It is obviously true that the applicant pool for tech jobs is dominated by male candidates.
It is less obvious but equally true that women are mistreated in interviews more often then men are. I did not believe this even a little bit up to 2004. I had, after all, hired women; once, I even hired one as my boss. Then I watched a woman go through a series of tech interviews with other people. Oops.
This person has the same broken mental model that I had: "I'm fair to both women and men, and I get very few women applicants, so the problem must be lower in the stack." There clearly are problems lower in the stack, but that's not all that's wrong.
Perhaps you could expand on how women are mistreated in interviews?
Are you saying that even though you thought you were treating men and women fairly, you were actually mistreating the women you were interviewing? Or are you saying that "other people" mistreat women in interviews - which begs the question how you know that those other people are actually treating women differently than men (they could just be assholes to everyone, I mean).
I don't think I've mistreated anyone in an interview (except that when I started interviewing in the '90s, I treated them as excuses to demonstrate how smart I was, which was a waste of everyone's time).
But, no, when you ask someone whether they're really going to be able to take care of their kids and handle the demands of the job you're interviewing them for, you're clearly not being an equal-opportunity douchebag.
I have many more examples than that, some of them worse, but I'm not going to give you a bulleted list; I expect most people who've known women who've interviewed widely have similar examples.
I'm curious how an interviewer would even know if the woman has kids. I'm a female dev and have never been asked about kids while interviewing, and if I had kids, I certainly wouldn't talk about them on an interview.
Making the assumption that all women will have kids and are mostly likely going to put raising them over their career is incredibly sexist - that goes beyond "not being an equal-opportunity douchebag".. that's like "doesn't understand women and probably has never had a meaningful relationship with one." The woman is best off not working with such an ass imo.
I (male) will sometimes subtly bring it up. It's a bit of a gamble. If the company has a huge problem with the fact I need to occasionally take kids to appointments, etc., then I'd rather not get hired and save the trouble.
Most of the time it's not really a big deal, and sometimes they think it's a big deal when it isn't.
I don't see why putting kids ahead of a career is particularly sexist. My kids certainly are more important than my career. It's of course not generally a black and white issue, though. My kids are not hopelessly abandoned I'd I have a career. My career is not hopelessly stunted if I have kids. Nobody's ever goin ro hold a gun to my head and force me to choose. There's going to be tradeoffs, though--sure.
I get what you're maybe implying about staying home with the kids though. That is closer to a binary decision, an closer to killing the career, and usually done by the wife. In fact, mine did. I would probably be warier about disclosing family status if I were female.
So am I. It's illegal to ask questions about family or marital status to a prospective employee, in the US at least. Your company could be sued for discrimination if you ask those types of questions to candidates.
>I'm curious how an interviewer would even know if the woman has kids.
Perhaps they actually read their CV? There would be some guesswork involved, for sure, but I think that an experienced recruiter could probably spot the signs at interview.
A few things of the top off my head that would help: Most people list marital status on a CV. Hobbies? If they have lots of them then they're not likely looking after kids. Do they travel a lot. Are they the right age? Does their appearance suggest they spend lots on themselves compared to their income? Is their phone smashed up. Are they up on current affairs? Is their any hesitation when you ask if they'll be able to do late shifts or stay late or travel on short notice ... etc., etc..
Yeah, funny that. You could infer one of a couple very bad interview tactics from what I wrote. I feel no need to correct whichever assumption you make.
You clearly have the presence of mind to laugh this off, but my thoughts trend more towards torches and pitchforks.
I don't want to push too hard, but here's two reasons it would be better for you to pull out that list:
The first is that it gives a heads up to the few women here who are just entering the field. It may open up discussions for how to handle such situations when they arise.
The other reason is that not sharing these examples is just as good as saying they never happened. Real concerns become phantom accusations of prejudice against women that don't ever get addressed.
You're right, though I do think a lot of the issue has nothing to do with explicit instances of sexism. A lot of things don't need to be said out loud to have a negative effect on women in the field.
"But, no, when you ask someone whether they're really going to be able to take care of their kids and handle the demands of the job you're interviewing them for, you're clearly not being an equal-opportunity douchebag."
Funny enough, I'm at home right now taking care of the kids/wife because of the latter's massive migraine. This is putting two projects at work behind. So here's an example of a male that could arguably be said to not be "handl[ing] the demands of the job", for a narrow definition. I'm glad to be able to do this, though I know it does have consequences, and it may be seen by people with less family responsibilities as unfair.
Althought it's still way more common for handling "the kids stuff" to be heaped on the wife's shoulders, more and more the men are stepping up.
(notes: 1. assumption of household with married man and woman. I know there are other arrangements. 2. Don't mean to take tptacek's quote out of context--clearly he was disparaging interview questions that are sexist/illegal.)
I remember a few days before the start of my freshman year of high school, I was at the college library making copies of math competition tests so I could start practicing for the upcoming season of competition. While I was there, I saw a girl who was on the math team the year before in junior high, so I told her what I was doing and asked her if she wanted some practice tests. She said, "No," and just walked away, but there was a world in that "No." She was offended. She was insulted. She had been pretty good at the math competitions in junior high, but she quickly fell behind in high school and then quit the math team/club. She did drama and speech instead. She still took honors math classes and aced them, and I even heard she did engineering in college, but she would never admit to actually liking it enough to go beyond what was required by classwork.
Similarly, the girls I met in college who were getting degrees in math and engineering never admitted to having an interest in those subjects beyond doing well in their classes and getting degrees. The two girls in the math program were keen to express their interest in the money they would make as actuaries or what-not. They had to like math, or they never would have chosen to be math majors, but they never showed any sign of it, and (stung by my previous experience) I was scared to even imply that they might.
So yeah, there is a huge fear of nerdiness among women, and I don't think the "nerd chic" thing helps at all. There's no celebration in "nerd chic" culture of honestly frumpy people (there can't be in any "___ chic" culture, "___ chic" will never help anyone who isn't chic) so of all the girls I've known who I suspected of secretly liking math, maybe one of them would have felt at home there.
I went to high school in a small city (large town, really) in a rural area, and I went to college at a non-elite public school (went there for the honors program) so you guys who went the elite route may have seen vastly different things. In terms of numbers, though, I suspect my experience was more representative.
So yeah, there is a huge fear of nerdiness among women
I suppose my only problem with your story (or the conclusions you draw from it, really) is that you could substitute "men" or "boys" or "people" or "high school students" or "college students" for "women" without any real problem. Lots of people are afraid to appear smart in public.
The difference here is probably the degree to which this affects each gender. While no man wants to limit his options in women, being in a relationship probably doesn't define his sense of self-worth the way it does with women. Of course, not all women are this way, but women often sacrifice bits of themselves in the name of love. We are more likely to:
1. Give up time with our friends/hobbies to be completely there for a boyfriend, all the time.
2. Move to a new city to be with a guy (who sometimes isn't even planning to marry us), giving up any career progress made to date.
And that's even before adding a layer of geekiness that I've found acts as man repellent to most "mainstream" male populations. I cannot just go to a party and start talking about how happy I am that Mass Effect 2 is coming to PS3 now that I sold my 360, nor can I go any deeper than "I like computers" with most guys. It's just not all that hot. But the chick who has a fantasy football team (and doesn't know it's filled with D-list players) gets the welcome mat (eta: because sports is accepted in the mainstream).
While no man wants to limit his options in women, being in a relationship probably doesn't define his sense of self-worth the way it does with women.
I don't know if that's true, or if that's an incorrect assumption based on how often we do things that sabotage our chances of being in relationships. I'm thinking of high school, when I obsessed over girls and pretty much did consider myself a worthless failure for not being able to talk to girls and get them to like me, yet behaved in such a way that you would think I was bent on keeping them away from me. A big part of the reason I worked so hard on math and science was that I had a vague but deep-seated conviction that being really good at something would eventually impress some girl and help me get with her. Perhaps that notion is what girls need to be programmed with the way boys are.
Im male. When i first got interested in computers(back when my age was a single digit), i didn't follow role models, i just got drawn to these machines, almost instinctively, and not just computers, cars, electronics, any kind of machines. I had my technical influence of course, my dad knew a lot about machines and electronics, but i think its something a bit deeper. Men have been making tools for hundreds of thousands of years, in my complete lack of experience in genetics, i think its foolish to dismiss genetic factors. Which is not to say that role models and culture have no effect, i just think that it has less of an effect than genes.
Bottom line is that my politically correct(i hope) opinion is that while women positively have the ability do be good developers(physicists, mathematicians, engineers), and even though some of them DO become good, most lack this internal drive(almost an obsession) I've had since before i can remember.
It turns out that in even very young children, adults react subconsciously to the problem-solving behaviors of children. In an observational study adults were very quick to swoop in and help girls out when they couldn't perform a task, while boys were allowed to fail until success.
Of course, dismissing genetic factors outright is just as problematic as creating just-so stories and fitting evidence on them. Alas, the answer is usually more complex.
My point is that there are a lot of subtle cues that pervade our society. Girls know to like pink at ages younger than 3, and yet just over a century ago pink was mostly associated with boys (pink is based on red, a proper manly color). And even well-meaning comp sci folks often subtly make women uncomfortable (feminist theory calls this "othering").
Most men employed as programmers lack that obsession too. HN has lots of people that have loved computers their whole lives, and tech entrepreneurs and companies like Google, Facebook, old-school MSFT are probably loaded with these obsessives, but there are tens of millions of professional programmers out there worldwide. Most of them chose programming as a job because it passed the cost/benefit test vs other fields.
That's why so many Indians (male and female) work as programmers - IT outsourcing jobs in India pay quadruple a normal wage and are more prestigious. In the US, programmers get good but not mind-boggling wage and have very little prestige outside of SV, Seattle, Boston and Austin.
When I got into computers, I didn't realize there COULD be role models for that. I had never heard of any successful programmers. I couldn't name anyone famous for anything related to computers.
That certainly didn't stop me from being interested.
But the lack of role models is the reason I didn't get that job - it was nothing to do with me not working in school.
It was all somebody else's fault - those damn role models.
Oh, that and 'da-man' keeping me down.
Actually the lack of women in tech is probably because they realize earlier than guys that if they do a psychology degree they only have to study 6hours/week and get to be a manager over all the engineer types.
"i didn't follow role models, i just got drawn to these machines, almost instinctively, and not just computers, cars, electronics, any kind of machines."
You may not have had any role models, but as your interest grew, you would have heard the names of people that are doing things (making things you used, big in the industry, etc). If the situation was reversed and you were a girl, I wonder if you'd subconsciously notice that there weren't hearing about any other women, and I wonder if this would subconsciously make it seem like women "weren't allowed."
When i think about it, i did have a role model, his name was Dexter, and he had a secret lab in his bedroom. Although im not sure, i think i liked Decter's lab, because i liked tech, not the other way around. But this is a weak point in my argument, yes.
Your response is so elitist it makes me sick. With admittedly little knowledge of genetics, you are willing to claim genetics as an important factor? Women have also been making tools for hundreds of thousands of years and many women are just as passionate as you. Do you even have
any reason to make such a sexist claim as "most [women] lack this internal drive(almost an obsession) I've had since before I can remember"? Why does it even matter at what age someone first became interested in computers? I didn't know what binary, linux, or programming is until first semester of college. It doesn't matter at all now. Attitudes like yours alienate women who might be interested.
My claim was maid on the only reliable source of information i have: my own experience. Most "interesting" girls i know are extremely passionate, just not about machines, the once that are, see them a bit differently than i do. Call me what ever you like, in the world I've grown up in, boys play with trucks, girls play with dolls. What ever the reason, i don't know, i expressed an opinion, and CLEARLY stated that im no expert on the mater.
Why are there so few male domestic violence shelters?
Boys and Girls are different. They have different goals, risks and pressures. If a certain career path lines up with gender based goals/pressures then people self select into that path.
Bias does exist, but overall the pendulum has swung in favor of women. I'd argue that a woman has a much easier time becoming a programmer, than a man becoming a daycare provider.
The really curious thing is that the first programmers were women. This was back in the ENIAC days, before anyone appreciated how difficult it would be to "program" a general purpose computer, before the word "software" existed, or even before "program" was a verb. The ENIAC designers figured the programming part would be easy.
"I would like to hire more women, but the number of job applications from women were well below 5 percent."
Wait, WHY do you want more women? Are they more skilled somehow? Because if not, that's sexist. You should be hiring the best person for the job, not looking for people that fit a certain concept in your mind.
Stop freaking out. He wasn't suggesting setting up quotas. I read him to mean that he likes the idea of hiring women, which makes sense to me because that's how I feel about it too.
Any time the gender discussion comes up, a bunch of people suck all the air out of the conversation by burning straw men. Here, let me head some of them off: it's not your fault there aren't many women in tech; no, we shouldn't give less qualified people jobs; yes, there clearly are fewer women then men going to school for engineering and CS.
I'm a female dev who has mostly worked in male-dominated teams. I'm currently working in a female-dominated team. The differences are extreme, with the largest being that the mostly-female team has a really difficult time taking criticism and giving criticism (saying 'no' to bad ideas). They're too optimistic and not realistic enough IMO. But what do I know, I'm just the dev! :\
I'm not surprised that giving criticism is harder, since women are socialized to give feedback indirectly, through body language and other social signs, and even when speaking about a problem not to do so plainly. Simply saying what you think is treated as a "masculine" trait. I imagine the ways of communicating that are treated as appropriately "feminine" are much less effective in a technical context.
Do you consciously model ways to give criticism that your female coworkers will feel comfortable with? Does it help them open up and criticize each other? What works? (This is a subject I have an interest in in a personal context as well, since I sometimes get baffled and frustrated by indirect communication and would like to be better at coaxing women to be more direct, which is hard if the relationship isn't already close.)
Also, I'm surprised that women have a hard time taking criticism. I didn't expect that at all. Can you say more?
Both genders bring different experiences and perspectives to problem solving.
Also having a mix of genders in an office in my experience leads the natural cliques that form in any office to be more interdependent. I'm not a sociologist or claim I can explain it but that has been my experience in working in almost purely female or male environments and working in mixed environments.
Having someone in the extreme minority will always make them feel like an outsider.
If you are problem solving in a domain where gendered perspectives are irrelevant [1], would you then agree there is little value to having diversity?
As for cliques, I don't have much experience with them. Within university departments, I only observed three particular flavors of clique: domain specific (math/physics, number theory), chinese, and women. I suppose you are right - the woman clique did have women from multiple domains in it.
As for being in the minority, I don't agree with you there. In all walks of my daily life, I am an extreme (racial) minority. In the past month or two, excluding family, I've had a conversation with perhaps 2-3 people of the same race as me. It isn't an issue at all - right now, I feel like less of an outsider than during past periods where I dealt with lots of people like me.
[1] Examples would include every field I've ever worked in: trading stocks, medical imaging, quantum physics.
I would say getting perspectives from different people is never irrelevant. So no I would not argue against diversity even in those cases you listed.
It is possible you just didn't recognize the cliques. They aren't always super obvious even when they are prevalent.
I like racial minorities in the workplace are a different concern than gender minorities. Mindless discrimination based on race is very much noticed and looked down on these days. I wouldn't say its the same about gender. If all your co-workers always forgot to invite you to lunch or assumed you wouldn't want to do what they do because of your race you would be right to compare.
Now you are begging the question. How is a woman's perspective different from a man's perspective on Fourier analysis, scaling a database or technical analysis of stocks?
Not just that, but a mix of genders, ethnic backgrounds, etc.
Diversity is good. It also prevents the office from becoming a chauvinistic sausagefest, where people all of a sudden feel like it's ok to make inappropriate jokes because they're surrounded by guys.
, personally, would like to hire more women. At least that way I wouldn't be tarred by the same brush as those who really do discriminate.
Unfortunately I also get a disproportionate amount of resumes skewed male, sheer statistics are going to say I'm going to hire more men. And I'm still going to feel like I'm the asshole when these "not enough women in tech" posts come around.
It is less obvious but equally true that women are mistreated in interviews more often then men are. I did not believe this even a little bit up to 2004. I had, after all, hired women; once, I even hired one as my boss. Then I watched a woman go through a series of tech interviews with other people. Oops.
This person has the same broken mental model that I had: "I'm fair to both women and men, and I get very few women applicants, so the problem must be lower in the stack." There clearly are problems lower in the stack, but that's not all that's wrong.