Live data from Hacker News

New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

railsbridgeboston.org

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

#31
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> 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.

Re: New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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).

Re: New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

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 ar…

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.

Re: New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Re: New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

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 ar…

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.

Re: New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

#36
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 abo…

> 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.

Re: New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 re…

"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.

Re: New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

#38
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.

Re: New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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

Re: New Rails workshops to bring more women into the Boston software scene

#40

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? Absolutel…

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.

Post reply on HN