Why say more?
Last week, the Internet burst forth with wild, bizarre vitriol that one dear friend of mine called "Donglegate." Since I wasn't in attendance at this conference, and since I had exhausted myself chatting with folks about it on Twitter, I didn't think I'd have anything further to say.But then I saw another follow-up post, this one by Bob Martin, and I felt frustrated. It's not bad: It does come to a reasonably healthy conclusion that "we need to make the women feel welcome." I agree, but still there is something subtly off-kilter in his use of "we." "We need them" he tells us.
Now, I hope never to live in a world that is so politically correct that we're all walking on eggshells, wary of a lawsuit because we may say something that someone else construes as an offense. Also, I'm not one who subscribes to some form of "blindness" (gender-blindness, color-blindness) as policy in the workplace, resulting in some utopian collaborative environment. Yet I'm also hoping we can do better at preventing archaic bigotry from creeping back into our industry, and our society.
My Computer Science/Engineering college friends, who mostly graduated around 1989, get together for a reunion every five years. I'd say that about 20-30% of them are women. The last reunion, in 2009, included a tour given by the current ACM student-chapter president. She told us that only about 1% of her Computer Science graduating class was women, and that this was in-line with a downward trend across the country. That's way down from when I was ACM student-chapter president, 25 years earlier.
That's just insane. Why has the industry changed for the worse? 20-30% representation during the Reagan era was bad enough, but 1% in the Obama age is ridiculous.
 |
| This is a subset of my dearest old college friends. This looks almost like a Good Old (White) Boys Club. Yet I can tell you there's a lot of diversity represented in this picture alone: 20% women, 20% gay, 10% Buddhist, 20% atheist, 20% (or more) Christian, 10% Jewish, and about 60% overweight. ;-) |
Why "We" don't need "Them"
Apparently even President Obama has generated some bad press recently by saying "...when our wives, mothers, and daughters can live their lives..." Granted, I take this quote out of context to emphasize it, but there's that "us and them" wording again.The trouble with Bob Martin's and President Obama's choice of wording is that they define the uniqueness of women as it relates to "us" (presumably, us men). The basis is our actual physical differences. And, yes, men differ from women (and for some issues that's very very important), but those differences are entirely orthogonal to the issues at hand: Equal assumption of inherent technical abilities; equality of employment and pay, opportunity and training, safety, respect, dignity, and freedom.
Gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, income and affluence, religious affiliation: None of these equate to better programming skills! All things being fair and equal, given a randomly selected cross-section of the population of software developers, the percentages should reflect the same approximate ratios as the general public. Approximately 51% of the U.S. population is female. So something is obviously wrong with a college CSE program that has only 1% female graduates. I don't think this is an NAU-only issue, or an Arizona-only issue. And whether or not you believe the government could or should intervene, you will hopefully agree that there is something off-kilter here. What Would Deming Do?
Teams and organizations need diversity. Not to meet some government quota, or to make one individual happy, but in order to have important input from people who think differently.
If you read that and think "Oh, Rob is saying 'women's intuition' is critical for success" you are not grokking me, at all. You would then be falling back on categorization based on attributes (real or anecdotal) that are orthogonal to the skills required to be a great programmer. I'm not saying that women will notice X or Buddhists will notice Y. I don't know what they'll see, and you won't know, until it happens.
We cannot predict whose intuition or intellect or experience will shine on any particular day. A group of great programmers with very little diversity is missing out on that chance spark that occurs when unique people in dialog spot something pivotal (a feature, a design option, a technology, or a blending of technologies) that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.
We don't need them! We need us! All the diversity inherent in our U.S. culture is there, ready to be used in synthesis. In science, in technology, in business, in politics: Multiple, diverse viewpoints give us more perspectives, and often provide the insight to try something that no one else has thought of yet.
What can we do?
Here are some things I try to encourage in myself, and in my clients' workplaces. "Try" is an important word here: The perfect is the enemy of the good. I suggest we all strive to do better by trying these out for 30 days. We all make the occasional mistakes.Check your compass.
Remember, you choose your actions. Do they really align with what you believe represents appropriate moral action? Do you hold a double-standard for others? (Well, cut it out.)
The government makes laws, but doesn't program your Moral Compass. My Moral Compass may look very different from yours, and I may respond to an ethical dilemma differently than you would. (That does not mean that mine is broken, nor that I want to try yours out, thank you.) Despite our differences, you may notice many similarities. I've noticed that most every Moral Compass seems to contain The Golden Rule. (Mine has it written this way: "Don't do to others what you'd rather they didn't do to you. If you do, they will!")
Notice your audience(s).
Be aware of, and take care of, your audiences, both intended and circumstantial. Can the children at the next table in a crowded restaurant hear your lewd joke? I may laugh, but I'm also going to feel embarrassed for you, and uncomfortable for their parents.
(I'm no prig: I have learned to enjoy Family Guy, because I'm often surprised by just how far the writers will go. Yeah, I do find myself repeating the mantra "It's just a cartoon. It's just a cartoon...")
Laughter is mostly a reaction to surprise. But trust me: You are not that funny. I am not that funny. Bob Martin is a great public speaker, and he is not that funny.
Besides, people can turn off the TV, but they may not be able to (or want to) escape a conference keynote.
See bigotry as a systemic constraint.
To assume that a person or group is somehow wrong, lesser, or incompetent because of something they are or believe (versus, say, how they act towards others) is counterproductive. Think of it as a constraint to the flow of value. When the team looks at it that way, it removes some of the political and cultural discomfort that comes with talking about emotional topics. You're simply addressing it as you would any other systemic waste.
Celebrate Diversity!
Like the popular bumper-sticker suggests, but perhaps expanding this idea beyond the person in the car behind you. ;-)
By "celebrate" I'm not suggesting you throw a Cultural-Awareness party each month and force the "minorities" to stand up and talk about "their" culture. (I think that was the plot of a sitcom episode...or was it a client???) I'm talking about personal, quiet (and heartfelt) celebration: Delight in the diversity of your teams. Hire based on necessary skills, team-fit, and a well-rounded education or set of life-experiences. Alter the working environment to be more inviting (or at least less uncomfortable) for various groups. For example, nursing rooms: How many large corporate offices still don't have daycare or nursing rooms?!
Give your System 2 (analytic) brain a chance to catch up.
Notice actual differences in people where they appear, and quietly acknowledge any personal discomfort. Notice when your intuitive System 1 mind falls back onto stereotypes as a poor approximation for getting to know someone. Then do something about it: Reach out and communicate with those who differ from you. Exercise your tolerance muscle.
Listen with tolerance.
Every peaceful encounter with someone who is different is an opportunity to learn. You learn about them, they learn about you. You learn from them, they learn from you. Trust that the extra effort to get to know someone on your team will eventually "return dividends," either in business or in life.
You don't have to change your mind about your long-held beliefs simply because the other person believes differently, but encourage yourself to imagine what it would mean if their beliefs made sense. The goal isn't to prove them wrong, even in your head. It's to appreciate the astounding variations that exist in our human minds and our cultures.
It's scary, but tolerance is a key ingredient for peaceful co-existence with neighbors, across the ocean, across the street, across the political aisle, or across the gender-divide.
Chill.
Try to be less easily offended. Imagine how much easier life would be if folks were less prepared to be offended by the words of others, less anxious to be the next victim, less interested in wealth through litigation, less conditioned to "save face."
When someone says something that is insulting to you, consider: Do they really know you? Did they know you'd be offended?
Speak up.
You don't have to bottle up your response to an insult. If you're offended, let them know: "Your comment makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps you weren't aware that others can hear you?"
Then, at least the first time, give them the benefit of the doubt. "Escalation" is not the road to a peaceful resolution. (It's the plot of every "reality" show.)
Caveat: If you feel sincerely threatened, walk away, remove yourself from immediate harm, and contact a trusted third-party.
Two tweets for dessert
Soon after "donglegate" I "tweeted" the following suggestion:Professional, polite speech isn't difficult: picture your grandmother holding your 6 year old in her lap. Would you want them to hear you?And Liz Keogh tweeted the following:
— Rob Myers (@agilecoach) March 22, 2013
If everyone spent 5 secs thinking about what they hoped to get from what they said, before they said it, the whole world would be TDDd...
— Liz Keogh (@lunivore) March 22, 2013
Update 08 Oct 2014 (in honor of Grace Hopper):
Tech
careers are just "not interesting to women" some conservative straight
white males have told me. It just occurred to me that I have 1st-person
access to data that suggests they're relying on a fallacious argument.
The data right here...in my brain.
I teach challenging high-tech courses to hundreds of developers each year, in different regions, companies, and corporate cultures. I notice some trends in the population of participants.
Alas, I haven't been tracking this data in a spreadsheet (maybe I'll start!), but I have noticed that a very low percentage of participants in my technical courses are women. (At most 10%.)
Okay, let me say for the moment that I buy the argument (I don't, by the way) that perhaps biological gender differences really are why women just aren't that interested in software (because, you know, being able to sit on your fat ass writing code was a reproductive advantage for men out hunting on the savannah...how?!)
So, why are there even fewer (2-3%) black men in my tech courses? See, we can't blame that on biology without speaking from raw bigotry, now can we? (Because science.) Well, misogyny is bigotry, too. The "other" (numerous equally smart, talented folks who are different from the self-reinforcing majority white male tech population at many start-ups and corporations across the country) is being discouraged, likely in many subtle ways.
I teach challenging high-tech courses to hundreds of developers each year, in different regions, companies, and corporate cultures. I notice some trends in the population of participants.
Alas, I haven't been tracking this data in a spreadsheet (maybe I'll start!), but I have noticed that a very low percentage of participants in my technical courses are women. (At most 10%.)
Okay, let me say for the moment that I buy the argument (I don't, by the way) that perhaps biological gender differences really are why women just aren't that interested in software (because, you know, being able to sit on your fat ass writing code was a reproductive advantage for men out hunting on the savannah...how?!)
So, why are there even fewer (2-3%) black men in my tech courses? See, we can't blame that on biology without speaking from raw bigotry, now can we? (Because science.) Well, misogyny is bigotry, too. The "other" (numerous equally smart, talented folks who are different from the self-reinforcing majority white male tech population at many start-ups and corporations across the country) is being discouraged, likely in many subtle ways.
I love that these posts are always so thoughtful and thought provoking.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it’s because I am a woman, the whole being offended issue isn't the issue that interests me. There are other industries around us that are not widely sought out by women. Does Congress have a 50 /51 percent female membership? No, and not in most state legislatures either. Out of seven seats of my city council, only two are held by women. But the Missouri Supreme court has four female judges to three male. I was fortunate enough to get to hear Ann Covington, the first female supreme court judge in Missouri speak to the issue of being the first woman to do something on that level. It was very interesting the things that had to be changed in order to accommodate her presence because the system wasn’t structured with the idea that there are two genders. She took her place on the court in 1989.
During this same trip, I listened to several female lawmakers, one of them said something very interesting. “Look at the person next to you and tell them they should run for public office.” No one moved. “No, seriously, do that right now.” Feeling weird, we all turned to the person next to us and did what she told us. “Don’t wait for an invitation to the dance. Men don’t.” But over and over as we listened to other female lawmakers talk, every one of them was asked to run by someone else. I don’t know if this is something ingrained in woman, or something ingrained in our society. I suspect it’s a little of both.
You make some great points about diversity and the idea that different people will see things at different angles. Sometimes those additional viewpoints will get you through a problem faster, sometimes it will add more challenges. But hopefully a better product in the end.
Mary
Thanks for a great post.
ReplyDeleteDude. You already live in a world in the clutches of political-correctness's vice grip.
ReplyDeleteIf the percentage of women graduating from a particular program in college has dropped, it is extremely unlikely that the cause is discouragement. A much more believable cause is that it's just not that interesting to women for whatever reason.
Maybe it's generally boring to women. Football bores more women than it does men. Ice skating bores more men than it does women. Surely there is some room to admit that men and women may be biased toward certain interests. Maybe it just sounds boring. Maybe some other reason.
Whatever the case, if women aren't graduating from that program, it is a choice they are making. Why is "insane" that people have the freedom to do what they want and are exercising that freedom?
Some good points in your post, Rob, but I'd have to agree with Max more. You make the point that "diverse viewpoints give us more perspective." Yet that in a sense contradicts the notion that "none of these [diversity lines] equate to better programming skills." If we all think the same, as the womens' liberation groups long ago insisted (I don't believe that for a minute), then where is the diversity? Or rather, what's the value of the diversity if we're all equal? It becomes diversity for the sheer political sake of diversity, and nothing more.
DeleteIn general I do believe women can be as good programmers, so my response is not about their capacity. And I also think that they bring value due to their different ways of thinking. But the reason their numbers are decreasing is more likely because of their interest--Max is probably right that only a small percentage of it is from "discouragement" due to a perceived hostile male environment.
Sure, perhaps some of the lesser interest is because things like football, computers, math, etc have been long male-dominated. Yet doesn't that demonstrate some level of intolerance on the part of the women? In an age of the modern, strong woman, and particularly with the good career/$ opportunities that software development offers, it's almost impossible to believe that it's due to any fear of being unwelcome.
For better or worse, WOMEN THINK DIFFERENTLY due to tens of thousands of years of ingraining this protector-nurturer relationship. It's simply science and nature. And yes, thinking differently is also the "diversity" we want. Along with that comes different interests, however, which means that expecting a 50/50 split is simply a misguided goal, and approaches a religious mentality on life.
Having said that, it is disappointing that the women are shrinking in percentage (although the 1% stat is meaningless in isolation). My suspicion: Female interest in software development increased in the 1980s during that economic boom and the money offered by the industry, and again during the dot-com boom. Now that the money isn't there as much, interest from those on the fringe has waned, a lot of whom were women probing at alternate career paths and better money opportunities.
It's a much more plausible argument than them all being chased away.
(If you want to see even more pathetic gender and race stats, look at the nursing industry: http://www.minoritynurse.com/minority-nursing-statistics. 5.8% male. 4.2% black. Is there an uproar? Should we insist on 50% male nurses?)
DeleteThis page offers some interesting numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing. Fewer than 12% of women in CS in 2011, down from 37% in 1984. Hmm. That kind of matches my theory. The wikipedia page also points out the "geek" argument, and that the perceived or actual lack of social environment (e.g. cube farms and sitting in front of computers) isn't very appealing to women. As far as I'm concerned, that makes women out to be the smarter bunch.
An interesting research study: What is the percentage of women on agile teams vs. non-agile? My bet is that it's higher due to the increased opportunities for collaborative/social work.
Angrily and politically trying to force the issue (right now we've heard mostly the extremist point of view, who always try to shout down any opposing views) is a crummy way to go, and it simply breeds resentment. In fact, I post this anonymously because the politically-correct, fascist-left crowd has a way of trying to destroy people who don't want to go along with their way of thinking.
Max has it right. We need to return to a focus on choice, as well as a focus on supporting whatever choices people do make. It beats trying to make others feel bad about their choices.
If you want more women, focus on the elements that make the career more appealing, instead of pointing out the negative things. Agile can offer many selling points. Write a blog post about that, perhaps. Flys & honey.
Women are half the population, and more than half the college graduates in the US, yet women make up very few top corporate leaders, elected officials, ..., and engineers. Of course there's more going on here than just something in computer science.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we also see a big lack of African Americans? One of the anonymous posts said the disparity for women is that they think differently. I don't imagine that person believes this is also true of African American men, so what's the reason for that? I imagine an important factor is a lifetime of teachers and managers not seeing their potential and value. I'm a woman, and I don't like football (anonymous' example), but neither does my husband and he adores high tech, so I don't believe the difference in careers is biological.
Study after study finds people (men and women) seeing women and their contributions as lower value than men's. For example, change the apparent gender of the name on a resume, and different people get invited for interviews. The most dramatic was in music -- they put up a screen between the musicians playing auditions for a symphony orchestra, and the judges were wowed by a violinist. When they saw who it was, they realized it was a woman who they'd been using as a contractor when they were short-handed, and had never thought of as more than competent -- until they just heard her music, without looking at her.
To help women, and minorities, find their way into better jobs -- and enrich our society with more talented people making a contribution -- there's a whole lot of things we need to do. One small piece of that is to make "outsiders" comfortable in these environments in high tech. I've been one of just 5 women at a technical conference with at least 500 attendees. I am the only woman in my department at work. I wonder if Anonymous has ever been in a situation where they are the only person of their gender (or race) in a meeting, a department, or a conference? My husband was trying to lose weight, and I suggested he try a Weightwatchers meeting with me. He was obviously uncomfortable, and when we came out, he said "I was the only man there!". I replied "Welcome to my world."
One of the managers at work (not mine, thankfully), told a joke at a meeting. He prefaced it by saying, "No offense, Janet". The punchline included "whore". In another meeting, he mocked the Indian accent of a employee of one of our partners. One of our coworkers, who speaks with an Indian accent, was in the meeting. This is the sort of thing that pushes you back from feeling like a team member, to feeling like an outsider. Someone who feels like an outsider, walking on eggshells, doesn't do work that's as good as someone who is comfortable. They hesitate to bring up new ideas, they avoid taking risks, they triple-check everything because of how they'll be judged. As in all things, XKCD has captured this: xkcd.com/385.
Having the majority in engineering make some conscious effort to avoid "bro'ing up" and making outsiders uncomfortable can make a difference. It won't magically cause more 18-year-old girls to major in computer science, but every additional woman in technology who doesn't quit creates one more role model. Fewer explosion of rape and death threats directed at a women in technology online definitely helps. Yes, it involves making an effort to be politically-correct. You could just think of it as being civil.
If Anonymous is unaware that women with public roles in high tech are targeted with violent online harassment, I can provide links. A least one woman has left the field because of it. How many limit their careers by keeping their heads down and don't apply to be speakers at conferences isn't measurable, but there are examples.
I'm not going to post this with a link to my real identity because I'm afraid to. I did reveal my first name.