Confessions of a Failed Female Coder(hackernoon.com)
hackernoon.com
Confessions of a Failed Female Coder
https://hackernoon.com/confessions-of-a-failed-female-coder-956cbe138c69
135 comments
Instantly I stop reading anything that mentions Damore's memo, because the whole thing is pointless pot stirring.
The article makes numerous assertions that school/work do not cater to the ways women learn/work best. I was on the edge of my seat expecting the author to hint at the ways women do learn/work best, but it never arrived. Was I just not reading closely enough?
Edit: I wasn't reading closely enough.
So my next question is, what would it take to have more women teaching CS and software development?
Edit: I wasn't reading closely enough.
So my next question is, what would it take to have more women teaching CS and software development?
It's odd, because girls outperform boys in school in every subject, in every grade, and have for decades. Schools already conform very well to girl-centric learning - perhaps because the majority of school teachers are women.
Arguments like this always start from the assumption that inequality is a result of failed education. It's like the people making these arguments have never met a boy or a girl. Boys and girls behave differently, think differently, and value different things.
Of course, we should strive to make environments inclusive as possible, and everyone should be free to pursue their (legal) ambitions, but why do we have to assume that any gender imbalance is a result of bias? Women become pediatricians more than other types of doctor. Is that because pediatricians are less sexist than other subtypes of medicine, or because women are naturally more interested in taking care of children?
Arguments like this always start from the assumption that inequality is a result of failed education. It's like the people making these arguments have never met a boy or a girl. Boys and girls behave differently, think differently, and value different things.
Of course, we should strive to make environments inclusive as possible, and everyone should be free to pursue their (legal) ambitions, but why do we have to assume that any gender imbalance is a result of bias? Women become pediatricians more than other types of doctor. Is that because pediatricians are less sexist than other subtypes of medicine, or because women are naturally more interested in taking care of children?
She "hints" at this in a couple of sentences:
> Rather, I was frustrated because the course consisted of lone work on exercises that seemed to have little application to the real world, the expectation that coursework required coding and debugging for hours after school threatened my ability to excel in other classes or in varsity sports (in spite of being a textbook nerd, it turned out I was good enough at rowing for a few colleges to recruit me), or to spend time buried in random books.
and
> that girls and women prefer collaborative rather than solo work, that they are more engaged in “things” if they can see the “people” aspect to it, and that they are prone to perfectionism and a fear of failure
I notice an inconsistency here: if women are "prone to perfectionism", why were "hours of debugging" a problem?
... Re fear of failure: computers are brutal. It either works or it doesn't, esp. when you're restricted to "artificial" problems as is often the case in university courses. It forces you to think in a strict and disciplined way (re. the above quote about "debugging for hours"). Yes, it can make you feel stupid because the negative feedback is immediate, and there's a lot of it, especially in the beginning.
Even for me, as a professional developer with ~20 yrs of experience, working with computers consists of mostly noticing just negative feedback. "The code works" is a non-event for 90% of the time. Of course it works, I engineered it to work. The 10% of cases when it is an event is in cases when I've used something new according to documentation and it actually worked! Yay!
However, "the code doesn't work" is an event in 100% of the cases. It requires analysis, drilling, fixing, maybe even leads to a bigger refactoring because a more fundamental issue was discovered, etc.
IMHO, and gender aside, if the person can't endure a constant stream of negative feedback, they should probably choose another field of work.
> Rather, I was frustrated because the course consisted of lone work on exercises that seemed to have little application to the real world, the expectation that coursework required coding and debugging for hours after school threatened my ability to excel in other classes or in varsity sports (in spite of being a textbook nerd, it turned out I was good enough at rowing for a few colleges to recruit me), or to spend time buried in random books.
and
> that girls and women prefer collaborative rather than solo work, that they are more engaged in “things” if they can see the “people” aspect to it, and that they are prone to perfectionism and a fear of failure
I notice an inconsistency here: if women are "prone to perfectionism", why were "hours of debugging" a problem?
... Re fear of failure: computers are brutal. It either works or it doesn't, esp. when you're restricted to "artificial" problems as is often the case in university courses. It forces you to think in a strict and disciplined way (re. the above quote about "debugging for hours"). Yes, it can make you feel stupid because the negative feedback is immediate, and there's a lot of it, especially in the beginning.
Even for me, as a professional developer with ~20 yrs of experience, working with computers consists of mostly noticing just negative feedback. "The code works" is a non-event for 90% of the time. Of course it works, I engineered it to work. The 10% of cases when it is an event is in cases when I've used something new according to documentation and it actually worked! Yay!
However, "the code doesn't work" is an event in 100% of the cases. It requires analysis, drilling, fixing, maybe even leads to a bigger refactoring because a more fundamental issue was discovered, etc.
IMHO, and gender aside, if the person can't endure a constant stream of negative feedback, they should probably choose another field of work.
Well that's how courses work you have to know how to add 2+2 before going onto Calculus you cant expect to jump straight in to say a key role writing a Map reduce system for a major telcos billing system.
I'm not sure either quote applies necessarily to females specifically. At best seems to just be how this particular person is.
What surprised me the most is that my understanding was that schools are actually designed to favor the way girls learn.
Seating still for hours, listening to somebody, remembering the whole thing to be able to spit it out the next day is not how little boys should be taught things. And I don't even think it's great for girls, but they seem better equipped to deal with it.
Seating still for hours, listening to somebody, remembering the whole thing to be able to spit it out the next day is not how little boys should be taught things. And I don't even think it's great for girls, but they seem better equipped to deal with it.
She does say:
*editted formatting
that girls and women prefer collaborative rather than solo work, that they are more engaged in “things” if they can see the “people” aspect to it, and that they are prone to perfectionism and a fear of failure
*editted formatting
Please don't use code blocks (indentation) to quote text. it causes side-scrolling in browsers, making it difficult to read on desktop machines and nigh impossible on mobile devices.
A common method of quoting text on HN is prefixing the line with a ">". I personally like also wrapping it in asterisks to italicize the quote.
A common method of quoting text on HN is prefixing the line with a ">". I personally like also wrapping it in asterisks to italicize the quote.
Somehow most of the female programmers that I know well enough are not at all like this, so lets please not turn this into one-size-fits-all model and force it on every woman out there.
I completely agree. I've worked with many good and bad programmers, both men and women, and it was usually only junior programmers and the bad ones that could not do their work without being 'collaborative' with others. Gender, like race, etc has nothing to do with it.
The code formatting is confusing on mobile. Didn't know I could scroll through it.
Like I just said for another comment, that quote doesn't seem to be true just for women or even possibly for women more than men. The few female programmers I've worked with weren't like that. There's guys who will be like that.
I always thought ways of learning best were more on the people and environment (and how it affects the person) than gender by a long shot. I don't see why males wouldn't suffer just as much as women in the issues marked in her quote.
Like I just said for another comment, that quote doesn't seem to be true just for women or even possibly for women more than men. The few female programmers I've worked with weren't like that. There's guys who will be like that.
I always thought ways of learning best were more on the people and environment (and how it affects the person) than gender by a long shot. I don't see why males wouldn't suffer just as much as women in the issues marked in her quote.
Pair programming and github projects seem like it would help. And also line them up for real-world working conditions.
Yes, you weren't paying attention :)
She mentioned it a few times - girls like colaborative learning, not lone-wolf learning, and she also put a link in - https://ncgsblog.org/2016/09/12/how-girls-learn-best/
She mentioned it a few times - girls like colaborative learning, not lone-wolf learning, and she also put a link in - https://ncgsblog.org/2016/09/12/how-girls-learn-best/
Does this also apply to other branches of engineering, medicine and lawyers.
There are some degrees/fields that involve more group projects and classes that are more discussion-based than pure lecture. I almost certainly did less work purely by myself for my MBA than my engineering degrees. But pretty much any degree that isn't hands-on/apprenticeship based is going to involve a lot of individual reading/studying/cranking through problems/etc.
I think it was the collaborative learning rather than isolated learning and debugging she talked about. I agree that it also wasn't very clear to me so I could be wrong.
I donated to the Mouse program[0] she mentioned in the article, it looks like a pretty good idea.
[0] https://mouse.org/
[0] https://mouse.org/
> Rather, I was frustrated because the course consisted of lone work on exercises that seemed to have little application to the real world
From my personal experience, exactly such courses have proven to have the most long-term value to me.
From my personal experience, exactly such courses have proven to have the most long-term value to me.
That's an interesting way to underscore the point that these courses reinforce a kind of bias.
Definitely. Though not necessarily a bias between male and female. Just a bias for people who can work well [enough] with that sort of learning.
And it's not just courses.
Many types of work bias toward people who are just fine with locking themselves in a room/the library stacks/a lab for a week to work through some problem. It's a completely different mindset from someone who likes doing sales or PR work.
It's not that there aren't people who can do a good job with both. But some things certainly come more naturally to some people than they do to others.
Many types of work bias toward people who are just fine with locking themselves in a room/the library stacks/a lab for a week to work through some problem. It's a completely different mindset from someone who likes doing sales or PR work.
It's not that there aren't people who can do a good job with both. But some things certainly come more naturally to some people than they do to others.
100% agree with your entire comment. People are just different.
I recently learned guitar for the first time using one of those Guitar Hero games but you play with a real electric guitar. Two friends commented how if I haven't gotten to learning it after multiple attempts, gamification won't work. But it did. This isn't the first time gamification has worked on me. For whatever reason, gamification [and accountability] work[s] great for me.
I recently learned guitar for the first time using one of those Guitar Hero games but you play with a real electric guitar. Two friends commented how if I haven't gotten to learning it after multiple attempts, gamification won't work. But it did. This isn't the first time gamification has worked on me. For whatever reason, gamification [and accountability] work[s] great for me.
I'm of the school of thought that the tech industry should absolutely take affirmative steps to encourage and make it possible for people with a wider set of skills and backgrounds to enter and do well in tech. At the same time we have to accept that people and roles are different. I work with a lot of engineers. I also work with a lot of PR people and, especially at agencies, they conform to at least as much of a demographic/behavioral stereotype as software developers do.
Nice response. Definitely agree. Cool that you know first hand that other industries are just as bad. Which isn't surprising.
If you ever want to chat or network, my email is in my profile, hit me up!
If you ever want to chat or network, my email is in my profile, hit me up!
> The ’80s were also the era of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, the rise of the archetype of the lone, antisocial hacker in a garage spending all-nighters building machines that were at many times ambiguous and without a clear path to success. Without going into too much more detail because this essay is already longer than it needs to be, this can be seen as the linchpin in which computer science took a hard turn toward learning and work environments that either pushed many women away entirely or resulted in them feeling like misfit puzzle pieces when they did take on coding.
I would appreciate if someone clarified the argument that the author is making above, because as it reads, she's implying that women don't excel when tasked with individual work involving "ambigious and unclear paths to success". That certainly isn't how she meant it to be interpreted, right?
I would appreciate if someone clarified the argument that the author is making above, because as it reads, she's implying that women don't excel when tasked with individual work involving "ambigious and unclear paths to success". That certainly isn't how she meant it to be interpreted, right?
What's strange here is that the 1980s and 1990s were the period of the "lone coder". This was when Microsoft advertised in recruiting that every programmer got a private office with a door they could close. That's in the past. Facebook now has one of the largest bullpens on the planet in Menlo Park, so people can collaborate. Between office layout, "agile", Slack, Github, and StackExchange, programming is more of a social activity than ever.
So why isn't female participation coming back up? It was higher in the 1970s and 1980s than it is now.
So why isn't female participation coming back up? It was higher in the 1970s and 1980s than it is now.
maybe the 'women are social and men are loners' trope is the wrong mechanistic explanation for gender disparity among coders. FWIW/anecdata: I know way more women than men who are self-claimed 'introverts' that would stay at home if they could get away with not working, so I would not be in the least surprised if this explanation were a dud.
I'm going to read your intent as: 'get away with not going to an office'.
Based on that, I'll say that measuring actual work in cognitively focused fields is difficult if not impossible.
The entire premise of compensation based on or a requirement built around a given minimum or maximum hours of work is crazy when the actual work that happens is mostly cognitive and not literally constructive. A job of that type practically demands a salaried payout and advancement based on overall project success/contributions (which might be incredibly fuzzy to measure and difficult to prove or compare as facts).
Based on that, I'll say that measuring actual work in cognitively focused fields is difficult if not impossible.
The entire premise of compensation based on or a requirement built around a given minimum or maximum hours of work is crazy when the actual work that happens is mostly cognitive and not literally constructive. A job of that type practically demands a salaried payout and advancement based on overall project success/contributions (which might be incredibly fuzzy to measure and difficult to prove or compare as facts).
no, I meant, get away with not working at all.
Because the workforce is the wrong place to try to fix gender diversity - don't get me wrong, we should put efforts in place to make sure don't discriminate, but the workforce is composed of people already interested (and at least partially trained) to do the work.
The reason female participation isn't larger is because of the education / training part of the pipeline. Having a welcoming workplace doesn't suddenly spawn people with skills wanting to work there.
The reason female participation isn't larger is because of the education / training part of the pipeline. Having a welcoming workplace doesn't suddenly spawn people with skills wanting to work there.
I wouldn't be so sure that private offices is a male-only thing, or that Microsoft advertising it had to do with the "lone coder." I know quite a few women who complain about their open office work plans and would jump at an opportunity to get the same pay with a private office.
Rather than being about a male-dominated "lone coder", Microsoft's guarantee of a private office means two things:
1) that a private office is a benefit to their target employees, and
2) that most companies at the time did not have a private office
Otherwise, they wouldn't advertise it as much. In more recent times, I don't think that Facebook's push to open offices is as employee centric as Microsoft's push to private offices. Instead, I think Facebook (and Apple) are trying to save money, since an 8' x 10' office in San Fran costs an employer anywhere from $8,000 / yr to $30,000 / yr. So, it would have less to do with providing benefits to their employees and more about their own bottom line.
Rather than being about a male-dominated "lone coder", Microsoft's guarantee of a private office means two things:
1) that a private office is a benefit to their target employees, and
2) that most companies at the time did not have a private office
Otherwise, they wouldn't advertise it as much. In more recent times, I don't think that Facebook's push to open offices is as employee centric as Microsoft's push to private offices. Instead, I think Facebook (and Apple) are trying to save money, since an 8' x 10' office in San Fran costs an employer anywhere from $8,000 / yr to $30,000 / yr. So, it would have less to do with providing benefits to their employees and more about their own bottom line.
So why isn't female participation coming back up? It was higher in the 1970s and 1980s than it is now.
> "We’re now in an era where computer scientists are no longer universally considered to be ‘80s-style loners, but the structure of workplaces is still often dominated by the manner of thinking that was created by them (see also: “move fast and break things”[1])."
[1] https://xkcd.com/1428/
> "We’re now in an era where computer scientists are no longer universally considered to be ‘80s-style loners, but the structure of workplaces is still often dominated by the manner of thinking that was created by them (see also: “move fast and break things”[1])."
[1] https://xkcd.com/1428/
The key word in that sentence is "lone". The author uses "lone" six times. Look at the rest of the paragraph:
> "It was a manner of work utterly unsuited to everything we know about how women thrive and excel."
> "(Does the idea of being a lone hacker appeal to some women? Sure. [...] Population-level differences cannot be used to judge the abilities or inclinations of any individual.)" [Emphasis mine.]
The author's implication is that women (in general) are not as amenable to a lone environment as men are. I did find it frustrating that the author was not explicit about this. The piece concludes with:
> "Women succeed when they are in learning and working environments that address the biological realities about how women operate best. But, clearly, there’s a lot of misunderstanding around what this means."
But then the closest the piece gets to helping with the misunderstanding is to link to https://ncgsblog.org/2016/09/12/how-girls-learn-best/
> "It was a manner of work utterly unsuited to everything we know about how women thrive and excel."
> "(Does the idea of being a lone hacker appeal to some women? Sure. [...] Population-level differences cannot be used to judge the abilities or inclinations of any individual.)" [Emphasis mine.]
The author's implication is that women (in general) are not as amenable to a lone environment as men are. I did find it frustrating that the author was not explicit about this. The piece concludes with:
> "Women succeed when they are in learning and working environments that address the biological realities about how women operate best. But, clearly, there’s a lot of misunderstanding around what this means."
But then the closest the piece gets to helping with the misunderstanding is to link to https://ncgsblog.org/2016/09/12/how-girls-learn-best/
The author asserts that the hacker scenario is the "linchpin" of her argument. Therefore, it seems to be a flawed interpretation to revise her argument to refer exclusively to one part of the scenario and ignore the other parts. If the author wanted to make the argument solely about the number of folks working on a shared project, why include the remark about "ambiguous" work?
Perhaps the author belives that individual work on unambiguous projects is amenable to women. The explanation you've offered excludes this possibility.
Perhaps the author belives that individual work on unambiguous projects is amenable to women. The explanation you've offered excludes this possibility.
The author raises several points, but uses the word "lone" six times:
> I was frustrated because the course consisted of lone work...
> Despite the cargo shorts and the loner attitude, I learned like a girl..
> Instead of a lonely computer lab...
> The rise of the archetype of the lone, antisocial hacker...
> Does the idea of being a lone hacker appeal to some women?
> Computer scientists are no longer universally considered to be ‘80s-style loners...
I take this as the emphasis of the piece.
> I was frustrated because the course consisted of lone work...
> Despite the cargo shorts and the loner attitude, I learned like a girl..
> Instead of a lonely computer lab...
> The rise of the archetype of the lone, antisocial hacker...
> Does the idea of being a lone hacker appeal to some women?
> Computer scientists are no longer universally considered to be ‘80s-style loners...
I take this as the emphasis of the piece.
The thing is that's not how Bill Gates and Steve Jobs actually worked either (also Steve wasn't a programmer). This idea of the "lone, antisocial hacker" doesn't make any kind of sense in terms of the history I've read or experienced.
E.g, take a look at Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. These guys - and they were almost invariably guys - were nothing if not sociable, at least with eachother. What they were not is mainstream (there's a hipster gag in here somewhere but it's just too cheap and easy).
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had partners, and later teams. They might not have been the easiest people to deal with but "antisocial"? I don't think so.
I suppose in the 1980s it became possible to become a lone hacker simply because you actually could have an affordable computer at home in your bedroom. Even then though, there was a lot of socialising with other hackers at school (and a lot of bragging).
Programming, at least in my experience, has never been an exclusively solo pursuit (although I wouldn't go so far as to describe what a lot of what went on at my school as "collaboration").
E.g, take a look at Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. These guys - and they were almost invariably guys - were nothing if not sociable, at least with eachother. What they were not is mainstream (there's a hipster gag in here somewhere but it's just too cheap and easy).
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had partners, and later teams. They might not have been the easiest people to deal with but "antisocial"? I don't think so.
I suppose in the 1980s it became possible to become a lone hacker simply because you actually could have an affordable computer at home in your bedroom. Even then though, there was a lot of socialising with other hackers at school (and a lot of bragging).
Programming, at least in my experience, has never been an exclusively solo pursuit (although I wouldn't go so far as to describe what a lot of what went on at my school as "collaboration").
I'd add that a lot of "lone time" characterizes a lot of STEM generally--but also historians, writers, and others. It may be a particular stereotype around programming but I'm not sure it's any truer, or perhaps even as true, with software development as it is with a lot of other fields.
Caroline works in an area (digital advertising/marketing) that involves lots of collaboration and working with people. I'm not sure there's just about any field in engineering or science in which at least individual contributors do the same degree of working with other people as opposed to working through problems individually.
Although she mentions it, I think Caroline also glosses over the shift that happens in the 80s a bit too quickly. She writes:
>The ’80s did see a masculinization of computer science as a field, but I think it’s simplistic to assert that it happened because pop culture pushed PCs as “for boys.”
I don't actually think that's the argument--or to the degree people do make that argument it's the most pertinent one. What did happen with gamers and the rise of the PC is that people who were interested in coding as a profession were increasingly expected to have started learning things on their own and to enjoy it as a hobby. This isn't really true to nearly the same degree of any other STEM field. Although I can't prove it, this seems to me the most logical explanation for why women entering CS peaked around that time.
Caroline works in an area (digital advertising/marketing) that involves lots of collaboration and working with people. I'm not sure there's just about any field in engineering or science in which at least individual contributors do the same degree of working with other people as opposed to working through problems individually.
Although she mentions it, I think Caroline also glosses over the shift that happens in the 80s a bit too quickly. She writes:
>The ’80s did see a masculinization of computer science as a field, but I think it’s simplistic to assert that it happened because pop culture pushed PCs as “for boys.”
I don't actually think that's the argument--or to the degree people do make that argument it's the most pertinent one. What did happen with gamers and the rise of the PC is that people who were interested in coding as a profession were increasingly expected to have started learning things on their own and to enjoy it as a hobby. This isn't really true to nearly the same degree of any other STEM field. Although I can't prove it, this seems to me the most logical explanation for why women entering CS peaked around that time.
I suppose in the 1980s it became possible to become a lone hacker simply because you actually could have an affordable computer at home in your bedroom. Even then though, there was a lot of socialising with other hackers at school (and a lot of bragging).
That's an interesting point. When I was in college, programming meant spending hours in a crowded, noisy terminal room, that was definitely a social atmosphere. The students certainly interacted and collaborated, plus the advanced students helped the beginners.
One evening, I was sitting in my dorm, and my roommate came in: "There's a pretty girl down in the terminal room. Maybe she needs some help." Okay, I kinda knew what to expect, but went down there anyway. The "girl" was the top CS student, very sharp, and a friend of mine. I told her what happened, and she laughed.
That's an interesting point. When I was in college, programming meant spending hours in a crowded, noisy terminal room, that was definitely a social atmosphere. The students certainly interacted and collaborated, plus the advanced students helped the beginners.
One evening, I was sitting in my dorm, and my roommate came in: "There's a pretty girl down in the terminal room. Maybe she needs some help." Okay, I kinda knew what to expect, but went down there anyway. The "girl" was the top CS student, very sharp, and a friend of mine. I told her what happened, and she laughed.
And why not?
The propensity to take risk seems to be quite a low-level drive, and we definitely see strong hints that hormones can have a measurable influence[1] on risk tolerance in both men and women.
If you look past ourselves in the animal kingdom, males are far more likely to engage and risky and aggressive behaviors because males that don't take large risks by and large won't manage to reproduce.
And what is riskier than expending a lot of effort and time on individual work with 'ambiguous and unclear paths to success'?
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11206
The propensity to take risk seems to be quite a low-level drive, and we definitely see strong hints that hormones can have a measurable influence[1] on risk tolerance in both men and women.
If you look past ourselves in the animal kingdom, males are far more likely to engage and risky and aggressive behaviors because males that don't take large risks by and large won't manage to reproduce.
And what is riskier than expending a lot of effort and time on individual work with 'ambiguous and unclear paths to success'?
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11206
The quote seems to be wrong with Steve Jobs. Jobs wasn't really mainly a programmer though was he? I think he knew how to code and could get something going, but that wasn't really what he did.
Gates also didn't work alone a lot of the time.
Gates also didn't work alone a lot of the time.
There's another issue with this statement: Steve Jobs was never a hacker/programmer, he was a sales/product/evangelist weanie.
I don't know that you can call yourself a "failed coder" when, let's be honest, it could be argued you didn't try that hard to be a coder in the first place - it wasn't that you made your living do it but realised in doing so that you were bad at it. I'm not sure bailing out on a high school computing course, because it sucked (I'm not sure being a boy would have made any difference here), is nearly enough qualification to label oneself a "failed coder".
I will share this from my own experience of computing courses at school though, and this is admittedly going back to the late 80s/early 90s: they sucked. They were boring as hell. I had a year of IT classes in year 9 and I got crap grades throughout because I was totally unengaged and, frankly, already operating at a considerably more sophisticated level than the course material. I wanted to solve real problems and write video games, not bugger around with word processing and spreadsheets and deeply basic (no pun intended) programming "problems".
And that's not (just) being arrogant: it applied to plenty of the other card-carrying nerds in the room, although some of them were definitely better at playing the game and being willing to jump through the hoops. This was in a boys' school, btw.
I actually diverged from Comp Sci for quite a while: going into 6th form the schools merged and I realised there was no chance of me getting a girlfriend if I was into computers. Bad decision and, ironically, made no difference in that direction anyway. What it did do was ensure that I didn't even consider CompSci as an undergrad degree. Another bad decision, later corrected with a post-grad conversion course.
And so I finally ended up working as a programmer, which is what I'd always wanted to do, despite my best efforts in other directions.
Anyway, a roundabout way of getting to the point: clearly there's a lot the industry can do to make itself more attractive to females. I've worked with precious few female engineers over the years but enough to know the good ones are as good as any man I've worked with, and I'm sure a similar distribution of skill applies for women as for men. And this is the thing: as well as making the industry a more pleasant place for women to work, we need more women at the top of the funnel. For whatever reason or set of reasons - which I don't pretend to understand - girls are much more likely to either choose not to study, or drop out of studying, Computer Science. If we don't fix that we are always going to have a gender imbalance: I'd argue that one way to normalise women as engineers is to ensure there are more women doing engineering.
I will share this from my own experience of computing courses at school though, and this is admittedly going back to the late 80s/early 90s: they sucked. They were boring as hell. I had a year of IT classes in year 9 and I got crap grades throughout because I was totally unengaged and, frankly, already operating at a considerably more sophisticated level than the course material. I wanted to solve real problems and write video games, not bugger around with word processing and spreadsheets and deeply basic (no pun intended) programming "problems".
And that's not (just) being arrogant: it applied to plenty of the other card-carrying nerds in the room, although some of them were definitely better at playing the game and being willing to jump through the hoops. This was in a boys' school, btw.
I actually diverged from Comp Sci for quite a while: going into 6th form the schools merged and I realised there was no chance of me getting a girlfriend if I was into computers. Bad decision and, ironically, made no difference in that direction anyway. What it did do was ensure that I didn't even consider CompSci as an undergrad degree. Another bad decision, later corrected with a post-grad conversion course.
And so I finally ended up working as a programmer, which is what I'd always wanted to do, despite my best efforts in other directions.
Anyway, a roundabout way of getting to the point: clearly there's a lot the industry can do to make itself more attractive to females. I've worked with precious few female engineers over the years but enough to know the good ones are as good as any man I've worked with, and I'm sure a similar distribution of skill applies for women as for men. And this is the thing: as well as making the industry a more pleasant place for women to work, we need more women at the top of the funnel. For whatever reason or set of reasons - which I don't pretend to understand - girls are much more likely to either choose not to study, or drop out of studying, Computer Science. If we don't fix that we are always going to have a gender imbalance: I'd argue that one way to normalise women as engineers is to ensure there are more women doing engineering.
Yeah I basically wrote a post highlighting your first paragraph and being a guy who essentially failed at coding in high school and came out of it not barely being able to code something simple like a questionnaire.
Overall we definitely need to get more women into STEM and programming specifically. I'm not sure about this post though.
Overall we definitely need to get more women into STEM and programming specifically. I'm not sure about this post though.
I suspect its more a cultural/historical thing. Comparatively fewer women go for computer science because they have far lesser role models and mentors and icons of their own sex to look upon. Just like how only few men manage to dig into women dominated occupations. Rather than anything inherent in women that puts them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis men with regards to computer science or "hard" science in general.
Yes I think that’s a large part of it too. Our brains are so adaptable to whatever environment we live in. You know I’m still waiting for an Aaron Sorkin film on Ada Lovelace. Aaron, if you’re reading this, can you just go ahead and make that film already?
And if you are a high performer at high school /uni in the UK women are more likely to go into medicine, law or the city where you can earn more than a train driver
That may be part of it, but as Scott Alexander noted (Section IV in http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...), not that many decades ago women had few role models in most professions. But that didn't stop women from quickly advancing in medicine, law, and many other fields.
Nuance is the most amazing thing. It's in abundance in this article.
GhostVII(3)
Isn't the title pretty clickbaity? I had to cheat my way through 2.5 years of comp sci in HS before I dropped AP Comp Sci BC. I never programmed a thing in all that time. I either copied from others or had a friend write any code for me. During the AP test I spent maybe 15 min on the written programming parts just writing the basics of Java and inserting BS in hopes of getting some points. Calling me a failed coder would be weird at that point. I was never a coder really. Just like if I got bad grades in science classes I wouldnt be a failed scientist.
I myself ended up trying to code PHP a couple more times. I didn't even think I knew the hang of HTML for years (I know there's not much to get). Until I did finally get the hang of basic coding then intermediate coding and so on, I never considered myself a failed coder before I got the hang of it.
I had my own reasons for "failing" at my high school coding (technically I got As but I knew nothing), just dividing things up by how genders might function or learn wouldn't have helped me. For example I personally had massive anxiety and confidence issues.
Not to dismiss issues with females not being in programming enough. We definitely need to get more women into STEM and programming.
I myself ended up trying to code PHP a couple more times. I didn't even think I knew the hang of HTML for years (I know there's not much to get). Until I did finally get the hang of basic coding then intermediate coding and so on, I never considered myself a failed coder before I got the hang of it.
I had my own reasons for "failing" at my high school coding (technically I got As but I knew nothing), just dividing things up by how genders might function or learn wouldn't have helped me. For example I personally had massive anxiety and confidence issues.
Not to dismiss issues with females not being in programming enough. We definitely need to get more women into STEM and programming.
You sound like Manager material. Or maybe Entrepreneur.
In the real world it is perfectly legitimate to 'hire someone' to do your work for you and claim it as your own.
In the real world it is perfectly legitimate to 'hire someone' to do your work for you and claim it as your own.
Maybe my verbosity got the better of me. I'm a programmer now. I'm not the best. But for web dev and certain crawling and automation I focus on, I can more than handle myself.
Programming isn't my only hat, but that is part of what I do now. And for some time I exclusively freelanced as a programmer.
Programming isn't my only hat, but that is part of what I do now. And for some time I exclusively freelanced as a programmer.
I think beyond just "educational style" something we should consider is the way we socialize reward in young men and young women. This is a gross generalization (but when your metrics are bulk - as opposed to individual - results, as in number of entrants or number of employees, generalizations matter), but socially and educationally we train boys seek reward for building or doing things and train girls to seek reward for being something. By the very nature of the software industry, in particular, the rapid engineering cycle, will skew towards building and doing over a state of being.
I am not suggesting that these socializations are an inherent part of being male or female (and I would emphasize that you've got a serious problem if you're stereotyping an individual based on the bulk socialization), but I would suggest that if bulk gender parity is important, then forcing it without changing, or at the very least identifying/recognizing/selecting individuals who have deviated from, the pervasive gendered socialization is likely to cause serious problems.
As a side note, I personally find the consequences of this early socialization are also highly reflected in the very way that the gender debate manifests itself.
I am not suggesting that these socializations are an inherent part of being male or female (and I would emphasize that you've got a serious problem if you're stereotyping an individual based on the bulk socialization), but I would suggest that if bulk gender parity is important, then forcing it without changing, or at the very least identifying/recognizing/selecting individuals who have deviated from, the pervasive gendered socialization is likely to cause serious problems.
As a side note, I personally find the consequences of this early socialization are also highly reflected in the very way that the gender debate manifests itself.
I would be very surprised if there truly were any normative studies showing differences in the way women vs men learn. Maybe individually for this woman it didn’t suit her style. Personally I think everyone deserves individualized instruction but in the US at least we don’t value education that much.
0xbear(1)
I agree with others that the author's experience may not be as significant to the wider discussion of female programmers as she thinks it is.
I'm a developer now; I could not have made it through a Computer Science major in college. I'd always been drawn to technology and my dad highly encouraged me to pursue IT, but I just didn't find CS itself interesting to me. I was highly, highly averse to the idea of "lone work on exercises that seemed to have little application to the real world, the expectation that coursework required coding and debugging for hours after school threatened my ability to excel in other classes or in varsity sports".
Maybe it is in fact a particularly "male" engineer thing to want to focus only on excelling at one's trade while neglecting everything else in one's life. I was not like that.
So I studied Neuroscience and Psychology because they felt more applicable and "hands-on". I dissected cadavers, ran behavioral tests on rats, crunched data.
Then later I discovered that I really did enjoy programming itself; I realized I loved building things. Now I feel like I could sit through dry lectures on fundamental and complex CS topics that my younger self would find boring. It sounds like the author liked building things too. Maybe if her program had been focused on that instead of other things, she would have felt more motivated.
To me, this seems like a classic case of someone deciding that they're simply not good at math because they were taught it the wrong way or weren't shown why it was relevant.
I'm a developer now; I could not have made it through a Computer Science major in college. I'd always been drawn to technology and my dad highly encouraged me to pursue IT, but I just didn't find CS itself interesting to me. I was highly, highly averse to the idea of "lone work on exercises that seemed to have little application to the real world, the expectation that coursework required coding and debugging for hours after school threatened my ability to excel in other classes or in varsity sports".
Maybe it is in fact a particularly "male" engineer thing to want to focus only on excelling at one's trade while neglecting everything else in one's life. I was not like that.
So I studied Neuroscience and Psychology because they felt more applicable and "hands-on". I dissected cadavers, ran behavioral tests on rats, crunched data.
Then later I discovered that I really did enjoy programming itself; I realized I loved building things. Now I feel like I could sit through dry lectures on fundamental and complex CS topics that my younger self would find boring. It sounds like the author liked building things too. Maybe if her program had been focused on that instead of other things, she would have felt more motivated.
To me, this seems like a classic case of someone deciding that they're simply not good at math because they were taught it the wrong way or weren't shown why it was relevant.
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in her post:
> Despite the cargo shorts and the loner attitude, I learned like a girl.
And:
> it was an all-girls school, and every single other woman who took that computer science class that year became an engineer or scientist.
Hmm, it sounds more like she has a different learning style, which is not necessarily down to her femaleness.
That said, I think that at a fundamental level, there are differences in how men and women think. But none are better than the other, we know that we gain richer insights when we take both into account. But in this current political climate, it's unwise to go too deep about this, because it can so easily slip into the really nasty domains. Remember the time when phrenology was used to justify gender and race discrimination?
This is why I dislike Damore. I don't care what his manifesto says, but I bet that he knew exactly what he was doing. Playing games is pathetic, dude.
I can sympathise with the writer as I have a similar story too. I'm permanently put off from going into engineering, but I've accepted that and moved on. (Incidentally it's education and design, to better design learning experiences for everyone!) And that's OK, the burden of guilt of "letting down your kind" is also terrible. Life's too short and there are so many other interesting, under-explored areas ... and you can still get involved in tech. The best bit about tech? It's just a tool.
> Despite the cargo shorts and the loner attitude, I learned like a girl.
And:
> it was an all-girls school, and every single other woman who took that computer science class that year became an engineer or scientist.
Hmm, it sounds more like she has a different learning style, which is not necessarily down to her femaleness.
That said, I think that at a fundamental level, there are differences in how men and women think. But none are better than the other, we know that we gain richer insights when we take both into account. But in this current political climate, it's unwise to go too deep about this, because it can so easily slip into the really nasty domains. Remember the time when phrenology was used to justify gender and race discrimination?
This is why I dislike Damore. I don't care what his manifesto says, but I bet that he knew exactly what he was doing. Playing games is pathetic, dude.
I can sympathise with the writer as I have a similar story too. I'm permanently put off from going into engineering, but I've accepted that and moved on. (Incidentally it's education and design, to better design learning experiences for everyone!) And that's OK, the burden of guilt of "letting down your kind" is also terrible. Life's too short and there are so many other interesting, under-explored areas ... and you can still get involved in tech. The best bit about tech? It's just a tool.
Every time I hear someone mention behavioral differences due to the biological differences between men and women, my response (that I'm stealing from my professor) is that the differences amongst men and women outweigh the differences between men and women. Applied to this topic, that means that you're going to find people that prefer these different learning styles on both sides of the gender gap.
Also, I feel like wanting to increase the human aspect of programming isn't just a girl thing. The people whom I know that best fit the solitary hacker type love sharing their work, offering advice, and collaborating on projects with friends and peers.
Also, I feel like wanting to increase the human aspect of programming isn't just a girl thing. The people whom I know that best fit the solitary hacker type love sharing their work, offering advice, and collaborating on projects with friends and peers.
> Every time I hear someone mention behavioral differences due to the biological differences between men and women, my response (that I'm stealing from my professor) is that the differences amongst men and women outweigh the differences between men and women. Applied to this topic, that means that you're going to find people that prefer these different learning styles on both sides of the gender gap.
That's a nice sentiment, but it's not actually very true. With regard to this particular article, I think there are plenty of women who can thrive in the environment she described. I know some of them. So, I don't think this particular situation is caused by divergent information processing between men and women.
That being said, information processing is a multi-dimensional thing. The axes of difference between men and women may be different than the axes of variance among men and women. To say that "the differences among men and women outweigh the differences between men and women" is to ignore the fact that they may not be the same differences we're talking about.
This is a thorny question, because it obviously implies that men are better at some things and women are better at other things. This can reinforce biases, and entrench or seem to justify unfair treatment. But the fact that an issue may be fraught does not change the truth-value of its propositions.
That's a nice sentiment, but it's not actually very true. With regard to this particular article, I think there are plenty of women who can thrive in the environment she described. I know some of them. So, I don't think this particular situation is caused by divergent information processing between men and women.
That being said, information processing is a multi-dimensional thing. The axes of difference between men and women may be different than the axes of variance among men and women. To say that "the differences among men and women outweigh the differences between men and women" is to ignore the fact that they may not be the same differences we're talking about.
This is a thorny question, because it obviously implies that men are better at some things and women are better at other things. This can reinforce biases, and entrench or seem to justify unfair treatment. But the fact that an issue may be fraught does not change the truth-value of its propositions.
> That's a nice sentiment, but it's not actually very true.
It's literally textbook science. Like, if you pick up a university psychology textbook on sex and gender, you will probably find that statement in it.
It's based on evidence, not sentiment. That pattern is exactly what you see when you look at graphs showing the distribution of results broken down by gender on a whole bunch of physical and psychological tests.
It's literally textbook science. Like, if you pick up a university psychology textbook on sex and gender, you will probably find that statement in it.
It's based on evidence, not sentiment. That pattern is exactly what you see when you look at graphs showing the distribution of results broken down by gender on a whole bunch of physical and psychological tests.
Yes, of course the variance of the distributions is greater than the mean difference. That is trivial. But it ignores the actual point. Mean population differences have practical population-level effects. The fact that internal variance exceeds the mean difference is inconsequential and meaningless.
> Every time I hear someone mention behavioral differences due to the biological differences between men and women, my response (that I'm stealing from my professor) is that the differences amongst men and women outweigh the differences between men and women. Applied to this topic, that means that you're going to find people that prefer these different learning styles on both sides of the gender gap.
That's a great way of describing learning. I love your professor's quote. Definitely going to use it :P
That's a great way of describing learning. I love your professor's quote. Definitely going to use it :P
> at a fundamental level, there are differences in how men and women think
It's undeniable there are biological differences between men and women, but this seems far fetched. Biological differences don't manifest themselves in an intuitive way; for example, there is no difference between men and women's hair. However we perceive a large difference entirely due to environmental training.
It's undeniable there are biological differences between men and women, but this seems far fetched. Biological differences don't manifest themselves in an intuitive way; for example, there is no difference between men and women's hair. However we perceive a large difference entirely due to environmental training.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but hair is a bad example. Men go bald and get beards, while women don't.
[deleted]
You must be young or not know very many women. Nearly every woman eventually starts growing facial hair. Many remove it every day. And some women do lose their hair, though admittedly it's much less common.
Sure technically both genders grow facial hair. But still, men can grow much more hair on average than women, especially facial hair, no? South Asian females as an example sometimes can have more hair than average in many spots, but then you have many men with forest levels of hair around their body.
It would be odd for there it be zero observable differences considering how different many brain structures are between men and women.
If nothing else women get migraines more frequently than men do. Which seems unlikely to come down to environmental issues.
If nothing else women get migraines more frequently than men do. Which seems unlikely to come down to environmental issues.
Are these differences in brain structure observable in the womb, or after years of growing? As an example, abuse victims can also have altered brain structures but they certainly weren't born that way.
> more likely ... due to environmental differences.
Maybe, which still affects how we think because we're still classified by gender in society. The assumption that I made earlier is probably intuited from personal experience and countless books like "Men are from Mars..".
I'm not shy if it does turn out that male and female brains are wired differently (that sounds really awful), but my point is really that ultimately, we all think differently. Because we're not just defined by our gender, there's so many other factors like upbringing, autistic or not, etc. And then there's also free will.
We should celebrate this diversity.
Maybe, which still affects how we think because we're still classified by gender in society. The assumption that I made earlier is probably intuited from personal experience and countless books like "Men are from Mars..".
I'm not shy if it does turn out that male and female brains are wired differently (that sounds really awful), but my point is really that ultimately, we all think differently. Because we're not just defined by our gender, there's so many other factors like upbringing, autistic or not, etc. And then there's also free will.
We should celebrate this diversity.
> This is why I dislike Damore. I don't care what his manifesto says ... Playing games is pathetic, dude.
Well, according to his statement he was a top performer at Google, so we can assume he was not afraid of being replaced by a woman. Besides he just started a discussion in a response to, according to him, shady moves in regards of equality performed by Google.
It is worth to listen to the other side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
Well, according to his statement he was a top performer at Google, so we can assume he was not afraid of being replaced by a woman. Besides he just started a discussion in a response to, according to him, shady moves in regards of equality performed by Google.
It is worth to listen to the other side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
Is there a specific part of what you're referring to with
> This is why I dislike Damore. I don't care what his manifesto says, but I bet that he knew exactly what he was doing. Playing games is pathetic, dude.
I haven't read the manifesto and don't want to procrastinate now. Are you saying he knew his stuff about women being inferior for the work Googlers do (which I wholly disagree with) was him partially BSing and just stirring shit up or trying to get his sexist viewpoint across with any excuse possible?
> This is why I dislike Damore. I don't care what his manifesto says, but I bet that he knew exactly what he was doing. Playing games is pathetic, dude.
I haven't read the manifesto and don't want to procrastinate now. Are you saying he knew his stuff about women being inferior for the work Googlers do (which I wholly disagree with) was him partially BSing and just stirring shit up or trying to get his sexist viewpoint across with any excuse possible?
I haven't read it either, and won't like to. After his arrogant/weird responses, I'm sure it's pure intellectual bullshit. I don't know what his exact motive was, but he sure seems to enjoy the storms he's caused. I just dislike people like that.
uhhh, how can you say it's pure intellectual bullshit without reading? it would me like me calling you an asshole without knowing you.
> it would me like me calling you an asshole without knowing you.
That's not a fair comparison. I skimmed through the manifesto and followed the Damore case close enough to reach that strong opinion (I didn't just wrap myself in Guardianista commentary). After that, and watching his reactions, I just don't have the time nor care to study his manifesto line by line. Would you, if you find a person that you just cannot respect, and have many more to do and think about?
That's not a fair comparison. I skimmed through the manifesto and followed the Damore case close enough to reach that strong opinion (I didn't just wrap myself in Guardianista commentary). After that, and watching his reactions, I just don't have the time nor care to study his manifesto line by line. Would you, if you find a person that you just cannot respect, and have many more to do and think about?
You didn't actually read what he wrote but "followed the Damore case" which means you read what others wrote about him. That's extremely ignorant. I have no respect for people like you who get their opinion served by others. And that's something I can confidently say from your replies.
[deleted]
> we gain richer insights when we take both into account
If there really were fundamental differences, that would not be possible. When I take someone elses viewpoint or way of thinking or anything else that is fundamentally different from what I know "into account", what I really take into account what I imagine that other viewpoint to be, cobbled together from the things I do know. I don't say this to contradict, I think empathy goes a long way and is a very real thing, even though it doesn't mean we magically see things how others do. And luckily we have communication. We can make our own viewpoints and feelings clear, and encourage others to be open about theirs.
I'm wary about fundamental differences and all that.. spectra, maybe (I'm not sold on mutual exclusivity at all), but even then certainly not with one dimension and two poles -- but assuming it were literally that way, then there would be only halves, and nobody with an overview. Just abstractions about the other, which are useless, realize the self and let the other self self-realize, communicate, done. Sorry for sounding like a hippie, no dig against hippies intended. It's really hard to talk about this stuff, but not for political correctness and not for the assholes who take all sorts of things and misuse them anway, just in general.
If there really were fundamental differences, that would not be possible. When I take someone elses viewpoint or way of thinking or anything else that is fundamentally different from what I know "into account", what I really take into account what I imagine that other viewpoint to be, cobbled together from the things I do know. I don't say this to contradict, I think empathy goes a long way and is a very real thing, even though it doesn't mean we magically see things how others do. And luckily we have communication. We can make our own viewpoints and feelings clear, and encourage others to be open about theirs.
I'm wary about fundamental differences and all that.. spectra, maybe (I'm not sold on mutual exclusivity at all), but even then certainly not with one dimension and two poles -- but assuming it were literally that way, then there would be only halves, and nobody with an overview. Just abstractions about the other, which are useless, realize the self and let the other self self-realize, communicate, done. Sorry for sounding like a hippie, no dig against hippies intended. It's really hard to talk about this stuff, but not for political correctness and not for the assholes who take all sorts of things and misuse them anway, just in general.
> If there really were fundamental differences, that would not be possible.
I'm not really sure if I understood your point properly - I've clarified elsewhere in this thread that this was an assumption, and gender isn't the only factor in the differences of the ways we think (so when I said "both" in my parent comment, this is because I am looking at the situation solely with the gender lens).
But I share with the general sentiment of your post. I'm don't really care for fundamental differences etc, even if we have them, so what, it still doesn't change the fact that diversity is generally a great thing. I also found empathy goes a long way, IMO that's the only way to deal with diversity and cut past discrimination. Of course there are also the intellectual and material rewards of diversity that we are all familiar with...
Goodness, it's so hard to explain this, forgive me if this is just more confusing than ever.
I'm not really sure if I understood your point properly - I've clarified elsewhere in this thread that this was an assumption, and gender isn't the only factor in the differences of the ways we think (so when I said "both" in my parent comment, this is because I am looking at the situation solely with the gender lens).
But I share with the general sentiment of your post. I'm don't really care for fundamental differences etc, even if we have them, so what, it still doesn't change the fact that diversity is generally a great thing. I also found empathy goes a long way, IMO that's the only way to deal with diversity and cut past discrimination. Of course there are also the intellectual and material rewards of diversity that we are all familiar with...
Goodness, it's so hard to explain this, forgive me if this is just more confusing than ever.
> The result of this is that STEM education is taught in a way that gives girls an opportunity to collaborate, as well as allow them to access the broader ideas, people, and goals that bring coding off the screen and into the real world.
Contrast this with "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." I think there's a big difference between nerdy obsession and grudgingly making something valuable. If nobody hired coders, it would still be my hobby.
Contrast this with "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." I think there's a big difference between nerdy obsession and grudgingly making something valuable. If nobody hired coders, it would still be my hobby.
> "Rather, I was frustrated because the course consisted of lone work on exercises that seemed to have little application to the real world, the expectation that coursework required coding and debugging for hours after school threatened my ability to excel in other classes or in varsity sports"
Just taking this at face value, I think she failed because she was afraid of failing. I've always learned better from having to struggle with something than having someone explain to me how to do it. Its that torturous process of trial and error that unconsciously guides someone towards a solution. Being able to do that on your own is ultimately the hallmark of a professional.
That being said, I _am_ a man, and if what she is claiming is true (men learn more through lone-wolf trial/error, women learn better through collaborative team-work) then I can't say much about why trial/error is so important. Maybe its just more important to me and my context.
I think she has a really interesting point about the importance of putting the 'person' into the equation. I really prefer to watch a tech-talk over a blog post because hearing someone talk about something in a informal language gives a lot of life to whatever they're talking about. Their body language and tone conveys a lot of information about the technology: are they holding 'religious' assumptions?; is it a hard-learned lesson to avoid some pitfall?; are they avoiding talking about negatives to try and sell something?..
Watching the Q&A portion of a talk can be especially enlightening. You really get to see whether they're full of shit or legitimate based on how they react to critical questions.
Just taking this at face value, I think she failed because she was afraid of failing. I've always learned better from having to struggle with something than having someone explain to me how to do it. Its that torturous process of trial and error that unconsciously guides someone towards a solution. Being able to do that on your own is ultimately the hallmark of a professional.
That being said, I _am_ a man, and if what she is claiming is true (men learn more through lone-wolf trial/error, women learn better through collaborative team-work) then I can't say much about why trial/error is so important. Maybe its just more important to me and my context.
I think she has a really interesting point about the importance of putting the 'person' into the equation. I really prefer to watch a tech-talk over a blog post because hearing someone talk about something in a informal language gives a lot of life to whatever they're talking about. Their body language and tone conveys a lot of information about the technology: are they holding 'religious' assumptions?; is it a hard-learned lesson to avoid some pitfall?; are they avoiding talking about negatives to try and sell something?..
Watching the Q&A portion of a talk can be especially enlightening. You really get to see whether they're full of shit or legitimate based on how they react to critical questions.
Well I'm a woman and I learned coding by myself in exactly the way you describe. I personally don't think it has anything to do with gender. I didn't find many study partners within my major that I could relate to so I just studied by myself. This continued to lay the groundwork for a continuing self-education after college. I don't think this is so weird, but certainly it's nice whenever you have a supportive group around yourself. I wouldn't discourage anyone from seeking that out but I can't say I needed it either. If anything, I came to prefer the independence of working on my own much more.
I agree with you. I asked my wife what she thought of gender affecting learning, and what she said was quite convincing: individuals have different ways of learning, and gender isn't the only determining factor.
If there is an effective way to improve skills in coding that doesn't require hours of debugging and frustration through the day and into the night, I'm not aware of it.
[deleted](1)
> girls and women prefer collaborative rather than solo work, that they are more engaged in “things” if they can see the “people” aspect to it, and that they are prone to perfectionism and a fear of failure.
This does not quite jive with enrollment at my university. I am thinking specifically of maths as compared to other STEM fields. Of all seriously theoretical courses, maths has the most women, last time I checked, it was pretty close to 50/50.
Yet, math is much less collaborative than physics, that is the understanding has to be your own. If there is a people part to either, I'd argue its physics because it is closer to an application. I suppose one might say that maths has more of a people part, because much of math in practice is communication. That feels like stretching a definition though.
When looking at the enrollment numbers, what is most striking is the difference between CS and maths. Whereas maths is about 50/50, CS seems to be below 10% female. As far as subject manner is concerned, I'd say these two studies are very close. And yet, maths is way more popular.
Based on this, I'd argue that the low enrollment in CS has nothing to do with the subject matter, and much more to do with how comfortable women feel in either group.
This does not quite jive with enrollment at my university. I am thinking specifically of maths as compared to other STEM fields. Of all seriously theoretical courses, maths has the most women, last time I checked, it was pretty close to 50/50.
Yet, math is much less collaborative than physics, that is the understanding has to be your own. If there is a people part to either, I'd argue its physics because it is closer to an application. I suppose one might say that maths has more of a people part, because much of math in practice is communication. That feels like stretching a definition though.
When looking at the enrollment numbers, what is most striking is the difference between CS and maths. Whereas maths is about 50/50, CS seems to be below 10% female. As far as subject manner is concerned, I'd say these two studies are very close. And yet, maths is way more popular.
Based on this, I'd argue that the low enrollment in CS has nothing to do with the subject matter, and much more to do with how comfortable women feel in either group.
Most math majors are there to become math teachers, which is very people oriented. If you consider only PhD programs for math then it becomes very male dominated.
That does not seem to be the case for my year of math students. Though it seems the ratio does become worse at the PhD level (I'd guess not as much, but I don't move in those circles much).
If the near-50-50 gender ratio in math is explained by math teachers, wouldn't we expect a similar ratio in physics?
Think about the market for those teachers. Anecdotally, I took one physics course in my secondary education, and about eight math courses.
Most physics students become engineers, scientists or programmers in my experience.
I'm not sure what you are claiming.
My understanding is you get a lot secondary ed math majors, which tends to skew female. In my area at least.
I finally get to terms with sailing terms in english, and then jibing starts having different meanings :|
I am more the lone wolf type myself. I am fine with collaborating, actually enjoy it when needed, but I prefer doing the majority of my work alone or with a small team and banging my/our head against a problem until I/we have figured it out.
What's starting to bother me is that there is a trend where extroverted people (like her I assume) try to change education and workplaces to suit their style but introverted people get pushed aside. A ton of people sitting in a room and talking is good, working alone is bad, not inclusive and biased.
Am I the only one who actually enjoys working alone and is this a bad thing? Do we have to accommodate extroverts everywhere and always? I don't complain about HR and marketing not being inclusive towards shy introverts. Sometimes I am starting to feel like a small minority although I am a white middle aged male.
What's starting to bother me is that there is a trend where extroverted people (like her I assume) try to change education and workplaces to suit their style but introverted people get pushed aside. A ton of people sitting in a room and talking is good, working alone is bad, not inclusive and biased.
Am I the only one who actually enjoys working alone and is this a bad thing? Do we have to accommodate extroverts everywhere and always? I don't complain about HR and marketing not being inclusive towards shy introverts. Sometimes I am starting to feel like a small minority although I am a white middle aged male.
I am a female software engineer who is an introvert too. It's wrong to assume that men want to work alone and women want to work with people... it ignores a lot individuals like me. I currently work in an open office environment and find it very hard to concentrate with people around me. I don't want people to assume that bc I'm female I want to work with people. I really really don't. People should stop trying to force women as a category into computer science, and just focus on the individual.
I agree - female coder as well. I enjoy coding itself. Doesn't need to be collaborative unless there is a purpose to it for me.
Isn't her point that because how tech education and work is currently a large portion of women leave the tech field. So by default that means you and many of the other female posters here are the exceptions that enjoy working alone.
>People should stop trying to force women as a category into computer science, and just focus on the individual.
That would be ideal. I think the reason they have to "force" anything is because of the gender gaps that get reported. But yes, any manager shouldn't make assumptions about how someone wants to work, or will excel at work, based on gender.
Separately, I hope the gender gaps in computer science or math etc. can be corrected by exposing boys and girls to education and career choices in a gender neutral manner, which I don't think happens enough.
Edit to clarify.
That would be ideal. I think the reason they have to "force" anything is because of the gender gaps that get reported. But yes, any manager shouldn't make assumptions about how someone wants to work, or will excel at work, based on gender.
Separately, I hope the gender gaps in computer science or math etc. can be corrected by exposing boys and girls to education and career choices in a gender neutral manner, which I don't think happens enough.
Edit to clarify.
But then you should also expose people to education and career choices in a personality type neutral manner. School was a pretty tough ride for me because I am shy and introvert although I am a white male. Gender and race are not the only dimensions along which people can get discriminated. There are also looks, being outgoing or not, athletic skills, fashion tastes and many others.
Our taxonomies for personality traits and human grouping is quite primitive. Our ability to categorise people in useful ways is really atrocious. So often we force that category on people, because that's easier then improving our categorization.
Hopefully, this improves in the future, starting with medicine amd nutrition, there's more discourse happening about the individual characteristics. But I'm afraid its a hard problem, accurate genes and gut microbiome measurements could maybe improve things. But then correlating these with behaviourial traits and emotional well being is incredibly hard.
Hopefully, this improves in the future, starting with medicine amd nutrition, there's more discourse happening about the individual characteristics. But I'm afraid its a hard problem, accurate genes and gut microbiome measurements could maybe improve things. But then correlating these with behaviourial traits and emotional well being is incredibly hard.
This is a lot of whats changed in the 20 years I've been in the industry. My first job as an engineer, EVERYONE got an office. Even the new grads. It was assumed you'd need a work space and some quiet to think.
My last job (I'm not taking another), we were packed in like gerbils, cages stacked on top of each other and most of my coworkers were non-technical. Yes, many "programmers" are now non-technical people. They're not scientists anymore, they're janitors.
My last job (I'm not taking another), we were packed in like gerbils, cages stacked on top of each other and most of my coworkers were non-technical. Yes, many "programmers" are now non-technical people. They're not scientists anymore, they're janitors.
I fail to understand how this is a men VS women issue, as comments here are interpreting this. As evidenced by this part in the article, it is more a this person issue. Or their learning style, as one comment has already pointed out.
>It wasn’t my teacher’s fault; she tried hard to engage me and figure out why I wasn’t connecting well with the work. Nor was I facing discrimination or isolation based on my gender — it was an all-girls school, and every single other woman who took that computer science class that year became an engineer or scientist.
I felt compelled to make a comment myself because I am a woman, and I am kind of tired of broad, sweeping generalizations about women and how they learn or want to work.
I think there's something to note here, though, and that she was driven towards a particular field because of her childhood experiences. She sounds like someone who would have benefitted from guidance at that age. Human experiences are complex, and not only because of the number of varying factors that can shape and impact them. I don't think its simply about sex differences.
>It wasn’t my teacher’s fault; she tried hard to engage me and figure out why I wasn’t connecting well with the work. Nor was I facing discrimination or isolation based on my gender — it was an all-girls school, and every single other woman who took that computer science class that year became an engineer or scientist.
I felt compelled to make a comment myself because I am a woman, and I am kind of tired of broad, sweeping generalizations about women and how they learn or want to work.
I think there's something to note here, though, and that she was driven towards a particular field because of her childhood experiences. She sounds like someone who would have benefitted from guidance at that age. Human experiences are complex, and not only because of the number of varying factors that can shape and impact them. I don't think its simply about sex differences.
I didn't understand this either. What exactly does it mean to "learn like a girl"?
I am curious what approaches can be taken to make education more approachable for people who learn collaboratively and have a social focus. If anyone has example curricula changes or teaching approaches that they could share it would be greatly appreciated.
[deleted]
This was an excellent article and a nuanced, well-articulated perspective.
Too bad it got modded down almost immediately.
Too bad it got modded down almost immediately.