Fighting Tech's Diversity Issues Without Burning Down the System

reifman writes: Fizzmint CEO Tarah Wheeler Van Vlack says she "never had a problem with Mitt Romney's use of the phrase 'binders full of women.' ... Instead of congratulating him for his realization and his attempt to (awkwardly) rectify the situation, we crucified him for not already having a network of accomplished women." The scarcity of women in tech is a central issue in Seattle, where Amazon's growth is literally reshaping the city. The company refuses to release its technology workforce diversity numbers, and it's been criticized for interviewing practices that put female candidates on a "horrifying steeplechase [by] careless and non-people-oriented technologists." Van Vlack says, "It's stupid on every level not to acknowledge the obstacles women face when they try to join a tech company." She suggests three concrete steps for technology leaders to attract more women into the fold: 1) Push your technical recruiters to hit 20% thresholds for female candidates 2) Challenge and question your personal assumptions about the leadership skills of women in technology and 3) Transparently and openly take a stand to improve your company's diversity figures.

Comments

Honest question.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm at a loss here so I might as well ask cowardly and anonymously.

Why do we need women in tech so bad? Seriously, why? Is there something I'm missing that makes women super heroes at programming?

I'm not even trying to troll at this point, I can do that much easier on other sites and get way better reactions.

Re:Honest question.

[Anonymous Coward]

The tech industry's self- flagellation on this issue is probably more self-destructive than any sexism which exists. Imagine you're a bright teenage girl who is interested in programming, reads around & does some research. What do you see? ENDLESS articles about how terrible the industry is, how sexist nerds are, how you'll be threatened with rape if you so much as write an Android Pac Man clone... Instead of y'know, being optimistic and showing us some of the many thousands of women who work in tech we instead get press coverage that makes it look like the worst industry ever.

Meanwhile they're all missing one of the main reasons for said issues - the tech industry has become a meritocracy for people who went to the best colleges and had access to enviable financial resources, leaving others to be pushed to the side. So while there may not be that many women in tech (even if some of them are super-powerful like Marissa Mayer or Meg Whitman) there's even less ordinary working/low-middle class types in good jobs. Exactly the same is happening in fields like finance, acting & music - most of the well-paid professionals we come across come from already wealthy families leaving 90%+ of the nation hoping they may get a shot sometime, then saying fuck it and doing something else.

Re:Honest question.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with so few women in IT is that one has to ask is there something that is preventing women from getting jobs in IT. It's a fair question. In our society, there should be nothing that stops someone from getting a job - equal access is important. The problem is that no one is asking what sucks about IT. Could it be:

1) the amount of retraining you have to do on your own now that companies don't train?
2) The amount of retaining you have to provide yourself so that you don't become irrelevant?
3) Shitty hours, e.g., software updates can only be performed between 12:01 AM and 4:00AM? On call?
4) In IT you don't have challenges anymore. Everyone is a designer an your're just the programmer.
5) H1-b.
6) Outsourcing
7) Washed up at 40.
8) No overtime.

If I were to look at this list as a 22 year-old, why would I go into IT except for a misplaced love of programming? If you ask me, women are smart to avoid IT like the plague. IT has become the new production line without overtime. Managers introduce methodologies like Agile because the word "sprint" seems to mean that they can overwork you.

Re:Honest question.

[PeeAitchPee]

you are going to get burned by the orgs that know they can do better.

Better how? Fewer errors per million lines of code better? Higher sales per employee better? Show me a metric besides diversity itself that proves these other orgs you describe are inherently "better." Because unless this quality increase you describe can be defined and measured, and directly attributed to having a diverse workforce, you're going to have a hard time selling this idea to those who might be a bit skeptical.

Re:Honest question.

[uncqual]

Managers introduce methodologies like Agile because the word "sprint" seems to mean that they can overwork you.

Although, I don't think that's the primary reason that managers like agile.

As far as I can tell, the primary reason is that they are completely unable to manage and plan long term and agile is a perfect refuge for those who lack these skills but nevertheless covet the 'manager' title.

(Oh, and because it sounds cool - like "Pivoting", "Cloud Strategy", "Leveraging Our Strengths", "Coopertition", etc.)

Re:Honest question.

[ShanghaiBill]

Why not things like police, fire, teaching, military, garbage collection and so forth? Those are all things where there's a huge disparity, but you don't see the same zeal for fixing it that you do in this case.

You are either blind and deaf, oblivious, or very young. When women first tried to join the police and fire departments, it was a HUGE issue. Women in the military is still a controversial issue, as they are segregated and blocked from many combat roles.

Re:Honest question.

[xaotikdesigns]

I remember a feminist complaining that the strength test for the city's fire department was too much for women to handle. The strength test consisted of carrying a hose, chopping down doors, and other things that firemen have to do in their job. When asked what good a woman that could not do the job would be on the crew, she stated that they would just need to get machines to do the work instead so that women could join.

Re:Honest question.

[ashpool7]

I can give you the most politically incorrect reason that companies are falling over themselves to push this.

It's the same reason they fall over themselves for H-1B and other immigration reform.

They want cheaper labor because tech skills are rare. If there are equal numbers of women that are smart enough to program, but being held back by invisible barriers, it's in their financial interest to remove those, because that will create a larger supply pool and push down wages.

Bla bla bla other factors about how it's a good idea anyway, but we all know what really drives capitalism.

Qualifications

[Major Blud]

"1) Push your technical recruiters to hit 20% thresholds for female candidates"

At the expense of the qualified candidates?

I do not understand the self-flagellation

[msobkow]

I do not understand the self-flagellation of the tech world over "diversity."

Where's the bitching about the under-representation of men in nursing and teaching? The demand for more female garbage collectors? Construction workers?

Oh. I get it. It's only "inequality" if it's about a cushy desk job.

Re:I do not understand the self-flagellation

[jedidiah]

I'm not so sure this is a "tech industry" thing as much as it is a "media narrative" thing. The media has found themselves a great nerd bashing technique and some of the nerds are attempting damage control.

It's all marketing. That's the beauty of it. Companies can announce things that any numerate person should be skeptical of because journalists are likely not nerdy enough to understand what they're being told.

Re:I do not understand the self-flagellation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this. It appears that over the past year the media has declared war on nerds and are using sexism as a stick to beat them over the head. Why? Probably because 'lack of luck with the ladies' is a personality weakness of many nerds and a vulnerability to be attacked.

If you're a gamer you're bad, if you're a scientist then your choice in shirts is bad, if you're a teenage geek then haha you're a virgin loser, if you're a successful programmer then you clearly hate women for working in such a heinous business.

Honestly sometimes I read this kind of stuff and it reminds me of horrible ultra right-wing discussion boards where the posters spend their time hating on everybody then wonder why the world at large thinks they're dicks.

Re:I do not understand the self-flagellation

[mbkennel]

Where's the bitching about under-representation of people over 40?

There are oodles of people who want these jobs, and are very motivated to get them, and have specific industry experience, and don't need any hand-holding, coddling or emotional kisses.

Oh yeah, fuck them.

What's the graduation rate for women?

[dbc]

What percentage of the people graduating with qualifying degrees are women? If the hiring is close to that, is there a problem?

What diversity issue?

[JoeyRox]

I've worked at a lot of tech companies and done lots of interviewing on behalf of management and have never seen one hiring decision where the most qualified engineer didn't get the job, be they male or female. Tech is the most meritocratic industry in the American economy.

Right Problem, Wrong "Solution"

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's stupid on every level not to acknowledge the obstacles women face when they try to join a tech company."

I have no problem acknowledging that sexism exists, and working to correct sexism in the workplace. But requiring that a certain percentage of your workforce consists of a particular gender? That does not solve the problem of sexism, that IS sexism, regardless of which gender is being favored.

Re:Entitled much?

[TechyImmigrant]

Yes, guys spend five hours interviewing for a tech position without seeing any men, that happens all the time.

So they've got to have the women on staff before they are allowed to interview women to get them on the staff?!

But that relies on HR departments

[whitroth]

Come *on*, you expect HR departments to *find*, much less hire qualified women? Most hiring managers have a hard enough time finding *any* qualified candidates, since about 80% or more of HR departments are completely staffed by people who have NO IDEA of what the company actually does, NO IDEA of what they're hiring for, and DON'T CARE TO LEARN.

Come on - for anyone working for any medium to large size, do *you* think HR knows their ass from a hole in the ground? When I was last looking, around '09, Grumman wanted you to upload your resume (Word format only, please), and not even a cover letter, and they said that they found "qualified candidates" by DOING DATABASE SEARCHES. So, you with the six years of Oracle, you're not qualified to work on MySql, or Sybase. And oh, you haven't done this, and don't have that certification, never mind how many years you've been doing it, you're not qualified.

Come the Revolution, we're going to lead HR departments into the parking lot, throw asphalt on them, and PAVE THEM INTO THE ROADWAY, and *then*, and only then, will they have any social or corporate utility....

                    mark

PS: and for those of you who think women aren't good enough, I'd suggest that one of my daughters who's a programmer and tester for a major aerospace firm is a *hell* of a lot better than you are at her job.

Look To History

[American AC in Paris]

Well, we could look to both the legal and medical professions.

For example, back in 1970, about 8% of all doctors were women. Today, roughly 1/3 of all doctors are women--hardly parity, but a significant improvement, nonetheless. Similarly, about 1/3 of all lawyers are now women; back in 1970, that number was closer to 5%.

So what happened between the 1970s and today in the legal and medical professions? For one, there was a concerted effort to even make these professions accept that there was a problem. In both the industry and the public eye, it was generally accepted that women weren't lawyers or doctors because women simply weren't cut out for that kind of work--it was too demanding, too rigorous, too technical, too high-stakes, and required an 'instinct' that women just generally didn't have.

Additionally, there was a very active and ongoing effort to encourage women to enter these fields--efforts that took a long time to gain steam, as these fields require years of specialized study and training on top of a sound primary and secondary education. Professional organizations dedicated to supporting and encouraging women in these fields were created. Major existing professional organizations--like the AMA and the ABA--started paying attention to the issue, as well.

Today, you won't find many people defending the position that women are somehow less fit to be doctors or lawyers than men. That's gone. It took a long time, and it took a lot of people--mostly women--fighting a grueling and protracted battle against a broader community that was, at best, condescendingly tolerant of them, so long as their numbers were small enough and they accepted adapting themselves to life in a man's profession. You still see gender disparity, both in pay and people, and you still see a lot of the vestiges of the old system that need to be retooled, but there's been real progress.

Getting a solid number on how many women are employed as software engineers/programmers is tricky, but one recent effort compiled information from around 200 companies and found that about 15% of software engineers are women. Certainly not as bad as the medical and legal professions in 1970, but a far cry from what you'd expect--and, frankly, a far cry from where software engineering and programming has been in the past.

So here we are, in 2015. There's a lot to be done. We've barely even begun to accept that this is a problem yet, and the backlash against this concept is virulent, to put it lightly. That said, there's momentum building, and I'm hopeful that we're finally--finally--starting to move in the right direction.

The system won't be burned down, but the system won't survive in its current form, either. With any luck, 40 years from now, we'll be looking back on this with the same incredulity as we do on the legal and medical professions of yore.

Re:Look To History

[malkavian]

Possibly not. Back in the 70s, if you remember that (I do), there was a significant lack of women in the workplace, as a good portion chose to be home makers. That skewed all the demographics. Nowadays, things have changed a whole lot, where women actually outnumber men in university graduation numbers, and there's the expectation that both partners now work in the majority of cases (men are still underrepresented in the homemaker side). We've reached the point where men and women have chosen their paths, and a huge amount of women choose not to do math, physics, chemistry and computing. They do chose law, medicine, and biological science, and are often overrepresented in these areas. And they're happy doing what they do..

Only stand that makes sense is to increase supply

[SuperKendall]

I don't buy into he shell-game concept where you try to increase "diversity" numbers at a company, especially if the number is higher than the overall percentage of qualified candidates - you are just shuffling a limited supply of a category of worker at the expense of some other companies numbers. Even just trying to maintain an average makes no sense, what if there's a company somewhere that has a much higher percentage of woman than normal because women really love working there? Isn't that OK?

To me if a workplace is not welcoming to women, it's probably not very welcoming to men either, so simply making the workplace better for everyone is the right thing to do, and will attract better candidates of all genders.

What I prefer to do (apart from treating women no different professionally than men) to address the lack of women in technical jobs is put money and effort towards increasing the supply in the first place. Efforts that try to help young girls learn to program or otherwise engage them in technical subjects are the way to truly improve the industry. By the time women (and men for that matter) are out of college it's very hard to move into a technical field, so it's really important to get someone interested while they are young.

Re:Entitled much?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you don't see a member of of your own gender or ethnicity every couple of hours then that means someone is discriminating against you?

Re: Entitled much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't she ask for a drink of water?

Why didn't she ask where the washroom is?

I find it absurd that an adult, regardless of gender, wouldn't ask such questions, and would instead just sit there for hours getting angry that such things weren't being offered.

Blame The Parents

[eepok]

This conversation rationally and logically devolves into the following:

Companies
"Our company doesn't discriminate against females for any position. The problem is that there aren't enough competitively qualified female candidates. Blame the universities."

Univerisities
"Our University's STEM programs don't discriminate against females. Hell, we have multiple support programs for females, an Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, and outreach programs into K-12 education to encourage young ladies to explore STEM subjects! If anything, we're doing the work that the secondary schools should be doing."

High Schools
"Our high school is pressed for money. We can't afford the teachers we need, PE has been cut, and there is absolutely zero funding for programs within STEM to do anything but prepare students to take tests. Do you even know what it's like to shove STEM education into the minds of teenage girls? Maybe if they had some earlier primering, we would have a chance, but their interests are formed far earlier than high school."

Middle Schools
"Junior high is too weird for anything purposeful to happen. Every day is a mix of hormones, fights, and liability risk assessments. Try the elementary school."

Elementary Schools
"Us? Seriously? We can't even teach real American history without receiving wrath from Tea Party Parents or teach evolution without getting sued by the religious right. We can't send home technical projects because it ends up being homework that Mom and Dad end up doing because they don't want their child to miss soccer practice or kid's cheer. Try getting the parents on board with education, first, then come to us."

Parents
"Hell yes, I voted against the new taxes to fund schools! I have a mortgage, two car payments, and a $150/month cable bill. The kids both have braces, I'm on anxiety meds, and Bill, when he gets to come home, just doesn't have time to deal with anything. The dog has renal failure. Did I mention that? It's costing $300/month to keep the dog alive. So, no. I don't feel bad for voting against overpaid teacher scam artists getting more money. And to top it off, then send home these computer projects that require Jessica to learn some foreign computer language to show she can make a computer add "2 + 2". This isn't right. We have calculators already. Now, I have to call my brother (he's a computer whiz) to help my daughter do the homework that's meant for boys. And that's another thing! Why don't they just let girls be girls?! My Jessica has loved dolls and dresses since she was born! I'll not have her become some sad computer nerd, dressing in black flannel and black denim only for her to get teased at school. NO WAY. My kid's going to be a cheerleader like I was. And I turned out pretty damn well, thank you very much."