, but not the other way around.

> 4\. Imagine your daughter or mother being called an "emo bitch" because they > reacted angrily to an insult. Would you tell her "well at least they didn't > explicitly insult your genitalia?"

I don't know a ton about the word "emo" but I assume it means "overly emotional" and the word "bitch" is a gender-specific word which insinuates that she's not attractive. While I'm sure we both agree that such a _rude_ and _insulting_ phrase is a terrible thing to say to anyone it's still only aimed at the individual.

On the other hand when you use a phallus reference as an implied negative connotation then you've just made a _sexist_ remark because it denigrates an entire gender.

If I had to choose one or the other I'd rather my mother or daughter be exposed to rudeness or insult before obvious yet normalized sexist remarks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> > In fact, Dr. Cheryan's research shows that young men tend not to major in > English for the same reasons women don't pick computer science: They compare > their notions of who they are to their stereotypes of English majors and > decide they won't fit in.

I wonder how long it will take for humanities departments to adopt a more inclusive culture? Why must our obsessive hand-wringing be be reserved exclusively for computer science and engineering, which are mostly hidden and do not set the wider cultural narrative (for the most part).

<comment><USER24> _Why must our obsessive hand-wringing be be reserved exclusively for computer science and engineering, which are mostly hidden and do not set the wider cultural narrative_

Because now there's money in it. No-one cared about this when the IT department was at the bottom of the corporate pecking order. No-one cares that refuse collection is almost exclusively male, but that's a job of real social importance...

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> One thing I noticed / learned about when we had our child is that we are all social creatures. We yearn to be with others like ourselves and to fit in.

It's an incredibly strong pull, and the attitude of "if they really were interested, they'd be interested" that is prominent here greatly underestimates how strong our desire to fit in is.

In poor neighborhoods, few rise out of their situations to become scholars and professionals. Do we believe it is because they don't want to? Or is it because the social currents -- the pull to fit in, sell drugs, check out, be cool -- are too strong? We have deeply evolved social genes, and our fear of being alienated trumps a lot of things.

Unconscious bias is real. You can take a test and see for yourself. We think we view the sexes, other races, other tribes as we view ourselves. But the fact is we're deeply biased. It is ingrained.

So, we might not be best suited to say whether our tribe is inclusive -- we probably couldn't give an objective answer if we tried. But what we can do is make a better attempt to be more inclusive of ideas; especially the ones that make us uncomfortable.

<comment><USER45> > We yearn to be with others like ourselves and to fit in.

The idea is that this is what "keeps people out". Surely, the flip side is true, and people are defined / made happy by the same notions.

People in the west are so far up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, that we've stopped caring about the basics of life. Specifically, of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#/media/File:MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg) we no longer choose a job that gives us food, shelter or safety (the first two), and instead we choose jobs based on how well it provides us with love/belonging, esteem and self-actualisation. That is why young people choose jobs less and less with money as the sole or even primary determinant.

If this is the case, that people are choosing professions that help them feel self-actualised or belonging, no matter what tech does, or what Public Relations, Child-care workers or predominantly female dominated occupations do, is less important that the people it attracts / already has attracted. And these same sorts of people will dominate, as this belonging and fitting in becomes increasingly entrenched, and snowballs on itself like runaway recurssion.

That seems, to me, the logical conclusion of slight biological gender differences combined with a rise up the pyramid of needs, which lessens the pressure of the former two to create cultures that trump biology.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE) is a documentary about Scandinavia's attitude to gender relations, and the whole series is brilliant, and shows that gender separation is, if not inevitable, certainly understandable.

<comment><USER44> Not buying the argument, since according to Maslov, very few people become self-actualized. His own research was sparked by a very limited set of individuals that exhibited the qualities of being what he later described as 'self-actualized'. So it's hard to believe that enough people in tech are self-actualized for that to be a big differentiator. In other words, it just doesn't seem realistic that the current gender balance snowballed out of males being drawn to technology out of self-actualization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> > Over and over, Dr. Cheryan and her colleagues have found that female > students are more interested in enrolling in a computer class if they are > shown a classroom (whether virtual or real) decorated not with "Star Wars" > posters, science-fiction books, computer parts and tech magazines, but with > a more neutral décor — art and nature posters, coffee makers, plants and > general-interest magazines.

That last part sounds so banally corporate. And later in the article the author suggests we redecorate many/most programming spaces, academic and professional, into banal corporate farms like every other soul-crushing workplace.

The best high school teachers I remember were the ones to fill their classrooms with zany stuff related to their subject/field. Creatures from Disney's Hercules in a Latin classroom. Ancient Roman coins, sorted on a timeline by metallurgic debasement and inflation, in an economics classroom. A wall of student painted musical posters in a theater/dance classroom.

Is telling those teachers, "no, you can't decorate your classroom the way you want; it must look like the front office of ACME business park tenant," really the answer?

Or is it reforming our education system, especially high school, into an institution that discourages conformity? Or at least doesn't punish nonconformity?

<comment><USER47> I guess Star Wars and (much of SciFi) has no strong tie to a computer class except for a certain subcultural influence not shared universally (and so they don't _need_ to be part of the class room).

But if the computer class isn't just a editor/spreadsheet/media class (which is okay, and maybe even important, but not "computer"), having computer parts and tech magazines around (within reason) provide a relatively realistic representation of what the field is about.

To me that paragraph read as "computer class is okay when it has nothing to do with computers" \- which I think is sad.

But then the description is so non-descript, that it's hard to tell what kind of images they provided. If the "computer parts and magazines" version looked like [http://moo.acadiau.ca:7000/865](http://moo.acadiau.ca:7000/865), that may indeed not be very attractive.

(Also: coffee makers in class rooms? yuck. I wouldn't want to be in a class that smells like coffee all the time)

<comment><USER46> The "Star Wars" reference is really just an insinuation that geek culture signals social suicide to conformist high schoolers. But geek culture also signals _passion_.

My objection is really that mandating bland décor in the name of some "ambient sense of belonging" discourages passionate teachers, however their offbeat classroom decorating may or may not relate absolutely to the field. And the system already discourages passionate teachers in countless ways. We don't need one more nail in the coffin for love of learning and those who encourage it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> We've known this for a while, it boils down to: barbies.

Fixing this problem is _really, really_ hard. Assuming I gave my daughters equal access to both barbies and chemistry kits, which would they choose? Kids want to fit in with their friends. Boy nerds get beaten up, girl nerds get ostracised. What does that lead to? The child choosing their gender stereotype (applies both ways) so that they can fit in. It's what the herd is doing and results in girls avoiding engineering and boys avoiding, say, nursing.

It's a systemic disease and is highly contagious. One possible solution is an elementary school where the entrance requirement is determined by the parents: girls get barbies AND chemistry kits. Boys get toy cars AND sewing kits. Their social group shouldn't be determined by gender, rather interest.

<comment><USER49> > Boy nerds get beaten up, girl nerds get ostracised.

Exactly: both boys and girls get strong negative feedback for being nerdy. Yet, somehow more boys are sufficiently interested that they find their interest more important than the negative feedback.

<comment><USER19> > Yet, somehow more boys are sufficiently interested that they find their > interest more important than the negative feedback.

In these scenarios, boys find groups that are supportive. In their case the video game playing, computer oriented, math/physics/etc. "nerds" are one such social group.

The entire point of the article is that those _same groups_ are not supportive for women and girls.

It has nothing to do with them being so strong and manly that they can stand up to the bullies and pursue computer science anyway! It's that they find a safe haven in those social groups where they are not bullied and are inclusive.

<comment><USER50> Being a software engineer I've been involved in this discussion for several years now. And I don't think it ever clicked with me so much as with this comment. Guys do find groups that are supportive, be it something like an MMO community, card game community, robotics clubs etc. While girls also exist in these domains they are pretty consistently outsiders. At older ages they will receive a ton of attention, much of which I would describe as predatory, and it is constantly brought up that they are attention-seeking if they actually embrace the space (stream on Twitch or what have you). I believe at younger ages they are just simply viewed as odd-balls who are tolerated rather then truly accepted.

Previously when viewing a thread like this I would take a perspective of "It's not discrimination, they just don't want to do it". Now I want to think about it some more in the context of what I just said.

As a corollary however, is it really a good thing to push a gender towards a particular field? Anecdotally in the case of SE there seems to be a huge amount of anxiety, depression, and various social issues, that comes with the work load. I often wonder if my life would be better had I never taken to computers. Interesting food for thought, do any of us really know what's "best for us" on a societal level?

<comment><USER49> > Previously when viewing a thread like this I would take

> a perspective of "It's not discrimination, they just

> don't want to do it".

Well, maybe that wasn't exactly wrong. Or rather, there are different motivations for entering the profession. For males "love of technology" is a much stronger motivating factor, whereas for females it is "job security", "ease of entry" and "flexible working hours" [1]. All other factors surveyed were not different.

When it comes to experience in the job, the only difference found was that women received _greater_ support and mentoring from their superiors.[2].

This is from a study published in the Communications of the ACM as "Women and men in the IT profession"[3]. Although not as interesting an anecdote as the NY Times article, and not fitting the current narrative, the study does have actual _data_. It concludes that women and men in tech are more alike than different, that the primary difference coming in is "love of tech" vs "good benefits" and that the biggest difference when in the field is that women get slightly better support from their bosses.

Come on in, the water is fine!

[1] [http://deliveryimages.acm.org/10.1145/1320000/1314229/figs/t...](http://deliveryimages.acm.org/10.1145/1320000/1314229/figs/t1.jpg)

[2] [http://deliveryimages.acm.org/10.1145/1320000/1314229/figs/t...](http://deliveryimages.acm.org/10.1145/1320000/1314229/figs/t2.jpg)

[3] [http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men- in-t...](http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-the-it- profession/fulltext)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > Over and over, Dr. Cheryan and her colleagues have found that female > students are more interested in enrolling in a computer class if they are > shown a classroom (whether virtual or real) decorated not with "Star Wars" > posters, science-fiction books, computer parts and tech magazines, but with > a more neutral décor — art and nature posters, coffee makers, plants and > general-interest magazines.

Sans the "general interest magazines" (so vanilla, it makes me want to barf), this sounds like a rather pleasant work environment. I'm so used to working in a dark cave with Boba Fett stand-ups everywhere, it'd be nice to work in a place with more greenery, natural tones and airiness. Nest's offices were a lot like this, and were one of the factors I liked about working there.

<comment><USER39> Let's suppose I worked at a desk next to yours, and one day, I brought in an elaborate lego Millennium Falcon to put next to my monitor. Would you support a policy that required me to remove this icon of geekdom in the name of making the workspace more welcoming for women?

<comment><USER29> In a more traditional workplace, such as a law firm, your boss would tell you to take your Milennium Falcon home because it's unprofessional. Professionalism is a virtue which is deeply underrated by the computational professions.

Part of "professionalism" is the recognition that you can be whoever you want to be on your own time, but while you're at work your personal identity is partially subsumed into your identity as a member of a profession. That means you dress, decorate, talk and behave in a way that's a bit more neutral and respectable than you might in your college dorm room.

This is a bit dull, sure, but it also enables all sorts of people to work together effectively by papering over their individual differences with a shared professional identity. The fact that your coworkers are of a different sex or generation to you and like different things is pretty immaterial when you're all wearing suits, sitting at undecorated desks and talking about work. Nobody will be alienated by your dick jokes, because nobody makes dick jokes.

Greater professionalism is the solution to many of the tech industry's problems.

<comment><USER51> That's implying that law firms are more professional just because of a veneer of 'professionalism' (whatever that means.) Law firms are notorious for sexism and classism. If anything that fake 'professionalism' simply masks the true deviousness of the male-dominated law firm. 'Professionalism' has nothing to do with clothes or Star Wars; it has everything to do with attitude. A graphic design firm has a far different version of professionalism than does a law firm, but that doesn't make design any less professional. Professionalism doesn't mean 'generic.' Also, what's sexist about Star Wars? That implication that girls don't like Star Wars is itself sexist. By removing Star Wars from your desk, you're actually being more sexist by suggesting that girls might find it offensive. A suit and tie have nothing to do with professionalism in general; it's contextual. Software engineers aren't going to the courtroom, just like lawyers aren't playing in the NFL. That doesn't make any of those professionals less professional. The IBM white shirt black tie uniform back in the day didn't encourage more women to enter tech and it could be argued that those guys oozed professionalism. Is Mark Zuckerberg less professional because of his attire? Professionalism is an attitude, not a uniform or style of decoration. Professionalism is about maturity, fair mindedness and respect, not whether or not Chewbacca is in your desk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> if i wanted to become a hair stylist (an occupation primarily done by women), i would need to accept a culture that was different than my own...so why cant the same happen with geek culture?

The article also goes into many stereotypes and many women arent going into computer science based on these perceived sterotypes. If we were talking about any other group, the words "racist", "sexist", Or "bigot" would be thrown around and used to describe the group not accepting the culture.

This is a tell-tale sign that it is a power-play move to gain control over another group of people.

I also thought that we were supposed to be accepting of everyones culture. Does this only apply to the privileged few???

<comment><USER32> Because two wrongs don't make a right.

<comment><USER53> I want to be clear, is the original wrong here geek culture? The context is a bit tricky and I'm having trouble unpacking this.

<comment><USER32> No: the comment was dramatically edited after I responded to it. You're not missing anything.

<comment><USER53> thanks! I assumed since you generally make clear sense something must have gone wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> _Over and over, Dr. Cheryan and her colleagues have found that female students are more interested in enrolling in a computer class if they are shown a classroom (whether virtual or real) decorated not with "Star Wars" posters, science-fiction books, computer parts and tech magazines, but with a more neutral décor — art and nature posters, coffee makers, plants and general- interest magazines._

"Tech" isn't a single thing. If you want to make non-geeky spaces for tech, go ahead and do it. But lots of geeks do like tech, and they understandably make geeky environments. Why can't everyone, as the bumper sticker helpfully puts it, coexist?

I think they can. But I also think that the association of geekiness with tech isn't a random quirk of history, but rather indicates a common origin. The kind of personality and psychological profile that predisposes one to an interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics also predisposes one to geekiness. Moreover, geekiness isn't gender-blind: men are simply more likely than women to be geeks. Indeed, people on the autistic spectrum are especially likely to be geeks, and the overrepresentation of males among autistics is incontrovertible. [1]

There's nothing wrong with creating non-geeky tech spaces that cater to non- geeks (male and female alike)—indeed, I think it's an excellent idea, and not only because it's generally more welcoming to women—but let's also let geeks be geeks.

[1]: [http://www.autism.org.uk/about-autism/introduction/gender- an...](http://www.autism.org.uk/about-autism/introduction/gender-and- autism.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER55> I had a hard time with this when I was in software, because I didn't enjoy video games or sci-fi or a lot of the things my coworkers did. I have nothing against those things, but I feel like in the industry it's pretty common to adopt these things into the work culture instead of trying to keep the workplace more neutral.

I would liken it to working at an office where everyone is really into sports. I'll watch the occasional college football game, but I'd be pretty alienated working at an office with sports stuff hanging on the walls where people expected you to watch the game every weekend in order to fit in.

<comment><USER56> I 100% want more women in tech so this is only a comment on the star wars posters side of the thing

making video games is/requires programming so there's bound to a be a large overlap in programmers who are interested in video games.

Sci-fi inspires lots of people to get into programming. From wanting to create R2-D2 and C3PO to wanting to create projected holograms, wanting to create tricorders, computers that can take voice commands, touch surfaces, fancy new interfaces, virtual reality, AI, and many other topics touched on in sci-fi that are all directly related to programming.

Sports are not directly related and do not directly inspire most jobs but sci- fi does directly inspire many programmers to program and probably many other STEM careers. video games also inspire many programmers to program since video games are programming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> >Over and over, Dr. Cheryan and her colleagues have found that female students are more interested in enrolling in a computer class if they are shown a classroom (whether virtual or real) decorated not with "Star Wars" posters, science-fiction books, computer parts and tech magazines, but with a more neutral décor — art and nature posters, coffee makers, plants and general- interest magazines.

Art and nature posters, plants and general-interest magazines do not sound neutral to me.

</comment><comment><USER58> Here is a page linking the writeups of the studies that were referenced in the article. [https://faculty.washington.edu/scheryan/research.htm](https://faculty.washington.edu/scheryan/research.htm)

One question which perhaps should be made explicit: Who ought to be responsible for remedying the negative stereotypes that young women hold about computer programmers and STEM workers? And who is affected most negatively by attitudes such as they hold?

Maybe creative writing profs can play a role by writing some stories that make STEM sound more enticing.

<comment><USER59> I don't see any indication that these studies have been successfully reproduced. Do you know if these results have been independently verified?

<comment><USER58> There are a few hundred citations to sort through, but it looks like they are just building on these conclusions. Keep in mind that they were published very recently, and psychology has less of an emphasis on reproducing studies than, say physics, for instance. IOW, I have no clue. Haven't read the papers either. Looks like a bunch of copy + paste from SPSS/SAS, plus a little polemical rhetoric, like most social science papers. I find such to be tiring to read closely as a consequence (so I don't).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The first sentence of the article is a claim without any substance and the rest on the article builds on it.

Regarding "gender diversity", I know for sure that construction, road works, automechanic, welding, mining and many other fields have "overrepresented men problem", while teacher, nurse have "overrepresented women" problem, so why focus on technology sector which is pretty good compared to those?

The answer is simple - personal monetary gain. Women see technology sector rise in terms of wages during recent years, and feminism, a.k.a "women labor union", are using their influence to gain unfair advantages for women in that particular profitable spot.

They have already reached quite good results in divorce and alimony laws, so we can't underestimate them now. This trend that puts women (and in some cases minorities) in front of others have to be killed once and for all.

Can someone from US write their senators to create a law that forbids any kind of discrimination or PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT based on gender and race? That law would be enough to basically kill feminism in terms of legal rights at least.

<comment><USER61> > Regarding "gender diversity", I know for sure that construction, road works, > automechanic, welding, mining and many other fields have "overrepresented > men problem", while teacher, nurse have "overrepresented women" problem, so > why focus on technology sector which is pretty good compared to those?

I am in Norway, and men are hardly underrepresented in teaching and nursery here. I also visit tunnels under construction due to my work sometimes, and can't say a girl in reflex and hard hat is that uncommon sight. They are still under-represented in STEM overall, however. Not sure what the conclusion is here, but it is probably not the one you are trying to make.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> The real issue is that our society tells girls it's more important to be attractive and have lots of friends, instead of being smart and intelligent.

The posters aren't the problem, the pipeline is, and the pipeline starts with parents.

<comment><USER63> Are you sure being attractive and having lots of friends isn't a better life strategy than being really intelligent? It gets you laid way more often.

(Not that either of those are strategies really.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> This article is discursive. It talks about modern issues we need to deal with (current image of computer scientists), but then goes into an outdated story of direct harassment she received at Oak Ridge. The latter is irrelevant to discussion at hand.

</comment><comment><USER39> This gem is in the comments:

> The average programmer spends only about 30 percent of his/her time working > alone.

That's nowhere close to my figure. In fact, I can pretty much _only_ program alone. Individual investigation and discovery is most of the fun in the field.

<comment><USER50> Not trying to create a positive feedback loop here, but I concur. My personal experience could point to as much as 95% of "programming" time being entirely independent once taken into account: reading articles/guides/tutorials, debugging, "playing around with" new tools/languages/frameworks.

<comment><USER65> I suspect that it varies by environment. I have worked in environments where it is 95% alone and other environments where it is 95% collaboration. Some places actually do "pair programming".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> This is a solid article that deserves a reasonable discussion, so we've turned off flags on it. Please keep the thread substantive and respectful.

<comment><USER67> I didn't get a reply last time I asked this in the same circumstances, but...

Will you also be flag-protecting articles which take different viewpoints? I ask because I've never seen a thread on any other topic or expressing any substantially different view on this topic have flags turned off, but perhaps that's just observation bias on my part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> > Yet I wonder how many young men would choose to major in computer science if > they suspected they might need to carry out their coding while sitting in a > pink cubicle decorated with posters of "Sex and the City," with copies of > Vogue and Cosmo scattered around the lunchroom. In fact, Dr. Cheryan's > research shows that young men tend not to major in English for the same > reasons women don't pick computer science: They compare their notions of who > they are to their stereotypes of English majors and decide they won't fit > in.

The thing is that computer science and english lit are not exchangeable. In fact, if computer science were done in pink cubicles adorned with the above- mentioned purportedly feminine accoutrements, men and women would still do computer science, because it would still be critical to technological advance and modern economies in a direct, and remunerated, way which English Lit is not.

<comment><USER69> How is this relevant at all?

<comment><USER68> It is a response to a passage quoted from the article under discussion in this thread on hacker news, an internet site that is structured around discussion of articles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> "To make computer science more attractive to women, we might help young women change how they think about themselves and what's expected of them. But we might also diversify the images of scientists they see in the media, along with the décor in the classrooms and offices in which they might want to study or work."

No. I don't expect liberal arts and women's studies departments, and the home decorating industry to adapt a more masculine culture. I don't see CS and the tech industry as this uber masculine frat bro jock culture anyways. This is ridiculous. Let people make their own choices instead of dictating how people should act constantly.

</comment><comment><USER71> Does anyone else feel that targeted statistical studies would advance this discussion far more than yet another anecdote? The state of understanding of this situation could be much improved. And yet, despite how strongly people feel about this issue, the studies are still sparse to non-existent.

<comment> finance-geek I'm only half-joking here -- I wonder if the n value is too small for statistical significance?

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Unfortunately for the author, the numbers simply don't support the narrative she wishes to paint:

> The percentage of women studying computer science actually has fallen since > the 1980s. Dr. Cheryan theorizes that this decline might be partly > attributable to the rise of pop-culture portrayals of scientists as white or > Asian male geeks in movies and TV shows like "Revenge of the Nerds" and "The > Big Bang Theory."

CS degrees took a _huge_ jump from 5,000 per year in 1975 with 18% being women to 39,000 per year in 1985 with 37% being women. Perhaps she should ask what caused _that_.

I'll tell you what--Punchcards, COBOL and the PDP/Vax. Suddenly everybody put their accounting systems on computers, and you needed people who could program them or feed them data. And that required keyboard skills--which were taught to _women_ because every high school had secretarial classes (typing/shorthand/dictation). And, right around when the decline started happening (1984/1985), those secretarial programs _all got wiped out_.

Perhaps if we start training women to be secretaries again, we'll fix the CS enrollment problem (CAUTION: I'm being sarcastic here about drawing stupid conclusions that fit your desired narrative).

In addition, if you look at Master's degrees awarded, you find that the percentage of women earning Master's in CS is about 28% and has bounced around that number since 1985 and been around 30% since 2001. The percentage of PhD's going to women in CS has been gradually increasing every year since 1977 or so and stands at 21% in 2010.

These aren't the statistics for a field women are having difficulty entering (take a look at electrical engineering for that ...). The fact that female CS undergraduate percentages crashed in 2005 is a bit concerning (similar downblip in EE--wonder what the issue is), but that should be a local cause that should be discoverable rather than systemic.

References: [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/content.cfm?pub_id=42...](http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/content.cfm?pub_id=4266&id=2) [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tab33.pdf](http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tab33.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER19> Computer Science is now the top major fro women at Stanford.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10366681](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10366681)

</comment><comment><USER73> Stereotypes are putting me off too - I am a male. Not sure if this can really explain why there is fewer women in tech.

At the local university where I was a bit involved into the whys of fewer women it seems to be that interestingly enough it seems to be related to friends and family of someone entering IT. If friends and family come up with questions like "But aren't there mostly men" and "Aren't to all video game nerds" or similar, then those stereotypes affect people and especially women, cause they are usually the target of such statements way more when deciding whether to study at a certain university.

So it's social expectations of others. I think if one wants to study computer science then it's not that much of a deal. After all students in general have a lot of room for stereotypes. Women in communication, men in medicine and students in general have stereotypes applying to them that many people simply don't identify with at all. I think if that would be having such a huge effect then there would be way fewer students overall.

</comment><comment><USER19> Upon hearing de Blasio's announcement, my initial reaction was mandatory programming classes for high school is as unnecessary as mandatory calculus.

After reading the article, I'd update that opinion. I still don't feel it should be mandatory for a basic High School degree, but perhaps forming a track for college bound students that includes programming (and calculus, AP english, etc.) and requiring that track to graduate with honors would be a good positive incentive.

Programming & algorithms is a pretty advanced academic topic. Requiring it for graduation would set up a lot of students to fail or become disillusioned with what education has to offer them. Much like if Calculus were required.

<comment><USER50> My high school had an abhorrently bad AP CS program. The teacher was a hobbyist who had no business teaching the subject and in fact turned off the majority of the students to CS, especially the girls. I fear anytime we make something mandatory in American education it will only exasperate the terrible education system that we have and ultimately do more harm then good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> I know I am in a great work place when I don't know all the characters in Star Wars but still feel included.

<comment><USER75> greedo shot first

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Female students are more interested in enrolling in CS if they think it doesn't involve computers or science... maybe instead of trying to trick them encourage them to like computers and science? If you think solving problems by looking pretty rather than thinking is 'being female' then you don't think being a Computer Scientist is very 'female'.

(Obviously I think being female is orthogonal to such concerns.)

</comment><comment><USER77> To sum this up, men in software engineering are like a bunch of children and expect everyone around them to be exactly the same. I couldn't agree more. I'd wager that most software companies (all i've worked for) have no sense of work etiquette because a lot of engineers are in some sort of la-la land where you don't have to grow up and the smarter you are the more you get to act as an odd, grown child. Is anybody really surprised that this is driving women away? It would be interesting to know how this compares to professional engineers (mechanical, electrical etc) and the environments they work in. I'd be shocked if the same level of immaturity passes there.

</comment><comment><USER78> "female students are more interested in enrolling in a computer class if they are shown a classroom (whether virtual or real) decorated not with "Star Wars" posters, science-fiction books, computer parts and tech magazines, but with a more neutral décor — art and nature posters, coffee makers, plants and general-interest magazines."

The "neutral decor" sounds awfully boring for a computer classroom. I love art, nature posters, coffee, and plants; but when I imagine a computer classroom in both of these styles the former is infinitely more appealing.

<comment><USER79> I don't really understand why they think all females hate star wars. I love it, I even had a Darth Vader 3d puzzle. I also know a lot of women who like star wars, anime, and "geeky" stuff. It really sounds like they want to remove nerd culture from the tech industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> I had a run-in with a woman on my team. We disagreed on the design for a module she had just implemented. It wasn't going to meet the requirements, I argued. She disagreed - it'd be fine. Many times we sat in front of her code, I took her through exactly how her design was failing. You know that extra 250msec mental processing time where you see it click in their heads when they realize they were wrong or had a faulty assumption? There were like 3 of those times sitting with her, and she always changed the subject or insulted me for not understanding what she was trying to do - end of discussion. Other team members backed me up from time to time when the issues I was raising were serious enough, I wasn't completely alone. There were other communications breakdowns, she NEVER requested anyone to pair with her, never did any design work nor discussed with the team what she was going to develop that sprint, was frustrated and defensive when her PR's were full of criticisms (primarily from me.)

I was vocal, I was dissatisfied with her performance and did not keep it a secret, and I was demanding the same level of excellence from her as from anyone else on the team. This went on for about two weeks ... and then she cried to the boss. Told him she thought she might have to quit the company over the altercations with me. So, they gave me the official sit down reprimand. There was no interest hearing in my side of the story, not that it would matter the way HR is structured. And, I got the distinct feeling they started keeping a file on me to try and get me canned.

My reaction to this, so as to keep my sweet job and food on the table, was to be just one more go-with-the-flow, smiley-faced, that-all-sounds-good kind of guy. No more confrontation trying to get the best out of people. Life is really nice now, I don't have to care. My work is still good, but I'm just doing as I was told and cashing my paycheck now. Any actual love and passion for the work now goes into my hobby projects, and I don't work late anymore. Soon after all this blew over, the bosses remarked cynically that I was working so well with this woman, like it was surprising that I could turn off combat mode so easily/at all! I just smile and laugh meekly, "yeah, we're working well together. It's all so great" as I choke back the bile.

God help that woman if she ever needs help and I'm the only one to give it. I've had to endure team dynamics 10x worse in my career than what she experienced with me and I didn't rat out the other guy. I cannot countenance such disloyalty. The team must resolve its differences internally and not go informing on each other at the drop of a hat!

Anyhow, we are still on the same team, (thanks management!), and I casually try to avoid pairing with her most of the time and smile with gritted teeth when we do have to work together. When I see her make a mistake, I don't point it out and just laugh to myself about it.

I will outlast her but she has definitely put a damper on my moving into a lead role unless I switch departments.

</comment><comment><USER81> Mmm, yeah... could you guys try to not be so nerdy? That would be great. And no jokes about PC load letter.

</comment><comment><USER82> > _Yet I wonder how many young men would choose to major in computer science > if they suspected they might need to carry out their coding while sitting in > a pink cubicle decorated with posters of "Sex and the City," with copies of > Vogue and Cosmo scattered around the lunchroom._

 _Vogue_ and _Cosmo_!? As a 'feminine' counterpoint to the supposedly masculine 'computer parts' and 'tech magazines'!?

This is "Science. It's a Girl Thing"[1] all over again: "To get women into STEM, you have to show makeup and fashion". Fuck this view of fashion being a fundamental part of the female psyche. The article has some good points in it, but I think it overplays "women like fashion" and underplays "my computer time was gatekept by sexist arseholes".

[1][https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Science+it%27s+...](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Science+it%27s+a+girl+thing)

</comment><comment><USER11> This article raises an interesting question, but then give no good answer to it.

The actual answer is that women generally like modern programming noticeably less than men do.

Women are better at nurturing and maintenance. Men are better with handling abstract concepts and solving deep problems by having narrow focus.

Before computers became mainstream (prior to ~1980) typical programming job was more about nurturing and maintenance. Typical women skills were a good match for programming back then.

However what programmers did back then in 1960es-1970es is now covered by ~electronic spreadsheets.

Modern programming is much deeper and more focused than it was 35+ years ago, so most women prefer moving to other professions. In spite of affirmative action that tries to attract women to tech.

</comment><comment><USER83> It started off well, until she started talking about mainframes. So her experience is from the 80ies? Sounds like bleeding edge commentary.

</comment><comment><USER84> I see this as an echo of the makers and takers debate.

"Give me a job." "MAKE me feel comfortable." "I am at your mercy." ... This the subtext I read. Other people want to create their own world; when someone tells them no or gets in their way, the attitude is "fuck you" not "change to accommodate me."

This reaction may be biologically ingrained as a difference in the sexes; I am not sure- But I rarely, if ever, come across articles about women who have been fed up with some job and formed their own companies with other fed up women and strove to put their former coworkers/employers out of business, whereas for hackers "I'll show you!" seems a very common motivator.

We should be trying to give women (and men) more confidence, integrity and fortitude, and quit with the shaming and guilt tactics.

<comment><USER47> > But I rarely, if ever, come across articles about women who have been fed up > with some job and formed their own companies with other fed up women and > strove to put their former coworkers/employers out of business

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights- handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed- kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html)

It wasn't in IT, but it happened for many of the same reasons as stated here.

The outcome is just one of several possibilities, and the media field may be more prone to have divas (although IT has too many divas of all sexes, IMHO), so I'm curious how the tableflip subculture will fare (hopefully much better).

<comment><USER84> This is the thing, though. We are being told that it's just crappy for women in tech; we should be seeing female web devs, mobile devs, devops, product people, etc. banding together and doing things Their Way, and reading a bunch of glowing articles about how much better things are now, and how that creepy old boss who stared at their boobs a lot wishes he was nicer, and that kind of thing. I am unaware of an example of this actually happening, so it makes me very skeptical this is as big of a problem as we are being told.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> I'm a hardcore fan of My Little Pony. Gender stereotypes mean nothing to me.

<comment><USER86> Yet, it appears that you will assume that we will assume that you are male. Why? Because you are on HN? Is this not buying into gender stereotypes?

(I am a woman. I am sometimes referred to as "he" on HN. I am quite open about my gender and it is specified in my profile. But the default assumption here is that anyone talking must be male -- because tech. This is accepting a stereotype.)

<comment><USER85> I assumed people would infer my gender from the wording of my post.

<comment><USER87> At this point, it might be weirder for a grown woman to be a hardcore fan of my little pony.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> There's a "gender problem" in public relations as well as in mental health counseling professions. The vast majority of professionals in those fields are women. I'm not sure I understand why that "problem" isn't warranting a New York Times story. In a great many PR and Marcom departments there's a very real bias against men. So much ink is being used on the STEM and women issue but oddly such "diversity" isn't quite important when the straight male is consistently marginalized in certain fields. How many straight male hairdressers do you know? How about makeup artists? Male kindergarten teachers? How about straight male fashion buyers or merchandisers or designers? How many men work at the cosmetics counter at Saks Fifth Avenue?

Is there any concept that men and women might actually be different and thus drawn to different interests? Obviously there's crossover and not everyone fits the mold but should we be trying to shoehorn the video game introvert into public relations and the outgoing fashionable social butterfly into particle physics? I don't doubt that there is a gender disparity in many professions, but my honest question is whether it's actually a 'problem.'

If girls (or boys) are being denied their passion because of discrimination, then yes, absolutely, but if we're just sitting around complaining because more boys like computers and more girls like public relations, then it seems like a silly thing to worry about. More girls like to play with dolls and more boys like to play with sticks and pretend they're laser guns. That's a fact. If a girl wants to play with a laser gun stick (or a boy with dolkls,) then I'm all for it, but just achieving diversity just to please some statistian or some gender studies professor is to deny that biology does, in fact have an influence on behavior and choices. I know that in some feminist circles, that idea is blasphemous, but reality doesn't really care about what some adjunct professor thinks.

Trying to "feminize" computers or make it less "nerdy" (i.e. Changing the Code Therefore I am shirt) is ridiculous and actually insulting. There are plenty of girls that like Star Wars, "nerdy" things and math and science. Just because that type of girl is a minority doesn't mean there's some kind of conspiracy.</comment>


Scudo Hardened Allocator - <AUTHOR> https://llvm.org/docs/ScudoHardenedAllocator.html <comment><USER2> It has an option to zero out allocations/deallocations. I wonder if it would be useful to randomize the memory instead. It seems like this would help surface bugs better than either zeroing it or leaving it alone?

<comment><USER3> Rather than random data, it is more typical to poison with a repeating pattern (like 0xAAAAAAAA). This is usually easy to spot in a backtrace, even with minor mutations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The choice of CRC32 together with a secret seems odd, it seems to be relying on a security property which CRC32 doesn't have.

This looks like the kind of application that SipHash is designed for.

<comment><USER4> Speed? CRC32 has dedicated CPU instructions on recent x64.

<comment><USER5> And size. The whole header ought to fit in 64 bits (a single cmpxchg), which rules out all of the good secure hashes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How does scudo compare with libdislocator?</comment>


"Lowest common denominator" for non-native English speakers - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest_common_denominator#Non-mathematical_usage As a non-native English speaker I've been always confused when I encountered the phrase 'Lowest common denominator' in a non-mathematical context. Don't people mean 'Greatest common divisor'? I have finally confirmed my confusion was correct. <comment><USER2> I've been finding Wiktionary (which is linked from the top of this article) pretty good for this kind of thing. For me it's learning french from english, so I can read definitions in both languages i.e. I can find definitions of english words in both french and english, and french words in both french and english, amongst other languages):

<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lowest_common_denominator>

Though I note in this case the term is only translated into a few languages, and they seem to only give the mathematical sense. But it's only going to get better if people use it and contribute.</comment>


No need to get followers anymore, just feed anything and it'll reach to everyone - <AUTHOR> http://www.letfeed.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, firstly I'm sorry I don't speak English that's my best in writing : I've created Letfeed, new social network. I have found that there is a need for a site which connect the people in easier and faster way, in an open world like this everybody need to know what happen in his country and what people are talking about, also share with them and his voice has to reach to everyone else. but this is not happen at the moment because anybody has to get followers to write to them or he will be alone "like alot of people in twitter, I have read that most of twitter users are not tweeting anything and that's for a reason, the reason is no audience to read what they write so they just spending thier time in twitter in reading news only" it's hard to get followers. but in Letfeed you don't have start from zero and searching for friends. no, from the second you have registered to the site you are already connected with the people in your country so you can see what they are talking about, what the hottest news they are discussing, what they are sharing from photos or videos, see other people's talents, knowing about the new things about any field you are interested in and of course share the things you love with them, so people know about your opinions and thoughts. Also see what people in other countries share and their news. the problem that Letfeed is solving is the reaching of every opinion and voice, letfeed's most important value is to break the walls between the people who are in the same country and let them connect fast. what you want to say, just say it and it will reach to a lot of people so no need for searching for people to follow because they will come to you when you open your country area in a random way or you can searching them ..

Site link : www.letfeed.com</comment>


The future of artificial limbs - <AUTHOR> http://theweek.com/article/index/258459/the-future-of-artificial-limbs

<comment><USER2> We'll know we've mastered artificial limbs when we see widespread elective amputation.

Oblig TED link: [http://www.ted.com/talks/aimee_mullins_prosthetic_aesthetics](http://www.ted.com/talks/aimee_mullins_prosthetic_aesthetics)

<comment><USER3> Go</comment></comment>


Programming Language For Youngest Kids - <AUTHOR>

I want to teach my son (4.5 years) "programming" (obviously, too early for general-purpose programming, but a limited-environment language can certainly be taught). I'm considering writing my own little language/"interpreter". Is there anything already out there that's worthwhile? The options I've seen is Scratch (8-year+) and Logo (seems boring to me for this age). Some others are listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_programming_language , I haven't checked all of them out though (e.g., Karel looks intriguing). <comment><USER2> I've had some good times playing with Scratch with my 3.5-year-old. We made some games where she can press buttons to make characters on the screen move around and do things. I show her the list of sprites and let her choose some. She decides what they should do ("I want the cat to roll over") and I write the code, with feedback from her. I guess I'm really training her to be a development manager. :)

I haven't tried it yet, but the video presentations I've seen of Microsoft's Kodu look really fun: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodu>

She also likes TuxPaint (<http://www.tuxpaint.org/>) and other drawing programs. It was SuperPaint on the original Macintosh that first got me into computers...

</comment><comment><USER3> I personally think that the best computer related education you can give a child of that age is to get them to understand that in almost all cases it is safe to 'fiddle' with the software on computers. I think I owe a almost all my knowledge of computers today to my parents who allowed me to repeatedly break the software running on the family PC from DOS to early Windows until I finally got my own.

Almost everyone I know of my age who can program with any level of competancy are the people who were given 'free reign' over a computer fairly early in life. Whereas the people who are less skilled are the people who were always told that if they touched the wrong thing they'd break it.

</comment><comment><USER4> My 8 year old is enjoying Scratch immensely. (As am I.)

Without any instruction, apart from two tutorials from YouTube, he has made a number of exploratory programs. I cannot recommend it more highly then seeing him dancing in delight as he showed his mother how the flying bit of doodle (made with the in-skin paint widget) that shoots from the mouth of the cat makes the stick men 'ghost'.

He set up broadcasts, loops, events, and keyboard control, all on his own

</comment><comment><USER5> This might be a smidge above a 5-year-old's vocabulary level, but you should give Inform 7 (<http://www.inform7.com/>) a look. It's designed for writing text adventures like the Zork series, but unlike almost every other programming language, it uses almost entirely natural English syntax.

The object model

      A barrel is a kind of supporter.
      The blue barrel is in the garden. The shears are on the blue barrel.

and CLI model

      Frowning is an action applying to nothing.
      Understand 'frown' as frowning.

and rule-based syntax

      Instead of frowning when the Queen is in the garden:
          say 'It would be improper to scowl at the Queen.'
      After frowning when the player does not carry the shears:
          say 'Your inability to do gardening makes you quite grumpy.'

are all easy to understand.

The result is always readable, even to someone unfamiliar with regular scripting languages. The IDE is also full of examples, though they are somewhat verbose.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you have an xbox or a windows computer check out <http://fuse.microsoft.com/kodu/> it is a really simple game development tool.

It is a visual event based system.

You have a queue of events. You then define relationships. Events at the top of the queue take priority over items lower on the queue. There is also the ability to define multiple queues and switch between them.

Relationships are simple but can be used to build complex systems.</comment>


They Pointed This Telescope at the Sun. 5 Years Later... - <AUTHOR> http://expanse.collectivepress.com/they-pointed-this-telescope-at-the-sun-5-years-later-unbelievable/

<comment><USER2> Amazing ... I've been able to see sun spots clearly when I point my telescope at the sun but having the sun in continuous view and being able to assemble time-lapse video from your images shows how active it is. Now I feel like I've simply been looking at photographs!</comment>


The Cathedral and the Bazaar (2000) - <AUTHOR> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/ <comment><AUTHOR> When I saw Hartl's Rails tutorial and Bret Victor's _Inventing on Principle_ submitted recently, I realized there were lots of classic works that some newer members of HN may not be familiar with. In the spirit of those submissions, I'm submitting another classic.</comment>


Modern Artificial Intelligence for Ancient Games - <AUTHOR> http://ludeme.eu/project/ <comment><USER2> The principal investigator of the project, Cameron Browne, has invented many very interesting abstract games himself [1]. He also investigated how computers could create games with the program LUDI used to create Yavalath [2] among others. I'm really interested to see how the optimization and learning framework he used in LUDI will shed light on ancient games we only barely know the rules of!

Although something I'm curious about is that the rules predicted are chosen on metrics of elegance and complexity (and maybe fun when you do them yourself) but how accurate will this be in reconstructing rules for games in which know them? For example, how accurate would it reconstruct backgammon or 13th century chess? This sort of verification I think is very interesting in quasi- testing observational science, like testing the methods of comparative linguistics by predicting French from Latin.

[1] [http://cambolbro.com/games/index.html](http://cambolbro.com/games/index.html) [2] [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/33767/yavalath](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/33767/yavalath)

<comment><AUTHOR> I can highly recommend Nestorgames, the vendor linked from your second reference. Great source of affordable sets for Yavalath and many other interesting abstracts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wow, this looks really interesting. I wonder how the internals work!

<comment><USER4> Based on [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kz483y/scientists-are- dis...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kz483y/scientists-are-discovering- long-lost-rules-for-ancient-board-games) the idea seems to be that you encode the possible rules into a standard software framework which provides a general interface to board games; then you use MCTS as a general game-playing agent (since MCTS works on anything you can build a game tree for), and you run the MCTS agents for many long games. The games then get 'scored' for game quality: were there reversals of fortune as the search depth increased? Did sometimes the losing player early on wind up winning in the end? Did games usually end in a victory for one side? Did they go on for a reasonable length of turns, neither too long nor too short? Each set of rules gets a quality score, and the rulesets which lead to the best corpus of games are considered more likely to be close to how the original games worked.

<comment><USER5> Many popular games even today are not "high quality" in the slightest, though. (Think Monopoly)

<comment><USER4> I dunno about 'many'. Monopoly is infamous for being bad, is popular only for legacy reasons, and is rapidly fading. (My own family used to play Monopoly frequently, but I can't remember the last time we did, because the last few times we were able to play on the holidays, we were playing games like Pandemic or Settlers or Hill House or D&D...) If you look at how kids spend their time, on things like Minecraft or Fortnite, I think the overwhelming majority of them are better games than Monopoly.</comment></comment></comment></comment>