* A strong focus on being "right" over working collaboratively (especially in domains with no right answers).
* Hyper competitiveness - to the detriment of effectiveness.
* A lack of empathy (e.g. PRs with "your code sucks, suck it up and stop being such a baby").
These things are hardly good from the perspective of any software developer (except particular kinds of men who thrive under these conditions) but they're particularly off putting to women.
I tend to find that this aggressive behavior is most frequently exhibited by "senior" developers who aren't actually very good or clever but have built up a reputation that they wish to protect. Some developers are very territorial.
This is the crux of the issue. For this to be true, it must also be true that men and women are, at least in some ways, intrinsically different (otherwise why would these things pose a greater challenge for women relative to men)?
I don't see why it's the crux. It's really only necessary that men and women be socialized differently for this to be true - to grow up surrounded by people telling you that you need to be more "agreeable" and "not too pushy".
I think whether it is true or not is rather beside the point. Toxic working environments are anti-meritocratic and anti productive. Even if we didn't give a fuck how many women entered the profession we should fix them. Intellectual dick waving leads to worse code, not better.
There are some low-level differences (e.g. ratios of different cell types in the brain) but there’s no conclusive evidence linking that to academic skills or job performance (just how does 3-d reasoning affect your ability to write Python, anyway?), but there has been a history of earlier results attributed to gender not holding up under scrutiny.
As far as I understood it, this wasn't the bit of the memo that people were attacking.
Let me get this straight:
1. Most women were programmers.
2. Women aren't sexist, so they let men in.
3. Men overwhelmed the women.
4. Men are sexist, so they stopped letting women in.
5. Now we need to deliberately reverse the results of stage (4).
Is that the sequence of events as you see it?
Women would not have been in charge of hiring, so no to 2. (The programming jobs men were hired for would likely not have been considered the same kind of job.)
Not sure what you mean by 3.
Roughly yes to 4, although the issue is systematic sexism, not the personal prejudices of men and women. Society in general, including many women, disapproved of women becoming programmers once it began to be seen as a high-status high-skill profession.
Yes to 5, with the preceding caveats.
These arguments seem to go in circles a lot.
First it matters that "the majority of programmers were women". But then it doesn't actually matter, because the people in charge of hiring weren't women. Ok. Then it's society in general that is sexist, but actually it's only certain professions where this "general sexism" manifests itself, for no apparent reason. Ok. Then you have the most egalitarian countries in the world seeing more disparate outcomes than other western countries. But this is apparently because sexism and cultural norms are so nebulous and hard to pin down that there must still be some sexism going on there too, we just can't see it. Ok.
There are a lot of claims being made with no evidence whatsoever. While I personally don't put much stock in psychology, at least Damore's points had actual studies behind them. And though it has been thrown around in this thread that "some of the authors disagreed with Damore's interpretation!", I have actually read the studies and found nothing factually inaccurate with the interpretation. That's what is so difficult about a lot of psychology – the hard facts are few and far between, so effectively every result is subject to interpretation. An author of a paper can disagree, but that doesn't make Damore wrong.
Because those industries accepted that they had a problem and took steps to fix it. Altering the perceptions of the broader society can be a big part of that. People no longer see anything unusual about a woman being a lawyer or a doctor. Fifty years ago, that wasn't the case. So there's no paradox here. "General sexism" includes stereotypes about appropriate occupations for men and women. These can change over time, as we've seen in the case of lawyers and doctors.
>First it matters that "the majority of programmers were women". But then it doesn't actually matter, because the people in charge of hiring weren't women.
It matters because it shows that women were, at one time, both interested in and capable of programming. No-one has said that it doesn't matter, so your 'but' makes no sense.
You're quite right that there's nothing to be learned by throwing around citations to half-read and half-understood studies (which is why I haven't done any of that). All you have to do is listen to what women in tech say. If James Danmore had done that for five minutes instead of wasting his time on his half-assed "research", none of this would have happened.
Anecdotal evidence is worse than psychology studies.
That's not necessarily true. Hence the analogy.
If you have many good / attractive options and you choose one, you probably have an interest in that thing.
If you have precious few, not great options, and you choose one, it does not necessarily indicate the same.
I shouldn't need to provide copious examples for this to be obviously true. Money is only one of many motivators, but it is often strong enough on its own to overcome your interest (or lack thereof) in something if it means you get paid for it.
Take another example: many women throughout history have chosen sex work. That does not mean that sex work interests them. It just means they decided sex work was better than alternatives, for whatever reasons.
Doing something of your own free will does not mean you have a genuine interest in that thing. It can (and often does) just mean that thing is better than alternatives, for a multitude of reasons that are not "I find it the most interesting".
Even assuming that your assertion about sexism in tech is not in fact speculation, how exactly is introducing more sexist policies into tech going to help eliminate sexism in tech?
Because my stance (that sexism is a significant factor in putting women off from tech) can be trivially verified by, say, asking 10 women in tech about their experiences of sexism. Not to mention that it would be a minor miracle if tech were somehow completely isolated from the sexism that's clearly present in society as a whole.
Out of interest, have you ever tried talking to women about this issue? Or have you (ironically) formed your opinion that there is no sexism in tech without listening to their perspective?
I generally don't try to collect facts about life by asking randos for their opinions, no.
But yes, I have talked with women in tech about sexism. I have also encouraged other women to get into tech in the first place.
> Not to mention that it would be a minor miracle if tech were somehow completely isolated from the sexism that's clearly present in society as a whole.
Is this the same sexism that is causing the current generation of young women to go to and graduate university at a higher rate than their male counterparts, earn more money than their male counterparts, or commit less suicide than their male counterparts?
And this attitude is why it's going to be hard work to change things to the better. You have no interest in listening to what women tell you. You'd rather cherry pick studies of dubious quality and relevance, and tell your female colleagues (if any) that they must just be imagining it all.
>[young women] earn more money than their male counterparts
This seems bogus, at least in reference to the USA. At most, it may the case that women earn slightly more than men straight out of college. The gender pay gap still clearly favors men overall.
As for suicide, I think men have pretty much always been more prone to suicide than women. If that's an argument for the non-existence of sexism, then you'd have to draw the absurd conclusion that, e.g., there was no sexism in Victorian Britain. See figure 1 here: https://watermark.silverchair.com/dyq094.pdf?token=AQECAHi20...
All that being said, it is a common misconception that sexism is by definition something that harms women and not men. Sexism certainly harms men too. The root cause of sexism is the power asymmetry between men and women. Generally speaking, men exercise that power in their own broad interests. But of course there are plenty of individual men who lose out.
The root cause of much disagreement on the subject of sexism is on the claim that there is a power asymmetry between men and women, and the methodology of measuring personal income as the sole means of measuring power in society.
It's not clear why these should be any more acceptable than the claims Damore made.
Incidentally:
1) An environment filled with intellectual posturing is not "hyper competitive". The fact that you could confuse the two is concerning.
2) My post may have seemed to you to make a set of assumptions about women's abilities but it didn't (just their preferences).
I don't see an equivalence to nursing or primary school teaching since by and large it's not the toxic aspects of these careers that puts off men, it's the lack of pay and status.
Because, if you really, really want gender parity, most programmers don't work at Uber or Snapchat. They work in mundane jobs at faceless companies.
Even more so when you leave the USA. (Since this is about principle).
In my experience, those below average places where people tweak payroll software (where I started out in my career) are the worst. I would expect the below average people in Uber and Google to be among the worst of the worst too, though (they are the most insecure, I think). A lack of psychological safety is what drives a lot of this.
As always there are exceptions, but as a rule, mediocrity breeds insecurity and insecurity breeds toxic behavior and no, none of this can be fixed in five minutes.
Techbros. Techbros everywhere. It's not what people want to hear, most people would love it if the field and the educational pipeline leading to it had more professional norms all-around. But it's a real thing. (FWIW, I don't think of Damore as part of the problem, indeed his proposals would help a lot if widely adopted.)
Incidentally the techbros you describe are majorly young cs graduates from my observation. Why are unis teaching them to be tech bros? Are unis at fault for making tech non inclusive and toxic?
Me and my wife are both AI academics in the UK who do a bunch of programming. I have no "interesring stories" to tell, my wife has a dozen including men punching walls because they were beaten by a woman in a board game, being sent death threats and dick pics (not from the same person), and being assumed to be my non-tech wife when we go to events where she was invited and I was going as her partner.
Now, these events aren't daily, or even weekly, but they stick with people and make then feel unwelcome and unsafe.
> Toxicity
Probably you don't need to go further than that.
Painting it was "frat bro" just makes for a better more exciting headline.
Exactly what about the Snapchat or Jared Kushner stories I cited do you believe is a hoax?
Please stop claiming things that were never said. You do this constantly in your comments and it's not fair or productive.
My point is only that the media is not the objective truth or overruling expert in any single subject, and often filled with highly-opinionated, ideological, and sometimes misleading takes.
As far as this specific issue, I disagree that it is so widespread across the industry outside of a few companies with clear problems. Also the Kushner story seems to be mocking their appearance than behaviors.
The exact same behavior is present in people that have zero background in frats. How do you explain that?
This is not a "frat bros" problem, it's a misogyny problem. Painting it with the words frat just helps paint whatever biased narrative is being spun to make the story more compelling.
In case English isn't your native language, or you're lucky enough to not be familiar with this dark side of American culture, the commonly used terms are "Fraternity Brothers", "Frat Brothers", and "Frat Bros", who become "Tech Bros" when they graduate.
And YES, it is a culture, and a notoriously toxic pervasive culture at that, which Snapchat and Uber exemplify.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/snapc...
>Snapchat, the App Frat Bros Love, Was Started By the Frattiest Bro of Them All
>Evan Spiegel, the CEO and cofounder of Snapchat, has created a massive, popular application. It's basically a frat boys dream, and as it turns out, Spiegel was the ultimate frat guy during his time at Standford.
https://techcrunch.com/2014/05/28/confirmed-snapchats-evan-s...
>Confirmed: Snapchat’s Evan Spiegel Is Kind Of An Ass
>I’ve known Evan Spiegel, Snapchat CEO and co-founder, for a while now. We have had more than half a dozen in-person conversations, far more phone calls, and even shared twenty minutes together on stage at Disrupt SF. And try as I might, I’ve had a hard time liking him. Now, after reading emails sent by Evan Spiegel during his undergrad time at Stanford, I clearly understand what my instincts were telling me.
>Dude’s kind of a dick.
>You can see the whole swath of leaked emails at ValleyWag, but I can summarize them all pretty easily for you with the above paragraph. Here’s a typical example:
>“LUAU FUCKING RAGED. Thanks to all of you. Hope at least six girl [sic] sucked your dicks last night. Cuz that didn’t happen for me.” Signed affectionately, “fuckbitchesgetleid. Spiegel.”
https://vator.tv/news/2014-05-28-snapchat-ceo-emails-talk-ab...
>Snapchat CEO emails talk about "bitches" and "sluts"
>Emails from Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel reveal gross fratboy misogyny in the wake of UCSB shootings
>Breaking news: rich, white man says awful things. Other white men rally to his defense.
https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/photography-2/americ...
>Inside the dark, depraved world of US frat culture. American ultra.
>Photographer Andrew Moisey explores the rituals, texts and initiations of American fraternities: breeding grounds for aggressive, toxic masculinity.
>The world of American fraternities is a strange and ghoulish one. Depraved and simmering with violence, it’s a hotbed of ultra-masculine entitlement: a grim embodiment of chest-pumping male tribalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/dec/10/andrew-...
>Humiliation, homoeroticism and animal cruelty: inside the frathouse
>Photographer Andrew Moisey uncovered ritual hazing, extreme drunkenness and toxic masculinity on one college campus – from men destined to be America’s future leaders
>[...] A world in which homosexuality is taboo but cross-dressing and semi-naked wrestling are acceptable and parading your penis and testicles is almost de rigueur.
>[...] “These all-male campus spaces have been around since the 1820s,” elaborates Moisey, “but they changed perceptibly during the so-called culture wars of the 1970s, becoming a safe space for guys who didn’t want to have to worry about having their kind of fun.” Many fraternities, he believes, now view themselves as embattled institutions, maintaining their conservative core values of brotherhood, privilege and machismo against a perceived liberal onslaught. Disturbingly, the code of loyalty to the brotherhood endures even after the other principles of fraternity life have long since fallen away.
>“The central issue is that there is an allegiance to everyone inside the fraternity rather than to the higher ideal,” says Moisey. “So even though most of these guys consider themselves highly respectable, their loyalty is such that they will protect the bad guys who hide in their midst. If you are a bad seed and you join a fraternity, you have found your safe haven. And what we are seeing right now is that the support and protection that fraternities provide for the bad seeds extends into the highest echelons of American power and decision-making.”
>[...] “This is what our leaders looked like when they were young.”
https://www.andrewmoisey.com/the-american-fraternity.html
>ANDREW MOISEY: THE AMERICAN FRATERNITY
>An Illustrated Ritual Manual
The struggle between men and women benefits their divide et impera strategy, because playing people off against each other while maintaining an irrational authority is their main talent.
But in the case of SnapChat and Uber (and many other tech companies), the founders were literally (and archetypically) both Frat Bros and Tech Bros, who set the tone and culture for the entire company, and rampantly hired other Frat Bros from their own Frats, at all levels of incompetency.
Incompetent nepotistic job placement is basically what frats are all about. (Once you get past all that other stuff that Andrew Moisey documented.)
“This is what our leaders looked like when they were young.” -Andrew Moisey
This is still just meaningless name calling, not made any better by the fact that it's so entirely US specific. It certainly isn't even remotely close to an explanation for the global preferences both genders express for different jobs. As I assume you're aware that in fact most jobs aren't gender balanced, most are dominated by one gender or another?
Again, only saw emails.
Even then, all of that seems more outlier than any programming community. Not everyone is a billionaire programmer responsible for putting social media cringe in front of our eyes.
Please show me convicted for [reason] reports. I am convinced everytime I read these articles, the author is trying to see things that aren't there or it's hard to verify the validity.
Note that I don't condone the behaviour but should you really be painting majority of population as some sort of saint to highlight the evil? Because they aren't.
Alcoholism and drug rate among youngsters says otherwise.
If you wanted to make a stronger argument, you should at least pretend to have read what you're glibly dismissing out of hand, instead of preemptively admitting that you don't bother reading what anyone else says, and that there's no point in replying to you.
HN is not a forum for announcing you have not read things, then criticizing and dismissing them anyway. Don't you have better things to do than rationalizing and defending Frat Bro toxicity?
If you don't have time to go through all that, then you shouldn't waste your time replying to dismiss it all, either.
Why should I bother reading opinion of a writer when I can look at the source?
If your first few links don't show the problem, people wouldn't be willing to put in effort. I thought that was obvious.
https://vator.tv/news/2014-05-31-stanford-denounces-spiegel-...
>In a letter sent to that was sent out to the entire Stanford undergraduate community, and obtained by the Huffington Post, Stanford University Provost John Etchemendy called the e-mails "crude, offensive, and demeaning to women."
>"Like most of you, male and female, I found those messages abhorrent. I am writing now to convey clearly that the sentiments expressed in these emails do not reflect what we, as members of the Stanford community, expect of one another," the letter said.
Have you got anything to stand on better than your "boys will be boys ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" argument?
Can you provide some evidence for your conspiracy theory, such as a quote of Evan denying that he wrote those emails, or Stanford University Provost John Etchemendy retracting his statement that Evan's e-mails were "crude, offensive, and demeaning to women"?
Is there a source for your conspiracy theory, or did you make it up yourself just now? I thought you had better things to do with your time that defending the honor of Frat Bros. So give me a link to your proof Evan Spielberg didn't send those emails.
Which is what you should have linked and let people make their mind.
I agree it's pretty assy. What are you looking for me to say?
You are calling tech community toxic and frat boy asses because some billionaire ceo is a douche bag? I don't know how to reply to that. I already cleared that up. I am not defending him. I don't condone that behaviour but it's not far fetched for college students to be like that. It's not a disease specific to tech community. Tech bros are not special unicorns. Every field has those.
There is absolutely zero credible evidence that Evan Spiegel didn't write those misogynistic emails, and overwhelming credible evidence that he did, so you should stop believing and intimating that it's a hoax, if you can't prove it.
But yes, a lot of tech companies are terribly toxic, and a lot of Frat Boys are terrible asses, who graduate (but don't grow up) to be Tech Bros, and work in the tech industry. But they don't need you to deny it and rationalize it and protect their fragile feelings from criticism for them, they need to STOP.
If your only point is that "every field has those", and you think I disagree, then read my other postings about Jared Kushner's coronavirus "Frat Party".
Every field having those doesn't justify or counter tech having those, and if you don't have the time to read the source evidence that I linked to before you took the time to announce you didn't read it and then glibly asked for source evidence that will take you even more time to read, then you won't bother reading anything else, and you're not arguing in good faith.
The more frequently you reply, the more skeptical I become of your claim that you don't have the time to read the original evidence I posted. If you don't know how to reply to that, and didn't have the time to read the evidence, then you should not have replied in the first place, or again, and again. And especially not a fourth time.
It's weird that the dude you're talking to never expressed skepticism as to the provenance of the emails, yet you keep repeating this as if he is.
You seem to have a stock character of your own creation that you're responding to, some sort of cliched misogynist alt right conspiracies troll, instead of simply a skeptic who'd rather trust his own faculties to judge the source material over the opinions of ideological journo-activists.
Seriously, reread the thread.
> intimating that it's a hoax
In no way does he do this. Reread the thread.
https://www.businessinsider.nl/coronavirus-kushner-impact-te...
>Jared Kushner’s coronavirus ‘impact team’ mocked as the ‘Slim Suit Crowd’ and a ‘frat party’ descended from a UFO
If this is true it's probably because the community isn't very friendly or welcoming to women like the poster said…
That being said, I don't think this is true. My only evidence is anecdotal, but at a previous company when we tried to recruit at events that weren't primarily male dominated, we got roughly equal percentages of responses from people who identified as female or male.
> Just like most men don't go into pre-school teaching.
Let's assume for a moment these statements are correct: you're not starting from the right place. Why don't most women want the software job? Why don't most men want to teach pre-school? It could be because they've been raised in a society that says that the burden of child rearing should be placed on the women and that pre-school isn't a "manly" profession. Just because people don't want the job doesn't make it less discriminatory against women somehow, it just means the reasons are likely ingrained and harder to fix.
Amusingly, the damore memo was an attempt to address just this very question. Are we not beyond pretending responses outside the proscribed woke ideology will be engaged with in good faith, at this late stage?
One of the more obvious problems is that software especially seems to have issues with sexual harassment. An example of that can be readily found with Susan Fowler's blogpost about Uber's rotten workplace culture.
Be precise, how is your community not friendly to women in ways you cannot fix in five minutes? If its obvious, its trivial to list them, if its subtle then its worth doing the exercise.
We have to accept they may just not want the gig. Just like most men don't go into pre-school teaching.