New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene(railsbridgeboston.org)
railsbridgeboston.org
New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene
http://www.railsbridgeboston.org/blog/2012_aug_recap
51 comments
I don't understand why the gender of a programmer is relevant to anything. You are concerned that there are no enough women. Why? Why do you want more women? Why is the particular sexual organs that someone has of interest to you?
Well, I could talk about social justice and basic fairness, but the tone of your question implies that you don't see it that way. So instead, let's look at the question from a coldly calculating point of view.
Let's say I have a open source project, and it's got 100 contributors (or community members, users, whatever -- the it's all the same). If my project follows today's averages, that group will be on the order of 98 men and 2 women. Let's say we work to increase our diversity such that now 50% of our community are women. How big is the community now?
That's right -- 200 people. It's not like adding 50% women removes 50% men... if we increase the number of women in our community, we increase the number of people. Now I've got twice as many contributors, twice as many users, twice as much activity, etc. Open source projects live and die on the strength of their communities. Increasing diversity is often actually the easiest way to increase membership, full stop.
[Now, in practice, I work on diversity because I care about basic fairness. But the point is that even if you don't give a shit about those sorts of ideals, there are still coldly calculating economy-of-scale arguments for why diversity is important.]
Let's say I have a open source project, and it's got 100 contributors (or community members, users, whatever -- the it's all the same). If my project follows today's averages, that group will be on the order of 98 men and 2 women. Let's say we work to increase our diversity such that now 50% of our community are women. How big is the community now?
That's right -- 200 people. It's not like adding 50% women removes 50% men... if we increase the number of women in our community, we increase the number of people. Now I've got twice as many contributors, twice as many users, twice as much activity, etc. Open source projects live and die on the strength of their communities. Increasing diversity is often actually the easiest way to increase membership, full stop.
[Now, in practice, I work on diversity because I care about basic fairness. But the point is that even if you don't give a shit about those sorts of ideals, there are still coldly calculating economy-of-scale arguments for why diversity is important.]
Now, in practice, I work on diversity because I care about basic fairness.
Get down from the ivory tower please. Where do you get off saying that he doesn't believe in fairness? In fact, the original commenter could be seen as being more fair by simply stating that gender shouldn't matter.
At the same time, you're looking at one statistic. The race or religion of project contributors could be looked at, but they aren't because IT IS NOT IMPORTANT. Just to counter any downvotes, when I say it isn't important, I mean the gender debate, not women in general. For some reason, this topic has been rehashed so many times on HN and each time someone tries to look at the argument from a gender-less perspective, people like you -- jacobian -- jump out from the bushes to make statements, charging dissenters with misogyny.
Projects can maintain fairness without specifically targeting a demographic, they need only be open to everyone and never turn someone down simply because of an attribute they cannot change [gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, height, etc].
Get down from the ivory tower please. Where do you get off saying that he doesn't believe in fairness? In fact, the original commenter could be seen as being more fair by simply stating that gender shouldn't matter.
At the same time, you're looking at one statistic. The race or religion of project contributors could be looked at, but they aren't because IT IS NOT IMPORTANT. Just to counter any downvotes, when I say it isn't important, I mean the gender debate, not women in general. For some reason, this topic has been rehashed so many times on HN and each time someone tries to look at the argument from a gender-less perspective, people like you -- jacobian -- jump out from the bushes to make statements, charging dissenters with misogyny.
Projects can maintain fairness without specifically targeting a demographic, they need only be open to everyone and never turn someone down simply because of an attribute they cannot change [gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, height, etc].
> In fact, the original commenter could be seen as being more fair by simply stating that gender shouldn't matter.
We don't live in a vacuum, so even if we feel that gender shouldn't matter it already does in fundamental ways.
> At the same time, you're looking at one statistic. The race or religion of project contributors could be looked at, but they aren't because IT IS NOT IMPORTANT.
Actually this is really important. If projects are systematically excluding people of certain races or religions, we have a discrimination problem.
> For some reason, this topic has been rehashed so many times on HN and each time someone tries to look at the argument from a gender-less perspective, people like you -- jacobian -- jump out from the bushes to make statements, charging dissenters with misogyny.
Nobody called anyone a misogynist in this discussion.
> Projects can maintain fairness without specifically targeting a demographic, they need only be open to everyone and never turn someone down simply because of an attribute they cannot change [gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, height, etc].
This is absolutely true. However, why there aren't more women in tech isn't just about project maintainers. Women in general are not going into or are finding spaces in which they can participate as developers and programmers. This is the whole point of this particular RailsBridge workshop.
We don't live in a vacuum, so even if we feel that gender shouldn't matter it already does in fundamental ways.
> At the same time, you're looking at one statistic. The race or religion of project contributors could be looked at, but they aren't because IT IS NOT IMPORTANT.
Actually this is really important. If projects are systematically excluding people of certain races or religions, we have a discrimination problem.
> For some reason, this topic has been rehashed so many times on HN and each time someone tries to look at the argument from a gender-less perspective, people like you -- jacobian -- jump out from the bushes to make statements, charging dissenters with misogyny.
Nobody called anyone a misogynist in this discussion.
> Projects can maintain fairness without specifically targeting a demographic, they need only be open to everyone and never turn someone down simply because of an attribute they cannot change [gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, height, etc].
This is absolutely true. However, why there aren't more women in tech isn't just about project maintainers. Women in general are not going into or are finding spaces in which they can participate as developers and programmers. This is the whole point of this particular RailsBridge workshop.
All valid points. I appreciate the response.
This is a minor nitpick, but I'll bite. I realize nobody explicitly called anyone a mysogynist, but neither did I. There is a difference between saying someone is mysogynist the adjective and mysogyny the noun. jacobian inferred that because the OP doesn't care about diversity then he doesn't care about fairness. That is tantamount to charging someone with sexual discrimination, also known as mysogyny.
[Edit: I upvoted king_jester because, regardless of whether I agree with him on all points, his reply was concise, helpful and he wasn't being a dick]
This is a minor nitpick, but I'll bite. I realize nobody explicitly called anyone a mysogynist, but neither did I. There is a difference between saying someone is mysogynist the adjective and mysogyny the noun. jacobian inferred that because the OP doesn't care about diversity then he doesn't care about fairness. That is tantamount to charging someone with sexual discrimination, also known as mysogyny.
[Edit: I upvoted king_jester because, regardless of whether I agree with him on all points, his reply was concise, helpful and he wasn't being a dick]
> jacobian inferred that because the OP doesn't care about diversity then he doesn't care about fairness. That is tantamount to charging someone with sexual discrimination, also known as mysogyny.
Really it's not. There's a big difference between active discrimination and just not caring. I said that my guess is that icedancer doesn't see lack of diversity as a moral problem, not that s/he is a engaging in discrimination. Accusing me of "jumping out of the bushes" to "attack dissenters" is really unfair. Look, I appreciate that some people don't see lack gender diversity as a problem. I disagree, but I'm never going to convince those people to see the issue in my terms. I hope you'll re-read my comment and try to assume just a tiny bit of good faith on my part.
Really it's not. There's a big difference between active discrimination and just not caring. I said that my guess is that icedancer doesn't see lack of diversity as a moral problem, not that s/he is a engaging in discrimination. Accusing me of "jumping out of the bushes" to "attack dissenters" is really unfair. Look, I appreciate that some people don't see lack gender diversity as a problem. I disagree, but I'm never going to convince those people to see the issue in my terms. I hope you'll re-read my comment and try to assume just a tiny bit of good faith on my part.
> they need only be open to everyone
The word "only" makes this sentence completely wrong.
In startup terms it's like saying that to make a successful product you need only make something useful and put up a web page offering it for sale. It would be great if it was that simple!
The word "only" makes this sentence completely wrong.
In startup terms it's like saying that to make a successful product you need only make something useful and put up a web page offering it for sale. It would be great if it was that simple!
This kind of reply is the shit people are lamenting about as a decline in the HN comments. If you cherry-pick sentences out of context, then of course you can make a valid point and invalidate mine.
To show context, my entire sentence was: Projects can maintain fairness without specifically targeting a demographic, they need only be open to everyone and never turn someone down simply because of an attribute they cannot change [gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, height, etc].
So by "only" being open to everyone, I assert that projects can maintain fairness. How is this incorrect? I never said the project would be successful, you falsely added that using your metaphor. Is there some other magic bullet for making a project fair? Do we need to inject some discrimination and close-mindedness into it?
To show context, my entire sentence was: Projects can maintain fairness without specifically targeting a demographic, they need only be open to everyone and never turn someone down simply because of an attribute they cannot change [gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, height, etc].
So by "only" being open to everyone, I assert that projects can maintain fairness. How is this incorrect? I never said the project would be successful, you falsely added that using your metaphor. Is there some other magic bullet for making a project fair? Do we need to inject some discrimination and close-mindedness into it?
I never said anything about success.
We don't need to inject discrimination and close-mindedness, but we do need to counteract it. That means we can't just passively "be open".
We don't need to inject discrimination and close-mindedness, but we do need to counteract it. That means we can't just passively "be open".
> [...] charging dissenters with misogyny.
Where, exactly, did I do that?
Where, exactly, did I do that?
Kudos to you for the honest attempt to reframe, but I think you're just using circular logic.
In effect, you're saying "If we could get twice as many people, then we would have twice as many people".
In reality, there is some reason why women don't want to be programmers. Therefore, it follows that per capita, it's going to be harder to bring women into the fold.
To use your example, if you really wanted to increase your contributors to your open source project, you would be much better served to use your limited capital to attract men who are already predisposed to your project but unaware of it rather than women who are both unaware of it and predisposed against it.
In effect, you're saying "If we could get twice as many people, then we would have twice as many people".
In reality, there is some reason why women don't want to be programmers. Therefore, it follows that per capita, it's going to be harder to bring women into the fold.
To use your example, if you really wanted to increase your contributors to your open source project, you would be much better served to use your limited capital to attract men who are already predisposed to your project but unaware of it rather than women who are both unaware of it and predisposed against it.
> In effect, you're saying "If we could get twice as many people, then we would have twice as many people".
Sorry, I must have not been clear: my point is that if we have twice as many people, then we get twice as much work done, move twice as quickly, etc. Django has about 30 committers, and among us we seem to be able to commit about 10-15 times per day. If we had 60 committers, I'd guess we'd be able to commit about 30 things per day. That's more bugs fixed, more features added, faster velocity between releases, etc. These are things I want.
> In reality, there is some reason why women don't want to be programmers.
I agree. I suggest that it's because women are systematically being discouraged from joining our communities. I think they's plenty of data to back this up.
BTW, it's not programming as a whole; the problem's even worse in open source communities. Women make up roughly 20% of the workforce in technical professions, but only about 2% of open source developers. Even if you believe there's something in that second X chromosome that disinclines women from tech — and for the record I certainly don't buy that argument — that can't explain why the problems ten times worse in open source.
> you would be much better served to use your limited capital to attract men who are already predisposed to your project but unaware of it rather than women who are both unaware of it and predisposed against it.
How about people who are aware and are predisposed, but have historically been discouraged or outright prevented from getting involved?
And look, this isn't a zero-sum game. I can do this and other things too! A lot of the resistance to diversity seems to imply that these efforts somehow detract from other forms of community outreach, but this just isn't true. We are in fact capable of doing multiple things at once.
Sorry, I must have not been clear: my point is that if we have twice as many people, then we get twice as much work done, move twice as quickly, etc. Django has about 30 committers, and among us we seem to be able to commit about 10-15 times per day. If we had 60 committers, I'd guess we'd be able to commit about 30 things per day. That's more bugs fixed, more features added, faster velocity between releases, etc. These are things I want.
> In reality, there is some reason why women don't want to be programmers.
I agree. I suggest that it's because women are systematically being discouraged from joining our communities. I think they's plenty of data to back this up.
BTW, it's not programming as a whole; the problem's even worse in open source communities. Women make up roughly 20% of the workforce in technical professions, but only about 2% of open source developers. Even if you believe there's something in that second X chromosome that disinclines women from tech — and for the record I certainly don't buy that argument — that can't explain why the problems ten times worse in open source.
> you would be much better served to use your limited capital to attract men who are already predisposed to your project but unaware of it rather than women who are both unaware of it and predisposed against it.
How about people who are aware and are predisposed, but have historically been discouraged or outright prevented from getting involved?
And look, this isn't a zero-sum game. I can do this and other things too! A lot of the resistance to diversity seems to imply that these efforts somehow detract from other forms of community outreach, but this just isn't true. We are in fact capable of doing multiple things at once.
> only about 2% of open source developers
I am guessing, but could the part time nature of most of open source jobs be a reason for this as well? More conservative/sexist societies generally assign the role of managing home to the female in a family, even if she is a working woman. So while the males have the time and freedom to go for hobby/low-returns open source projects, the females might be left with the responsibility of taking care of the children. I am from an eastern culture and this is definitely something I could see happening here, I am curious if similar conditions exists in western cultures.
I am guessing, but could the part time nature of most of open source jobs be a reason for this as well? More conservative/sexist societies generally assign the role of managing home to the female in a family, even if she is a working woman. So while the males have the time and freedom to go for hobby/low-returns open source projects, the females might be left with the responsibility of taking care of the children. I am from an eastern culture and this is definitely something I could see happening here, I am curious if similar conditions exists in western cultures.
> Therefore, it follows that per capita, it's going to be harder to bring women into the fold.
That doesn't follow at all. It could be that the industry has some kind of blind spot that could be easily addressed by e.g. encouraging and welcoming people who are interested but generally left out.
That doesn't follow at all. It could be that the industry has some kind of blind spot that could be easily addressed by e.g. encouraging and welcoming people who are interested but generally left out.
I think that's totally illogical. How many members of your community are gay? Have red hair? Are left handed. You have no idea, and you wouldn't recruit based on those characteristics. So why recruit based on gender?
> How many members of your community are gay? Have red hair? Are left handed.
The data I've seen suggests that the penetration of these minorities in technology closely tracks their representation in society as a whole. Further, there isn't a history of discrimination against redheads and lefties in open source. Discrimination against gay people is a real problem, though it doesn't seem to have prevented equivalent representation of gay people in tech.
But you could make a similar argument about representation of other minorities -- African Americans, say, or Hispanics, or whatever. And it's true, that's a problem too; we should be working towards diversity of all sorts. It's true that I'm focusing my attention of gender diversity, but I'd love to learn more about efforts towards diversity along other axes. Have any pointers?
The data I've seen suggests that the penetration of these minorities in technology closely tracks their representation in society as a whole. Further, there isn't a history of discrimination against redheads and lefties in open source. Discrimination against gay people is a real problem, though it doesn't seem to have prevented equivalent representation of gay people in tech.
But you could make a similar argument about representation of other minorities -- African Americans, say, or Hispanics, or whatever. And it's true, that's a problem too; we should be working towards diversity of all sorts. It's true that I'm focusing my attention of gender diversity, but I'd love to learn more about efforts towards diversity along other axes. Have any pointers?
The problem is - should we follow this argument all the way? Do you precisely work out the proportion of people of every conceivable group in every team, and cause a fuss when it isn't right? If you don't, what is the reason for that? Why worry about some groups, but not others.
I genuinely think the main reason that people worry about gender, over any other groups, is that it's normally so clear what group people are a member of. And that's not a sound reason to do anything.
I also genuinely think that some men cause a fuss about proportion of women in tech groups, simply because they'd like to meet and be able to hit on more women.
I genuinely think the main reason that people worry about gender, over any other groups, is that it's normally so clear what group people are a member of. And that's not a sound reason to do anything.
I also genuinely think that some men cause a fuss about proportion of women in tech groups, simply because they'd like to meet and be able to hit on more women.
We don't cause a fuss just when the proportion is not exactly right. We cause a fuss when the proportion is way out of whack and obviously wrong. When like less than 3 percent of Boston Ruby programmers are women, something is blatantly wrong. There are probably more factors at work than mere spontaneous career preference that are causing this seriously skewed distribution.
This is not just an abstract inconvenience either. Whenever you are part of a historically marginalized minority -- whether by color, gender, or nationality -- it will likely be more uncomfortable for you to enter fields where you are the only person from your group. This is particularly true for women.
Not only are sexist comments more likely when there are not a lot of women at events (see http://www.ultrasaurus.com/sarahblog/2009/04/gender-and-sex-...), the women will also likely feel more uncomfortable because of the disproportion. Let me quote a posting on our outreach mailing list thread from a woman to elaborate:
"I have definitely never experienced anything threatening or offensive at a Ruby group meeting. But, you show up at an event where there are 50 men or more to 3 women, and you grow to expect some double-takes. Some women, like me, are okay with that. A lot aren't. And it makes it hard to show up alone or when you don't know anyone if you know you're going to stick out like a sore thumb. A man can show up at boston.rb for the first time and not have anyone pay the least attention. A woman cannot.
"There's some critical mass that needs to be reached before that's not true anymore, and it's just hard work to get there. There needs to be enough women who don't care if they stick out, so the women who do care don't stick out so much. And you need to make plans to meet the women you know there, so they already know someone. That could be a component of any project night, outreach, or mentorship effort -- encouraging people to come to the meetings, and affirmatively planning to meet them there."
I hope these points carry at least a little weight for you. Thank you for raising the challenge.
This is not just an abstract inconvenience either. Whenever you are part of a historically marginalized minority -- whether by color, gender, or nationality -- it will likely be more uncomfortable for you to enter fields where you are the only person from your group. This is particularly true for women.
Not only are sexist comments more likely when there are not a lot of women at events (see http://www.ultrasaurus.com/sarahblog/2009/04/gender-and-sex-...), the women will also likely feel more uncomfortable because of the disproportion. Let me quote a posting on our outreach mailing list thread from a woman to elaborate:
"I have definitely never experienced anything threatening or offensive at a Ruby group meeting. But, you show up at an event where there are 50 men or more to 3 women, and you grow to expect some double-takes. Some women, like me, are okay with that. A lot aren't. And it makes it hard to show up alone or when you don't know anyone if you know you're going to stick out like a sore thumb. A man can show up at boston.rb for the first time and not have anyone pay the least attention. A woman cannot.
"There's some critical mass that needs to be reached before that's not true anymore, and it's just hard work to get there. There needs to be enough women who don't care if they stick out, so the women who do care don't stick out so much. And you need to make plans to meet the women you know there, so they already know someone. That could be a component of any project night, outreach, or mentorship effort -- encouraging people to come to the meetings, and affirmatively planning to meet them there."
I hope these points carry at least a little weight for you. Thank you for raising the challenge.
I wish you wouldn't disparage outreach efforts as "causing a fuss." It's patronizing, insulting, and it badly mischaracterizes efforts like the one that kicked off this thread.
I see it like this: lack of diversity is a bug on our community. I'd like to fix it, so I work on fixing these bugs. Right now, the information I have available tells me that gender diversity is the worst of the bugs under the "diversity" label, and it's also one I think I have the skills to tackle. This doesn't mean that other bugs are less important, or less worth solving. I happen to believe that this bug is the one that's most worth my time to tackle.
Yes, I do see lack of diversity -- in all forms -- as an issue in our community. There are other minorities besides women that're systematically discouraged from entering tech; we should do something about that. Hopefully our fix for the gender bugs can be abstracted and applied in other areas.
I see it like this: lack of diversity is a bug on our community. I'd like to fix it, so I work on fixing these bugs. Right now, the information I have available tells me that gender diversity is the worst of the bugs under the "diversity" label, and it's also one I think I have the skills to tackle. This doesn't mean that other bugs are less important, or less worth solving. I happen to believe that this bug is the one that's most worth my time to tackle.
Yes, I do see lack of diversity -- in all forms -- as an issue in our community. There are other minorities besides women that're systematically discouraged from entering tech; we should do something about that. Hopefully our fix for the gender bugs can be abstracted and applied in other areas.
Should we allow male only events?
Yes, we should allow male only events.
Why not?
Or do you mean should we prevent women turning up? No we should not allow events that prevent women turning up. But if an event happens to have no women turn up, then so the fuck what?
Are you going to challenge woman-kind why they aren't going? Why would one woman know why every other woman didn't want to attend?
Why not?
Or do you mean should we prevent women turning up? No we should not allow events that prevent women turning up. But if an event happens to have no women turn up, then so the fuck what?
Are you going to challenge woman-kind why they aren't going? Why would one woman know why every other woman didn't want to attend?
I just don't understand why there should be female only events. It should be a beginners class, regardless of sex.
Making divides just feels odd
Making divides just feels odd
During many debates about gender (or race or sexuality etc.) in a group that lacks a lot of diversity, someone will come along and try to claim the high horse by claiming to be less sexist (etc.) because there don't care about gender, with the imitation that if you want equality, we should not focus on any group.
We do not live in that utopia yet. At the moment women in tech and men in knitting circles need more help (seriously I (a cis male) went to a local craft night and felt out of place). We should focus on people who need help. If people need more medical help (i.e. are sick), we give them more medial help than healthy people. Same with gender & tech.
We do not live in that utopia yet. At the moment women in tech and men in knitting circles need more help (seriously I (a cis male) went to a local craft night and felt out of place). We should focus on people who need help. If people need more medical help (i.e. are sick), we give them more medial help than healthy people. Same with gender & tech.
Diversity does have concrete benefits that stem from a solid theoretical underpinning (comparative advantage). If everyone in programming has the same utility curve, then certain tasks or areas will always be "expensive". By introducing more diversity (gender being a large source of this), the production possibilities curve expands since more trade can occur and thus enable more specialization. Usability and design are areas where gender diversity could play a big role; there is no doubt in my mind that men and women perceive things differently when it comes to interaction logic and visuals.
Diversity is generally good for the industry. There have been many studies showing that diversity improves teams on a variety of different dimensions. Increasing interest from underrepresented groups can help increase the number of available programmers (there's only so many white men in the world with the skills and interests necessary to be a programmer). Diversity also makes a lot of sense for meeting the needs of the consumer population, which is incredibly diverse.
Sexual organs != gender. Gender is relevant because of the micro- and macro-level issues the programming community has in regards to letting women be a part of that community. That you get defensive when someone does good work to try and help women be a part of the programming community speaks a lot as to why women don't feel that many spaces are not safe for them in tech.
I get defensive, if you want to call it that, because I think any attempt to specially encourage one involuntary group is patronising. If a individual woman doesn't want to attend then that's her business. You can't ask woman-kind why none of their group aren't attending because she has nothing to do with the rest of her group.
It's also the grouping that confuses me. You want more women in the community, and so you are encouraging someone to join your community based on an entirely irrelevant property. You only want them because of their gender. You look at them, and see a woman - just that one property. It's objectification, de-humanisation.
It's also the grouping that confuses me. You want more women in the community, and so you are encouraging someone to join your community based on an entirely irrelevant property. You only want them because of their gender. You look at them, and see a woman - just that one property. It's objectification, de-humanisation.
> I get defensive, if you want to call it that, because I think any attempt to specially encourage one involuntary group is patronising.
If anything this RailsBridge workshop shows that there are woman who are voluntarily interested and want resources like this workshop, so this is definitely not involuntary.
> You can't ask woman-kind why none of their group aren't attending because she has nothing to do with the rest of her group.
We aren't asking individual women to speak for all women, that would be silly. However, when women share their experiences in tech or attend events like this, we get reactions like yours where women are challenged and questioned for seeking knowledge in the first place. Instead of attacking women when they participate in tech circles, try listening and stepping back.
> It's also the grouping that confuses me. You want more women in the community, and so you are encouraging someone to join your community based on an entirely irrelevant property. You only want them because of their gender. You look at them, and see a woman - just that one property. It's objectification, de-humanisation.
So treating women like human beings with genuine interests and struggles and listening to what they have to say and offering resources for them when they are under served in tech is objectifying and dehumanizing?
Let's clear something up: women in tech are actively discouraged from existing in those circles in a variety of micro- and macro-level ways. I do not see women as just women, but I do not deny that being a woman is part of their experience and it shapes their life in a way I cannot experience since I am not a woman. Nobody should be excluded from programming and tech because of their gender, but pretending that men and women are on an equal playing field in terms of treatment and opportunity is ludicrous.
If anything this RailsBridge workshop shows that there are woman who are voluntarily interested and want resources like this workshop, so this is definitely not involuntary.
> You can't ask woman-kind why none of their group aren't attending because she has nothing to do with the rest of her group.
We aren't asking individual women to speak for all women, that would be silly. However, when women share their experiences in tech or attend events like this, we get reactions like yours where women are challenged and questioned for seeking knowledge in the first place. Instead of attacking women when they participate in tech circles, try listening and stepping back.
> It's also the grouping that confuses me. You want more women in the community, and so you are encouraging someone to join your community based on an entirely irrelevant property. You only want them because of their gender. You look at them, and see a woman - just that one property. It's objectification, de-humanisation.
So treating women like human beings with genuine interests and struggles and listening to what they have to say and offering resources for them when they are under served in tech is objectifying and dehumanizing?
Let's clear something up: women in tech are actively discouraged from existing in those circles in a variety of micro- and macro-level ways. I do not see women as just women, but I do not deny that being a woman is part of their experience and it shapes their life in a way I cannot experience since I am not a woman. Nobody should be excluded from programming and tech because of their gender, but pretending that men and women are on an equal playing field in terms of treatment and opportunity is ludicrous.
"reactions like yours where women are challenged and questioned for seeking knowledge in the first place"
No, come on, that's grossly unfair.
I would never challenge or question a woman for seeking knowledge. I would never treat a woman any differently. You're implying that I'm doing something objectionable like those who grope or make sexist jokes.
I'm saying that I'm not interested in anyone's gender, and I don't think it should be a property of interest to anyone except for dating.
I think that saying "hey! you're a woman! this special event is just for you! there's the main event as well, which we'd love you to come to, but there's also this special one just for you" is offensive.
Perhaps I've missed some part of the community, or I don't attend the right (wrong?) conferences, but I've never seen anything that discourages women. The only possibility is that they see an existing low proportion of women and then conclude it's not for them. Well that's their loss and their prejudice.
No, come on, that's grossly unfair.
I would never challenge or question a woman for seeking knowledge. I would never treat a woman any differently. You're implying that I'm doing something objectionable like those who grope or make sexist jokes.
I'm saying that I'm not interested in anyone's gender, and I don't think it should be a property of interest to anyone except for dating.
I think that saying "hey! you're a woman! this special event is just for you! there's the main event as well, which we'd love you to come to, but there's also this special one just for you" is offensive.
Perhaps I've missed some part of the community, or I don't attend the right (wrong?) conferences, but I've never seen anything that discourages women. The only possibility is that they see an existing low proportion of women and then conclude it's not for them. Well that's their loss and their prejudice.
> [...] I've never seen anything that discourages women.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents
> she has nothing to do with the rest of her group.
You're wrong. There are lots of things that women experience that men do not (and vice-versa).
You're wrong. There are lots of things that women experience that men do not (and vice-versa).
Why?
Good software involves good design (both for UX / code), good design requires empathy, and without women in the industry you are loosing out on the diversity, design and empathy that women can bring to the table.
That is "why" I think there should be more women in the industry.
Good software involves good design (both for UX / code), good design requires empathy, and without women in the industry you are loosing out on the diversity, design and empathy that women can bring to the table.
That is "why" I think there should be more women in the industry.
Careful, that's incredibly sexist.
Good design requires good design skills. 'nuff said. One could say that good design requires eyesight, but even blind people have been shown to be exceptionally bright at making beautiful things. Why is this? Because it is about passion and effort to build those skills, not because one happens to lack a Y chromosome.
Men are able to show empathy as well. There are a great number of chefs, layout artists, fashion designers, and hairstylists who have a knack for design and would disagree with you.
Good design requires good design skills. 'nuff said. One could say that good design requires eyesight, but even blind people have been shown to be exceptionally bright at making beautiful things. Why is this? Because it is about passion and effort to build those skills, not because one happens to lack a Y chromosome.
Men are able to show empathy as well. There are a great number of chefs, layout artists, fashion designers, and hairstylists who have a knack for design and would disagree with you.
I agree with typicalrunt entirely - its not that men are not incapable of design/ empathy, its the lost of opportunity of not having including women who are equally able
This is an important effort with a powerful effect on the Boston tech scene. This and similar outreach efforts (like the Python workshops) have increased diversity not just in the Python and Ruby groups, but more broadly in all tech groups. This was most noticeable at BarCamp Boston 2012, which had a lot more women participants than the previous 6 years. It's great to know that the tech community can be welcoming to all sorts of people.
Boston Python really led on the diversity outreach front in 2012, and now we (the Boston Ruby community) are very gratefully following their lead. Boston Python is so awesome.
RailsBridge started its open workshop project in mid-2009 with curriculum and processes that are open source and can be used by anyone to teach any group.
Sarah Mei and I felt that we could change the ratio simply by teaching more women Ruby on Rails, we would have more women in our community, and we were right.
We agreed to make our first workshop open to people with any level of programming experience. (Men could come if they participated in the outreach and found a woman to sign up.)
We thought it would be hard to find women to attend our first workshop. We brainstormed for weeks about how to connect to various women's groups and corporate organizations. Then after two tweets and and one email, we had a waiting list in less than 24 hours. Over the last 3 years the pattern repeats itself, no matter where we have workshops, we consistently have waiting lists of women who want to attend. In SF, we have workshops every month, and routinely have 60 people (mostly women) on the waitlist.
Women do want to write code. We usually have 20% who have never coded before, but typically 50-70% self-identify as non-programmers. Are you a programmer if you just write SQL? does bash count as programming for a sys admin? does it could if you did COBOL 20 years ago, but you can't do any of the modern stuff? maybe you got a CS degree, but have never done more than a toy app? From a teaching perspective, if you answered yes to any of those questions, you are way ahead of the total beginners -- you understand variables and expressing logic in words and symbols.
We have diversity issues in tech, and it isn't just about gender and race. I believe those are just the most visible outward symptom of a problem where we have fairly homogeneous work and communication styles, as well as background and patterns of thinking. If we are going to solve the very real problems we have in this world (and many of those solutions will be facilitated with tech), we need all kinds of people. We need diversity of thought.
If you only have one kind of people on your team by a visible metric, you are likely to have much deeper diversity issues. Just because you have a woman or a person of color on the team doesn't necessarily mean you've solved your diversity problems.
I applaud the Boston folks for their success in their recent workshop. If you think that the language you develop in would be great for anyone/everyone to learn, you should do the same.
Sarah Mei and I felt that we could change the ratio simply by teaching more women Ruby on Rails, we would have more women in our community, and we were right.
We agreed to make our first workshop open to people with any level of programming experience. (Men could come if they participated in the outreach and found a woman to sign up.)
We thought it would be hard to find women to attend our first workshop. We brainstormed for weeks about how to connect to various women's groups and corporate organizations. Then after two tweets and and one email, we had a waiting list in less than 24 hours. Over the last 3 years the pattern repeats itself, no matter where we have workshops, we consistently have waiting lists of women who want to attend. In SF, we have workshops every month, and routinely have 60 people (mostly women) on the waitlist.
Women do want to write code. We usually have 20% who have never coded before, but typically 50-70% self-identify as non-programmers. Are you a programmer if you just write SQL? does bash count as programming for a sys admin? does it could if you did COBOL 20 years ago, but you can't do any of the modern stuff? maybe you got a CS degree, but have never done more than a toy app? From a teaching perspective, if you answered yes to any of those questions, you are way ahead of the total beginners -- you understand variables and expressing logic in words and symbols.
We have diversity issues in tech, and it isn't just about gender and race. I believe those are just the most visible outward symptom of a problem where we have fairly homogeneous work and communication styles, as well as background and patterns of thinking. If we are going to solve the very real problems we have in this world (and many of those solutions will be facilitated with tech), we need all kinds of people. We need diversity of thought.
If you only have one kind of people on your team by a visible metric, you are likely to have much deeper diversity issues. Just because you have a woman or a person of color on the team doesn't necessarily mean you've solved your diversity problems.
I applaud the Boston folks for their success in their recent workshop. If you think that the language you develop in would be great for anyone/everyone to learn, you should do the same.
Thank you Sarah and Sarah for starting all this & paving the road for us. The workshop team loved doing it, and we feel very proud be to furthering the mission you gave birth to.
I've heard murmurs of a RailsGirls workshop here in Austin and I know a few of my female friends were very interested in attending when I talked to them about it. I think it's great to try to get more women involved in the industry, and while Rails is complicated enough that you can nearly guarantee most people won't walk away with any true understanding of programming, I think workshops like this can help undo some of the negative misconceptions/stereotypes that surround the programming community. Just like the misconception that "math is hard and/or useless" is under assault, I hope the idea that programming is only done by "geniuses" or "ultra-nerds" can be broken and the barriers for entry and for learning are broken down for the benefit of us all.
I am also a little reminded of my first forays into learning Rails with no prior programming experience. I think one of the biggest turning points for me was when I realized the concepts for massive services like twitter were not only understood by crazy math ph.d geniuses untouchable by the common man. It is really empowering to realize you can create real software that can actually do things people need without decades of experience under your belt. I think workshops like this and RailsGirls which have you create an actual (albeit simple) application are great for just that reason.
I am also a little reminded of my first forays into learning Rails with no prior programming experience. I think one of the biggest turning points for me was when I realized the concepts for massive services like twitter were not only understood by crazy math ph.d geniuses untouchable by the common man. It is really empowering to realize you can create real software that can actually do things people need without decades of experience under your belt. I think workshops like this and RailsGirls which have you create an actual (albeit simple) application are great for just that reason.
Reminiscent of LLC: http://ladieslearningcode.com/
I was a mentor for the Ruby class and absolutely loved the experience, students of all backgrounds were so eager to learn and understand programming.
I was a mentor for the Ruby class and absolutely loved the experience, students of all backgrounds were so eager to learn and understand programming.
Thanks for sharing, vimota!
- Heather Payne (Founder, Ladies Learning Code)
- Heather Payne (Founder, Ladies Learning Code)
It's a wonderful thing. Folks should make this happen everywhere, in whatever language. It also was a great experience to help out with the event.
In Boston there was a python workshop for women which provided much inspiration for this Ruby one: http://bostonpythonworkshop.com/
There was a similar event some years ago also sponsored by the Berkman Center, with some TAs participating in both: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/genderandtech/2009/10/20/post-w...
And then there is the Ada Initiative, which I think is fantastic: http://adainitiative.org/
In Boston there was a python workshop for women which provided much inspiration for this Ruby one: http://bostonpythonworkshop.com/
There was a similar event some years ago also sponsored by the Berkman Center, with some TAs participating in both: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/genderandtech/2009/10/20/post-w...
And then there is the Ada Initiative, which I think is fantastic: http://adainitiative.org/
At our company, we'd love to add more women developers, and our Chief Architect feels the same way. However, it strikes me as... weird... to focus on it. I don't know. Targeting women for the sake of targeting women has never sat well with me, and though I lack the necessary parts to judge from that side of the aisle, it almost seems patronizing/condescending.
Do I want better diversity in our organization? Absolutely. Have most of the women coders I've worked with been above-average? Indeed - actually, now that I think about it, women overall have been better co-workers and employees.
But targeting them directly seems strange, and like I said, patronizing/condescending. I dunno. A weird duality that maybe only exists in my mind.
Do I want better diversity in our organization? Absolutely. Have most of the women coders I've worked with been above-average? Indeed - actually, now that I think about it, women overall have been better co-workers and employees.
But targeting them directly seems strange, and like I said, patronizing/condescending. I dunno. A weird duality that maybe only exists in my mind.
Before 2003, in the entire history of the NFL there had only been seven minority coaches. That year, the league passed the Rooney Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule), which required that teams interview at least one minority candidate for coaching positions. Note that it didn't require that teams hire minority candidates — just that they consider them. Today, about a quarter of current coaches are non-white. The Rooney Rule took the league from seven — total, all time — to 25% — right now — in a decade.
In my mind, the Rooney Rule is a good policy to model after. Strict affirmative action is complicated, controversial, and... yeah, I'd feel "weird" just like you implementing hiring quotas. But an interviewing quota (or just a rough goal) seems perfectly legit.
The key is to focus on interviewing more women, not hiring more women. Do your best to get more women into the top of your hiring funnel, and you'll likely see more women come out the bottom. And you'll have a wider pool (because this'll force you to interview more candidates, total), which you'll have a better chance that whoever you hire — man or woman — will be awesome.
In my mind, the Rooney Rule is a good policy to model after. Strict affirmative action is complicated, controversial, and... yeah, I'd feel "weird" just like you implementing hiring quotas. But an interviewing quota (or just a rough goal) seems perfectly legit.
The key is to focus on interviewing more women, not hiring more women. Do your best to get more women into the top of your hiring funnel, and you'll likely see more women come out the bottom. And you'll have a wider pool (because this'll force you to interview more candidates, total), which you'll have a better chance that whoever you hire — man or woman — will be awesome.
Trust me, we interview everyone who passes a phone screen and has a promising resume. It's just that so, so few of them are actually women.
I actively pursued an acquaintance of mine to try and get her to work for us, as she was just graduating from a top engineering undergraduate school and was an actuary. Sadly, she took a position in NYC (understandable).
We're very strict on hiring, so we do interview many candidates for each position that opens up (we have plenty of open positions now that we can't seem to fill).
If we set an interviewing quota, it could literally take us years to hire someone for a mid-level developer position simply because we would get no applicants or no referrals from recruiters that were women. It's just how it is. Very sad.
I actively pursued an acquaintance of mine to try and get her to work for us, as she was just graduating from a top engineering undergraduate school and was an actuary. Sadly, she took a position in NYC (understandable).
We're very strict on hiring, so we do interview many candidates for each position that opens up (we have plenty of open positions now that we can't seem to fill).
If we set an interviewing quota, it could literally take us years to hire someone for a mid-level developer position simply because we would get no applicants or no referrals from recruiters that were women. It's just how it is. Very sad.
Well, part of that I'd just file under "hiring is hard" (right now, at least).
I do think you need to start further up in your hiring funnel than the phone screen: were I in your shoes, I'd be trying to get more minorities to submit resumes in the first place. One of the problems identified by those studying diversity in tech is a self-selection bias: minorities, and women especially, seem to send out fewer resumes and less ambitious about the positions they apply to. Perhaps consider reaching out to groups like RailsBridge, Python Boston, PyLadies, Ladies Learning Code, etc., and letting them know you're hiring and want to talk to candidates from their communities? Drop me an email (and let me know where you're located) if you'd like me to try to help make you some connections.
Re-reading the above, I'm hoping it doesn't come across as critical; it's clear you're taking this very seriously, and that's awesome. Just hoping I can help more!
I do think you need to start further up in your hiring funnel than the phone screen: were I in your shoes, I'd be trying to get more minorities to submit resumes in the first place. One of the problems identified by those studying diversity in tech is a self-selection bias: minorities, and women especially, seem to send out fewer resumes and less ambitious about the positions they apply to. Perhaps consider reaching out to groups like RailsBridge, Python Boston, PyLadies, Ladies Learning Code, etc., and letting them know you're hiring and want to talk to candidates from their communities? Drop me an email (and let me know where you're located) if you'd like me to try to help make you some connections.
Re-reading the above, I'm hoping it doesn't come across as critical; it's clear you're taking this very seriously, and that's awesome. Just hoping I can help more!
Hmm, the idea of reaching out to women-oriented groups sounds promising. Our Chief Architect has made it very clear he wants to interview (and hopefully hire) more women. As for minorities, we probably need more white people, if anything! (Not uncommon in software development / data science, I'd guess - I'm a minority.)
There's a local hackerspace that has women groups, I think. I'll start there. Thanks for the advice!
There's a local hackerspace that has women groups, I think. I'll start there. Thanks for the advice!
> A good percentage of the attendees had some exposure to HTML/CSS and several had experience in PHP, Java, C and Python. Two of our students had worked as developers for mainframe computers, writing PL/I and IBM assembler.
Cool initiative and I'm all for introducing more programming to everyone...but I wonder whether Rails is the best way to do it. There are many, many moving parts, least of which is the concept of MVC and then the interaction between each part of MVC...nevermind, for those who just know only HTML and CSS, the fundamentals of programming (variables, the difference between "1" and 1, loops, etc), and even how to use the command line.
Cool initiative and I'm all for introducing more programming to everyone...but I wonder whether Rails is the best way to do it. There are many, many moving parts, least of which is the concept of MVC and then the interaction between each part of MVC...nevermind, for those who just know only HTML and CSS, the fundamentals of programming (variables, the difference between "1" and 1, loops, etc), and even how to use the command line.
I participated in one here Boulder, CO as a TA, and yes there were a lot of moving parts, but what I think was important was not deep diving into any particular thing, but getting to the point where they have pushed a "real" app.
I have a few apps of negligible utility that run out on Heroku, and they are no different than the apps Railsbridge participants built.
They got to make something real, and got exposed to real tools and infrastructure.
I have a few apps of negligible utility that run out on Heroku, and they are no different than the apps Railsbridge participants built.
They got to make something real, and got exposed to real tools and infrastructure.
I share those concerns & agree that MVC is a lot to swallow in an introductory workshop. But it's also very motivating! A lot of people want to build real websites instead of toy programs. We're trying to harness that awesome source of motivation & it seems to be working despite the drawbacks.
Yeah, it's a difficult line to walk between teaching what is comprehensible and enabling people, with magic, to do something concrete, even if they know nothing about how anything works. The former bores people because it's too abstract, and the latter...well, I feel there's the risk that when there's too much magic involved, the students feel as if being a "wizard" is an inherent trait, rather than something you eventually build towards after plugging away at the fundamentals.
I've toyed with teaching a workshop that entails: teach enough programming to turn a non-flat-file dataset (maybe a json of their tweets) into a decent visualization (by plugging into Google Charts, perhaps) and uploading a static page, with Twitter Bootstrap, onto a free hosting service, or even a blog service such as Wordpress.
But even that is a lot to teach in a day:
1. Command line and file system basics 2. Fundamentals of programming (enough to open a JSON file, parse and aggregate it on some conditions, and spit out HTML) 3. Basic HTML and DOM, including what you need to know to 4. Basic webserver/uploading stuff
Most workshops struggle with getting 3 and 4 done. #2 is not easily achievable over even several days.
I've toyed with teaching a workshop that entails: teach enough programming to turn a non-flat-file dataset (maybe a json of their tweets) into a decent visualization (by plugging into Google Charts, perhaps) and uploading a static page, with Twitter Bootstrap, onto a free hosting service, or even a blog service such as Wordpress.
But even that is a lot to teach in a day:
1. Command line and file system basics 2. Fundamentals of programming (enough to open a JSON file, parse and aggregate it on some conditions, and spit out HTML) 3. Basic HTML and DOM, including what you need to know to 4. Basic webserver/uploading stuff
Most workshops struggle with getting 3 and 4 done. #2 is not easily achievable over even several days.