I went to ngconf this year and two of the talks that stood out to me were given by women.
One was the angular materials talk / demo and it was amazing. The presenter was exuding tech prowess, I was blown away by how easy she made it look to make a dog adoption website. One of the best talks.
The other was by the CEO of girl scouts giving a patronizing 5 minute talk about how we need all help women in tech succeed and change ourselves so the world can change for the better. One of the worst talks.
I had those in mind when I read the article and for that reason I think I can see where she's coming from. When a woman just gives a tech talk, it's just a tech talk incidentally given by a woman. Isn't that the goal? More talks like the first one I described?
Well, I don't think it's the goal of a CEO of a social organization to give a talk on tech issues. Their focus is on social issues, so I don't see this as a good example.
I personally know several successful professional women who have a policy of refusing to belong to any women-only groups. Their reason is that in their experience such groups are populated by people seeking reassurance. The result is that they offer the "support" of lowered expectations. Which won't help you succeed.
One also pointed out to me that if a group of men were to form a men's only business club, that would be seen as sexist. It is no less sexist to form a women's only club, but nobody sees fit to criticize it.
This is not a bias against women in general. They just refuse to deal with people whose identify first as women, and only secondarily as professionals.
There's nothing wrong with seeking reassurance. Not everyone can be naturally confident, and in most cases the lack of it becomes a barrier. Take maths in British schools for example: most kids presume that it's hard, and I've witnessed many times when they just refuse to try and have a go because of this pop delusion (because yeah, it's almost cool to be bad in maths). But I've also taught lower set kids where their learning (and consequently test scores) boosted significantly once they realised that the 'fear' was all in their heads.
But confidence is not like a switch that can be flipped on/off. It might surge, but then it will tail off again. So you need support - not necessarily all the time - that's enough to push you back up in the air. In the classroom, a good mentor will give you that. In an environment that is often perceived by a group of people to be a bit 'scary' - like tech - the occasional empowerment talk will give you that. That's why I don't (well, no longer) see these "women" talks as awkward - on the contrary, they are much needed. You might roll your eyes, but there will be some in the audience feeling just a little less scared about the too-big-for-me ideas in their heads - and so increase the likelihood of executing them.
If you are a member of a disadvantaged group, you often do not have the ability to identify as a professional first and a group member second. That is the effect of being disadvantaged. Other people will make your life seem primarily about being a group member. Think about dealing with sexist/sexually-charged comments, racial tension at the office. Even if you want to just be a professional, other people will get in your way (and not always intentionally). Maybe imagine what life would be like for one of those people.
> It is no less sexist to form a women's only club, but nobody sees fit to criticize it.
It is not -ist if a disadvantaged group does something to counteract its disadvantage without considering the privileged group. If women are disadvantaged, it is reasonable to do something to fix their disadvantage without having to interject "but what about men!?"
So, for example, Ubuntu/Debian/Arch Women groups are not sexist and we don't need an Ubuntu/Debian/Arch Men group because... well, because that's just what normal Ubuntu/Debian/Arch is, mostly men.
The situation for men and women in tech is not symmetrical, so the approaches to handle the problems need not be symmetrical either.
"would be seen" talks about everyone, and I obviously can't speak for everyone. I'll try to anyway:
A men-only club would be judged differently since men are perceived to be the privileged class -- a concern would be that in this club, unfairly obtained advantages are carried on. A women-only club is much less of an issue, because women are perceived to be disadvantaged as-is. Having them organise in a secret circle won't cause any damage.
Beware: I'm not commenting on how sound this reasoning is, or defending or denying anyone's right to meet non-publicly.
That's an excellent policy. I hope more women follow in the example of your friends. I'm tired of hypocritical and self-serving redefinitions of words like "oppression" that allow certain groups to engage in otherwise-unacceptable behaviors just because of their group identity.
We need to emphasize our common identity as technologists, not atomize ourselves into mutually acrimonious groups based on personal characteristics having nothing to do with technology.
Digression: That's an old tired dead horse. When the minority organizes, somebody always calls 'double standard'. "They're racist/sexist too!"
Forgetting these folks don't have the institutional power to harm others. Forgetting that the rest of the world is a de-facto mens/white/whatever club already. Lets just retreat to the ivory tower.
> It is no less sexist to form a women's only club, but nobody sees fit to criticize it.
I advise women who need advice for the specific gender obstacles they must defeat. (Obviously this is a perverse situation and the first order of business is to find women they can speak with. But its not easy to find trailblazing women.) If you face an obstacle, it's irrational to ignore it. You learn, plan and defeat it.
Wanna see a men's only club? We have some at my workplace — management, dev teams, etc. Same with other companies I work with.
Sexism is about a power dynamic: men dominating women. Male supremacy. Since men benefit and perpetuate it more than women, women's only clubs are simple self-defense against a system loaded against them. (In favor of mediocre men.)
BTW, men often reward women who act like "one of the guys" and snipe at other women. Makes men feel better about their prejudices; gives them an example to point to of how proper women should act.
I went to a recent tech conference and a few things came back when I read this article. In particular that the conf had a lot more female talkers than male ones (It was curated and invitation based).
Most talks were good but a handful were nuggets where clearly the deciding factor why that person got the talk was because she was a woman and not her expertise in the area.
Your typical dose of women who code talks were im there too but one that stood our from the rest was a woman who thought she kept having to tell people things like "use your slackbot to tell people to stop using 'guys' and 'team' instead." or "women need remote work so they can cry silently when their male colleagues steal their ideas".
I am not denying that there are gender issues in tech (though in my career path I have yet to encounter them), but I paid good money out of my own pocket for that conference.
I am not going there to see you speak. I am going there to learn and get value for my money.
My wife gave a tech talk locally earlier this year and I didn't even think anything about her gender in regards to the conference until just now. Thinking back, there were very few women giving talks that day, and none of them were about 'women in tech'.
My wife does talk about being a woman in tech, but not in conferences. And in general she says, "Whatever, use the term 'guys' if you want. It doesn't matter." She's more worried about people treating her differently (changing their speech patterns when she's around!) than anything else, I think.
The idea that women should work remotely so they can cry if they get upset is... Horrifying. For many reasons.
First, that women should cry if unfair things happen. And that guys shouldn't, or that they don't have a reaction at all. (Hint: They do.)
Would some prefer it? Sure, but so would some guys, for the same reason. And other reasons.
Anyhow, good on Soledad for insisting on talking about the things that she wants to, instead of being pigeon-holed. In the end, I suspect her talks about actual tech are a lot more effective at raising awareness of the women-in-tech issues than talks on the subject itself would be.
Most talks were good but a handful were nuggets where clearly the deciding factor why that person got the talk was because she was a woman and not her expertise in the area.
And how did you come to "know" this, exactly? As opposed to merely speculating that that's what the deciding factor was?
> clearly the deciding factor why that person got the talk was because she was a woman
Wow, what a coincidence! Every time I'm disappointed by a talk at a conference, I just know intuitively exactly why that person was chosen to present. Until now, I thought I was the only person with that super power.
I'm sorry for being obnoxious, but it's worth thinking about why it's so easy to reach this kind of conclusion. Maybe it's a bias that's so pervasive in our culture that we don't even realize it's there.
I feel similarly about being a black guy in the tech industry. It is always the deliberate efforts to "reach out" to minorities that make me feel the most uncomfortable and unwelcome. I have given talks on AWS, Cassandra, Python, and other subjects. You could never get me to talk about "being a minority in tech." Similarly I live in Tokyo and have no interest writing or talking about "being black in Japan."
I respect this person's rationale. I'm thankful to hear her perspective.
I know lots of incredible women in tech doing great things. I assume they and everyone else wakes up each day and has to figure out what challenges they'll be overcoming, and how they will end up spending their one life on this earth.
So this public rejection of gender-specific talks nourishes me, because I am dropping all packets when someone starts to talk about gender or privilege issues.
I feel that enthusiasm for these topics is a tell that the speaker is a narcissist who believes other people exist to either validate their own opinions or serve as an adversary. It is uncompassionate.
I suspect a group of academics organically instrumented a taxonomy that directly mirrors established trolling tactics. They have spent the last 10 years providing gender studies philosophies that are being implemented by graduates- who will now get to discover firsthand whether these ideas are constructive.
Kids now think that disagreement is evidence of cultural misogyny and racism. Well, I disagree, but I'm not going to bother trying to engage with this type of person. Where is your diversity now? How is your behavior going to cultivate the outcome you desire?
It's left me feeling exhausted and repulsed by the topic. I'm wary of some women in tech now because of their enthusiasm for these ideas. It is very frustrating. I'd like to support them, but I also want to lead a happy life. I want positive, encouraging people around me. The privilege crowd just doesn't seem healthy.
This person seems pretty thoughtful. She has nothing to gain from posting something like this. I feel a little less cynical after reading her post.
Very nicely worded sentiments and I think it's a good counter-point, a rational and thought out one, to the knee-jerk habit of having a trend-chasing, "WE CARE!" framing around certain issues. This piece is strong in pointing out that "ISSUE X IN TECH" is not particularly a "tech talk" - it's more in the sociology/humanity side of discussion, right? I like how this tries to make that distinction.
On a personal note, I think I appreciate the article a bit more because I could substitute "handicapped person with condition X" for the same kind of framing that she's discussing. I don't want to be known as X, I want to focus on the subject matter. If I happen to be an inspiration for others in the X group, super, great, blaze a trail and thank me later if you really feel compelled, but that's not the purpose of me pursuing success. It's not "in spite of X" it's just that X is another inconvenience in the way of goals, much like having to pay taxes or empty my cat's litter box, scope and effort aside.
Sandy Metz, of "Practical Object Oriented Design in Ruby" [1] fame made a comment about this on The Bikeshed[2] recently. She stated that she refuses to make reference to gender when she is giving her talks, though her gender is ultimately what got her the opportunity to write a book and talk in the first place.
Ultimately she is regarded as an amazing teacher and a dynamic speaker, not because she is a woman in tech.
I'm glad there actually is a competent woman who can say this out loud. Nowadays it's impossible to say anything against "We need more women in tech" without being called a sexist.
I do realize it is harder for women but the world is not a fair place. Poor people who were born to poor parents are born into an unfair world. A white guy or asian guy who really wants to play basketball in NBA finds himself in an unfair situation. But that's what powers these people. A lot of successful people came from bad background because they grew up being sick of this unfairness and they tried hard to get there.
To use the NBA example, you never see Jeremy Lin or Yaoming giving talks about how "We need more asian basketball players in NBA". They are well aware of how that's how it is, but still managed to succeed by pushing themselves hard.
Again, I do realize it's unfair, but if I were someone in an unfair situation I would spend 100% of my time working hard to overcome it, instead of using my precious time thinking and talking about how my group needs to be more well represented.
Soledad came to my city (Thessaloniki) for a conference a few months ago, and gave a very interesting talk on the new audio/graphics APIs in browsers. It was a great talk, and, I agree with her, much more interesting than "I'm a woman, here's my experience".
I also dislike the mentality this mindset implies that I, as a man, should be surprised that a woman can code, and should therefore ask her about how she managed that feat, as if it's not pretty much exactly the same as how I started.
"It not only is very insulting and distracting, but also pigeonholes you into “talking about being a woman in tech”, instead of “woman who knows her tech”. It feels like, once again, we’re delegating on women and other vulnerable collectives the “caring for others” matters, in addition to their normal job. That is not OK."
Sometimes, identity, gets in the way of things.
Do what you feel comfortable with. Do it for yourself. Don't do it for or because of others. Feel that you want to do it for your sake and for its own sake. Doing something because of agendas, can be good for the group, but, it's less clear it's always good for the individual.
In a nice world, you'd be valued for many things, not just your economic productivity and contribution. And our identifiers would be afterthoughts. But for friends and foes alike, some at least, it's clear identifiers are important and some would want to find leverage and make use of the opportunity. Yet, it's not owed, and it's up to you if you feel comfortable with lending yourself for a cause, as it were.
That said, just do what you like to do, don't explain it as a result of principles, etc. What I mean, our decisions don't have to be internally politically explained, or consistent. Just like liking or not liking broccoli does not have to be internally politicized to like it or not like it (or bacon).
Showing that women have great technical aptitude by giving a legitimately interesting tech talk is much better for the cause of promoting diversity than just talking about being a woman or minority in tech, IMO.
I worked at a large online retailer that catered primarily to women, and internally there was a large push to hire more women. We hired two women on my team. One was fantastic, one was horrible. The fantastic one passed the interview loop without reservation, and would have been hired regardless of her gender. The other did not do as well and multiple people had reservations, but she was hired anyway. She was an immediate burden and terminated after three months.
The first one didn't need any sort of handicap for being a woman -- she was qualified and competent. The other one just didn't belong in this role. But management aimed for diversity over competence, and ended up hurting morale.
Treating people like equals is the best way to achieve equality. Don't insult them, and don't let those who legitimately don't have the skills necessary through because of their identity. Seems pretty common sense to me.
> No! The answer to an all male line-up is not a talk on women on tech by a women. The answer is diverse people in the line-up, talking about tech.
At the last US Pycon, where 40% of the speakers were female, there were a broad range of topics. Several female speakers did speak about "soft" issues like being a woman in tech, but many others also spoke about "hard" purely tech issues. There were also males on both sides of the soft/hard line. You can see the topics here:
I don't think it's a problem to give soft talks, and I think Pycon is doing a great job of increasing diversity. It's not perfect and there's work to be done, but I really don't see soft talks by women as an evil to be avoided. If people want to give soft talks, let them do it.
I 100% agree with this article. Whenever I am invited to talk, I always speak about my work and expertise, as opposed to women in tech stuff, because being there and being good at what I do, is much more effective than statements about diversity (IMHO). The only time I've done women in tech type conversations, it's been in small, intimate settings for an all-female audience. In that scenario, it makes sense to discuss the challenges and learn from each other.
Something similar happens in science too. Anecdotally i watched it happen with my supervisor, as the latest "women in science" wave started about a decade ago. She got a number of administrative positions, which I increasingly felt she got "because she was a woman". That led to her being visibly left behind in her scientific field. It's funny, because she s far from what you would describe as feminist.
Another thing that I feel this "let's talk about women in tech" attitude is causing is causing a negative effect, rather than a good one. An example of this is my (female) friend who rolls her eyes at any mention of "women in tech" and makes jokes about all these online "troll" feminists[1].
We should as a community—like the author herself said—focus more on inspiring women to join the industry; not talk them into it. I think the author's suggestion to have confident women talk about their awesome tech is a great start!
[1]: I am not trying to discredit feminism. We can't deny there are some people who take it too far when they have online discussions; this happens regardless of the topic being discussed.
Well IAWAT (I Am A Woman In Tech) talks can be 1 and 2, they cannot be 3. That would be okay, if they were informative or entertaining, but they so often aren't. Many just quote the same statistics we've heard before, and call for change. There is a reason that I will watch Piotr Szotkowski's "Standard Library, Uncommon Uses," Or Linus Torvalds' talk on Git, or Hilary Mason's opening talk at FutureStack, or absolutely every talk Bryan Cantrill does (even if it IS just to play Bryan Cantrill Bingo), or countless other talks whose names I forget. Because they are informative, they are entertaining, and they are about tech. And male or female, if you give a good talk, I'll listen. If you just want to get on the stage and talk about your gender, then I will be out of your talk faster than an ICMP packet travelling down an empty fiber cable.
Enjoyed 'but also pigeonholes you into “talking about being a woman in tech”, instead of “woman who knows her tech”.'
Subtle difference, I believe that's the purpose of this up and coming podcast show that I've been following [1]. Women having a space to talk about tech instead of talking about how's it like to be a women in tech.
Personal story time...I was at a recent conference, listening to men, women given talks. One of the women, in her talk, uses an interaction with her daughter as the framing narrative for the talk (imagine Socrates and Glaucon, only this woman and her daughter). Almost immediately, three guys to my right start making fun of the speaker, sotto voce, making all manner of little jokes to themselves, that are becoming increasingly gender-specific.
When one of them says loudly enough for me and others to hear, "Your daughter sounds like a real bitch! hur hur", I turned to them and said, "You guys need to knock this off now."
Embarrassed silence. And it stayed that way. Of course, I'm a tall well-built, well-dressed white guy, i.e. all the things that automatically command respect.
The thing is, I don't think those guys were bad people, I don't think they sat there in their minds thinking, "let's tear the woman down". I really don't think they thought about it at all. I also don't think they'd have sat there, chattering away, if a man had used the same framing story (father and son, father and daughter).
I think there's a lot of unconscious, unconsidered, unthoughtful bias that they (and we) all carry around by default, that makes it easy to pick on weaker people if you're going to pick on anyone. And there are a lot fewer women around these tech conferences, and they're used to placating aggressive people, putting up with shit, etc.
I guess, I wish women didn't have to talk about being a woman in tech. I hope they keep doing it, though, until people start thinking about this kind of asinine behavior.
While I can certainly understand where the woman who wrote this article is coming from, I really enjoy hearing and seeing women in tech. I work in tech, albeit peripherally (EA/Admin role at the moment, just getting in the door), and 99% of the time I feel like I've wandered into a men's club. I am treated really well by my male colleagues (I'm lucky enough to work with a group of kind, talented people, though), and generally am treated well by the men I meet at meetups and the SF tech scene, but they don't see me as a threat. I'm not on GitHub responding to code reviews and changing things they've worked on. I'm not competing for their jobs. I have a feeling that the second that happened, a large percentage of the men who are now cordial to me would be less than that.
I guess my point is that though I see why nobody wants to be a token female on a panel, and nobody should be coerced into giving talks they're uncomfortable or unqualified for, as a woman just stepping into the scene, it would be really great to see more women speaking out visibly in the field.
I have a feeling that the second that happened, a large percentage of the men who are now cordial to me would be less than that.
If you expect it, then that's how you'll perceive it. Even if they're just worried about the project quality. They might even be treating you with kid gloves compared to their male colleagues. But if you expect to find it, you'll find it.
[+] [-] someone7x|9 years ago|reply
One was the angular materials talk / demo and it was amazing. The presenter was exuding tech prowess, I was blown away by how easy she made it look to make a dog adoption website. One of the best talks.
The other was by the CEO of girl scouts giving a patronizing 5 minute talk about how we need all help women in tech succeed and change ourselves so the world can change for the better. One of the worst talks.
I had those in mind when I read the article and for that reason I think I can see where she's coming from. When a woman just gives a tech talk, it's just a tech talk incidentally given by a woman. Isn't that the goal? More talks like the first one I described?
[+] [-] goshx|9 years ago|reply
Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRiV_b3WsoY
Very good talk indeed.
[+] [-] jonnybgood|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ionforce|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|9 years ago|reply
One also pointed out to me that if a group of men were to form a men's only business club, that would be seen as sexist. It is no less sexist to form a women's only club, but nobody sees fit to criticize it.
This is not a bias against women in general. They just refuse to deal with people whose identify first as women, and only secondarily as professionals.
[+] [-] junko|9 years ago|reply
But confidence is not like a switch that can be flipped on/off. It might surge, but then it will tail off again. So you need support - not necessarily all the time - that's enough to push you back up in the air. In the classroom, a good mentor will give you that. In an environment that is often perceived by a group of people to be a bit 'scary' - like tech - the occasional empowerment talk will give you that. That's why I don't (well, no longer) see these "women" talks as awkward - on the contrary, they are much needed. You might roll your eyes, but there will be some in the audience feeling just a little less scared about the too-big-for-me ideas in their heads - and so increase the likelihood of executing them.
[+] [-] AngrySkillzz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jordigh|9 years ago|reply
It is not -ist if a disadvantaged group does something to counteract its disadvantage without considering the privileged group. If women are disadvantaged, it is reasonable to do something to fix their disadvantage without having to interject "but what about men!?"
So, for example, Ubuntu/Debian/Arch Women groups are not sexist and we don't need an Ubuntu/Debian/Arch Men group because... well, because that's just what normal Ubuntu/Debian/Arch is, mostly men.
The situation for men and women in tech is not symmetrical, so the approaches to handle the problems need not be symmetrical either.
[+] [-] kaeluka|9 years ago|reply
"would be seen" talks about everyone, and I obviously can't speak for everyone. I'll try to anyway:
A men-only club would be judged differently since men are perceived to be the privileged class -- a concern would be that in this club, unfairly obtained advantages are carried on. A women-only club is much less of an issue, because women are perceived to be disadvantaged as-is. Having them organise in a secret circle won't cause any damage.
Beware: I'm not commenting on how sound this reasoning is, or defending or denying anyone's right to meet non-publicly.
[+] [-] vijayr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fdsaaf|9 years ago|reply
We need to emphasize our common identity as technologists, not atomize ourselves into mutually acrimonious groups based on personal characteristics having nothing to do with technology.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|9 years ago|reply
Forgetting these folks don't have the institutional power to harm others. Forgetting that the rest of the world is a de-facto mens/white/whatever club already. Lets just retreat to the ivory tower.
[+] [-] calibraxis|9 years ago|reply
I advise women who need advice for the specific gender obstacles they must defeat. (Obviously this is a perverse situation and the first order of business is to find women they can speak with. But its not easy to find trailblazing women.) If you face an obstacle, it's irrational to ignore it. You learn, plan and defeat it.
Wanna see a men's only club? We have some at my workplace — management, dev teams, etc. Same with other companies I work with.
Sexism is about a power dynamic: men dominating women. Male supremacy. Since men benefit and perpetuate it more than women, women's only clubs are simple self-defense against a system loaded against them. (In favor of mediocre men.)
BTW, men often reward women who act like "one of the guys" and snipe at other women. Makes men feel better about their prejudices; gives them an example to point to of how proper women should act.
[+] [-] thonos|9 years ago|reply
Most talks were good but a handful were nuggets where clearly the deciding factor why that person got the talk was because she was a woman and not her expertise in the area.
Your typical dose of women who code talks were im there too but one that stood our from the rest was a woman who thought she kept having to tell people things like "use your slackbot to tell people to stop using 'guys' and 'team' instead." or "women need remote work so they can cry silently when their male colleagues steal their ideas".
I am not denying that there are gender issues in tech (though in my career path I have yet to encounter them), but I paid good money out of my own pocket for that conference.
I am not going there to see you speak. I am going there to learn and get value for my money.
[+] [-] wccrawford|9 years ago|reply
My wife does talk about being a woman in tech, but not in conferences. And in general she says, "Whatever, use the term 'guys' if you want. It doesn't matter." She's more worried about people treating her differently (changing their speech patterns when she's around!) than anything else, I think.
The idea that women should work remotely so they can cry if they get upset is... Horrifying. For many reasons.
First, that women should cry if unfair things happen. And that guys shouldn't, or that they don't have a reaction at all. (Hint: They do.)
Would some prefer it? Sure, but so would some guys, for the same reason. And other reasons.
Anyhow, good on Soledad for insisting on talking about the things that she wants to, instead of being pigeon-holed. In the end, I suspect her talks about actual tech are a lot more effective at raising awareness of the women-in-tech issues than talks on the subject itself would be.
[+] [-] kafkaesq|9 years ago|reply
And how did you come to "know" this, exactly? As opposed to merely speculating that that's what the deciding factor was?
Really, now -- please do tell.
[+] [-] grossvogel|9 years ago|reply
Wow, what a coincidence! Every time I'm disappointed by a talk at a conference, I just know intuitively exactly why that person was chosen to present. Until now, I thought I was the only person with that super power.
I'm sorry for being obnoxious, but it's worth thinking about why it's so easy to reach this kind of conclusion. Maybe it's a bias that's so pervasive in our culture that we don't even realize it's there.
[+] [-] renegadesensei|9 years ago|reply
Thoughts from my blog: https://righteousruminations.blogspot.com/2014/11/another-si...
Recent thoughts on tokenism: https://righteousruminations.blogspot.com/2016/07/on-changin...
[+] [-] droopybuns|9 years ago|reply
I know lots of incredible women in tech doing great things. I assume they and everyone else wakes up each day and has to figure out what challenges they'll be overcoming, and how they will end up spending their one life on this earth.
So this public rejection of gender-specific talks nourishes me, because I am dropping all packets when someone starts to talk about gender or privilege issues.
I feel that enthusiasm for these topics is a tell that the speaker is a narcissist who believes other people exist to either validate their own opinions or serve as an adversary. It is uncompassionate.
I suspect a group of academics organically instrumented a taxonomy that directly mirrors established trolling tactics. They have spent the last 10 years providing gender studies philosophies that are being implemented by graduates- who will now get to discover firsthand whether these ideas are constructive.
Kids now think that disagreement is evidence of cultural misogyny and racism. Well, I disagree, but I'm not going to bother trying to engage with this type of person. Where is your diversity now? How is your behavior going to cultivate the outcome you desire?
It's left me feeling exhausted and repulsed by the topic. I'm wary of some women in tech now because of their enthusiasm for these ideas. It is very frustrating. I'd like to support them, but I also want to lead a happy life. I want positive, encouraging people around me. The privilege crowd just doesn't seem healthy.
This person seems pretty thoughtful. She has nothing to gain from posting something like this. I feel a little less cynical after reading her post.
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|9 years ago|reply
On a personal note, I think I appreciate the article a bit more because I could substitute "handicapped person with condition X" for the same kind of framing that she's discussing. I don't want to be known as X, I want to focus on the subject matter. If I happen to be an inspiration for others in the X group, super, great, blaze a trail and thank me later if you really feel compelled, but that's not the purpose of me pursuing success. It's not "in spite of X" it's just that X is another inconvenience in the way of goals, much like having to pay taxes or empty my cat's litter box, scope and effort aside.
[+] [-] pselbert|9 years ago|reply
Ultimately she is regarded as an amazing teacher and a dynamic speaker, not because she is a woman in tech.
[1] http://www.poodr.com/ [2] http://bikeshed.fm/70
[+] [-] jesterman81|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gluelogic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cocktailpeanuts|9 years ago|reply
I do realize it is harder for women but the world is not a fair place. Poor people who were born to poor parents are born into an unfair world. A white guy or asian guy who really wants to play basketball in NBA finds himself in an unfair situation. But that's what powers these people. A lot of successful people came from bad background because they grew up being sick of this unfairness and they tried hard to get there.
To use the NBA example, you never see Jeremy Lin or Yaoming giving talks about how "We need more asian basketball players in NBA". They are well aware of how that's how it is, but still managed to succeed by pushing themselves hard.
Again, I do realize it's unfair, but if I were someone in an unfair situation I would spend 100% of my time working hard to overcome it, instead of using my precious time thinking and talking about how my group needs to be more well represented.
[+] [-] StavrosK|9 years ago|reply
I also dislike the mentality this mindset implies that I, as a man, should be surprised that a woman can code, and should therefore ask her about how she managed that feat, as if it's not pretty much exactly the same as how I started.
[+] [-] mc32|9 years ago|reply
Sometimes, identity, gets in the way of things.
Do what you feel comfortable with. Do it for yourself. Don't do it for or because of others. Feel that you want to do it for your sake and for its own sake. Doing something because of agendas, can be good for the group, but, it's less clear it's always good for the individual.
In a nice world, you'd be valued for many things, not just your economic productivity and contribution. And our identifiers would be afterthoughts. But for friends and foes alike, some at least, it's clear identifiers are important and some would want to find leverage and make use of the opportunity. Yet, it's not owed, and it's up to you if you feel comfortable with lending yourself for a cause, as it were.
That said, just do what you like to do, don't explain it as a result of principles, etc. What I mean, our decisions don't have to be internally politically explained, or consistent. Just like liking or not liking broccoli does not have to be internally politicized to like it or not like it (or bacon).
[+] [-] ap0|9 years ago|reply
I worked at a large online retailer that catered primarily to women, and internally there was a large push to hire more women. We hired two women on my team. One was fantastic, one was horrible. The fantastic one passed the interview loop without reservation, and would have been hired regardless of her gender. The other did not do as well and multiple people had reservations, but she was hired anyway. She was an immediate burden and terminated after three months.
The first one didn't need any sort of handicap for being a woman -- she was qualified and competent. The other one just didn't belong in this role. But management aimed for diversity over competence, and ended up hurting morale.
Treating people like equals is the best way to achieve equality. Don't insult them, and don't let those who legitimately don't have the skills necessary through because of their identity. Seems pretty common sense to me.
[+] [-] jordigh|9 years ago|reply
At the last US Pycon, where 40% of the speakers were female, there were a broad range of topics. Several female speakers did speak about "soft" issues like being a woman in tech, but many others also spoke about "hard" purely tech issues. There were also males on both sides of the soft/hard line. You can see the topics here:
https://us.pycon.org/2016/schedule/talks/
I don't think it's a problem to give soft talks, and I think Pycon is doing a great job of increasing diversity. It's not perfect and there's work to be done, but I really don't see soft talks by women as an evil to be avoided. If people want to give soft talks, let them do it.
[+] [-] pritianka|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] return0|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spoiler|9 years ago|reply
Another thing that I feel this "let's talk about women in tech" attitude is causing is causing a negative effect, rather than a good one. An example of this is my (female) friend who rolls her eyes at any mention of "women in tech" and makes jokes about all these online "troll" feminists[1].
We should as a community—like the author herself said—focus more on inspiring women to join the industry; not talk them into it. I think the author's suggestion to have confident women talk about their awesome tech is a great start!
[1]: I am not trying to discredit feminism. We can't deny there are some people who take it too far when they have online discussions; this happens regardless of the topic being discussed.
[+] [-] qwertyuiop924|9 years ago|reply
These are my metrics for a good tech talk:
1) It is informative
2) It is entertaining
3) It is actually about tech
Well IAWAT (I Am A Woman In Tech) talks can be 1 and 2, they cannot be 3. That would be okay, if they were informative or entertaining, but they so often aren't. Many just quote the same statistics we've heard before, and call for change. There is a reason that I will watch Piotr Szotkowski's "Standard Library, Uncommon Uses," Or Linus Torvalds' talk on Git, or Hilary Mason's opening talk at FutureStack, or absolutely every talk Bryan Cantrill does (even if it IS just to play Bryan Cantrill Bingo), or countless other talks whose names I forget. Because they are informative, they are entertaining, and they are about tech. And male or female, if you give a good talk, I'll listen. If you just want to get on the stage and talk about your gender, then I will be out of your talk faster than an ICMP packet travelling down an empty fiber cable.
[+] [-] jordigh|9 years ago|reply
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Unicorn_Law
[+] [-] lalos|9 years ago|reply
Subtle difference, I believe that's the purpose of this up and coming podcast show that I've been following [1]. Women having a space to talk about tech instead of talking about how's it like to be a women in tech.
[1] https://thewomenintechshow.com
[+] [-] Frondo|9 years ago|reply
When one of them says loudly enough for me and others to hear, "Your daughter sounds like a real bitch! hur hur", I turned to them and said, "You guys need to knock this off now."
Embarrassed silence. And it stayed that way. Of course, I'm a tall well-built, well-dressed white guy, i.e. all the things that automatically command respect.
The thing is, I don't think those guys were bad people, I don't think they sat there in their minds thinking, "let's tear the woman down". I really don't think they thought about it at all. I also don't think they'd have sat there, chattering away, if a man had used the same framing story (father and son, father and daughter).
I think there's a lot of unconscious, unconsidered, unthoughtful bias that they (and we) all carry around by default, that makes it easy to pick on weaker people if you're going to pick on anyone. And there are a lot fewer women around these tech conferences, and they're used to placating aggressive people, putting up with shit, etc.
I guess, I wish women didn't have to talk about being a woman in tech. I hope they keep doing it, though, until people start thinking about this kind of asinine behavior.
[+] [-] 415Kathleem|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgottenpass|9 years ago|reply
If you expect it, then that's how you'll perceive it. Even if they're just worried about the project quality. They might even be treating you with kid gloves compared to their male colleagues. But if you expect to find it, you'll find it.