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 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.

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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."