I think you're completely right, btw. After AOL, it only took a few years for websites to become rapidly Flash-based. It looks like we're going back to that again (not Flash, but same thing - black boxed).

I work for an academic nonprofit. Asking to spend any money is like pulling teeth, and any purchase I make has to go through many layers of bureaucracy who don't understand or care what I do and have no incentive to make my life easier. I don't want to leave Github, but now I have to, because I just won't get the approval to spend hundreds a year. But I know that's nothing to Bay Area companies, so the rest of us will just go kick rocks or something.

No you don't have to leave GitHub now. GitHub isn't forcing existing customers onto the new pricing, and it says in the post that if that changes at least 12 months notice will be given.

Yes, existing customers have a 12-month grace period before they're impacted by a price change... but that clock just started ticking. There isn't an indefinite opt-out for this model change.

> Will GitHub force me to move to per-user pricing after 12 months?

> No. At this time we are not enforcing a timeline to move and if in the future we do decide to set a timeline we are committing to giving you at least 12 months.

[0] https://github.com/blog/2164-introducing-unlimited-private-r...

"Will GitHub force me to move to per-user pricing after 12 months?

No. At this time we are not enforcing a timeline to move and if in the future we do decide to set a timeline we are committing to giving you at least 12 months."

So you have an indefinite period of time + 12 months, not a hard 12 months starting now.

[0] https://education.github.com/

Furthermore, Github's "Education" site doesn't actually say _what_ the acadmic pricing plans are like, just that you can "ask for a discount".

Ships and rail both favour crops which store well (grains) or can be shipped frozen or refrigerated. For fresh fruit and vegetables, time is critical, and you generally want to be on store shelves within at most a few days. That's where trade-offs between location, farming costs (particularly for greenhoused or hydroponic farming) vs. transport start to get factored in. There are reasons why a generation ago you simply didn't have fresh produce out of season.

How does that work? More importantly, if they have it so nice, why don't get what you're due and start freeloading?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, one of two things is true, either you're naive about this matter, or you are precisely the type I just referred to and, as expected, fully lack self-awareness. I realize that hearing something like that will not necessarily be well received here, but it's really a pestilent type of cultural phenomenon which is a pernicious type of cancer that is constantly eating away at any progress that can be made.

Freeloading is taking advantage of goodwill without returning the favor. I don't see how driving up the market price of housing is freeloading.

But I don't think the point about the author's personal experience of not "feeling like a girl" proves anything - see "cis by default", or http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/18/typical-mind-and-gender.... It's possible that there are people who do feel strongly that their body doesn't match what their mind is telling them, and it's a cause of suffering. As I understand it, it really is all about sex in this case (which makes the author's quip about her "true self not having arthritic knees" irrelevant).

> I want to be that girl who no one thought she could, who had all the odds against her, that everyone thought was dumb, and yet she becomes incredibly successful in computer science. Then I want to turn that success around and use it a pedestal to expose every wound, every failure, every painful vulnerability I have, even with my hands trembling, because that is what I believe is what motivates women and gives them the strength and personal recognition of ‘if she can do it, so can I’, which then lights the spark to explore the field and helps women find their inner-strength to go for it.

I think this is a great sentiment, but....and maybe I'm just not hanging out in the right parts of the internet or whatever...but I see women writing about these meta-topics of "being a female programmer" far, far more often than any actual technical aspect. Maybe they just aren't upvoted to the top of HN or r/programming, heh. I've had a hard time articulating why I feel so prickly about promoting specifically "getting more women into tech", because I feel like it's starting to become this giant show pony. I think it's great that this lady is going into this field, but I feel really weird about this characterization that CS is supposed to be so super scary and women need special hand-holding and encouragement to attempt it.

I started programming when I was a kid because I wanted to make stuff. Nobody told me it was supposed to be hard or supposed to be for boys or whatever. I think we're doing a huge disservice by promoting this idea that programming is some super elusive thing - if we want more women in programming, then let's talk about how cool it is to build stuff, instead of how we can be role models or whatever. Just the opinion of one "woman in tech", I don't speak for anyone else but myself.

I don't feel that the unspoken "too" part is all that helpful. Of course human beings can do things. This isn't some kind of secret "boys' club" invasion.

For me, curiosity was the key. I saw my elder brother and dad doing stuff, and I wanted to join in and learn. No-one ever told me I couldn't: or if they did I was too hungry for knowledge, and too headstrong and precocious to listen - I can't honestly say a lot's changed about me! <g> If there's a solution to whatever problem we may have, maybe it's just that, and it's not just for girls, it's universal.

I rarely gave a moment's thought to my peers' gender because I was thinking about the important part, what I was actually doing: and for the most part, save for a couple of sexist teachers (who were - an even bigger crime - totally useless at the subject they were trying to teach) nor did they.

Something I have been coming around to understand. There are two kinds of people.

a) People who live their lives for themselves

b) People who live their lives for approval and satisfaction of others

It's really important for people who live their lives for others that they get approval and validation from others. Without it, they won't ever take risks, they wouldn't hold strong opinions on anything (because that carries the risk of being wrong).

You don't care about women engineer/programmer/scientist or anything because you didn't care about living a life whose end goal is approval from other people.

However, those individuals who do live like this, something is worth doing only if others are doing it too because it means a general validation from the others.

The problem of seeking other people's validation exists everywhere, across all genders. The solution is to teach people to not live second hand lives.

Every human being seeks the validation from others. We are social creatures. It matters to us what other people think. We all live in the minds of others to some extent or another. We don't do things just for money, or just to get the job done. We do things because we know that someone, somewhere will appreciate our work.

In fact, I would argue that all of mankind's greatest accomplishments have been the result of 'validation seeking.' The Nobel Prize, an Olympic Gold medal, a Pulitzer Prize--all are forms of awarding validation.

Seeking validation from others and getting validation are two different things and you're confusing the two things.

People who 'seek validation' end up being extremely unhappy individuals. They seek validation because they see people who 'get validation' and want to emulate them.

If computers and coding wasn't a way by which I made living, I'd still be spending hours on it outside my work, like how people spent hours working on rebuilding old cars in 70s-80s. I used to get a LOT of shit for 'wasting' so much time on computers and not focusing on studies (90s). I still did it because I enjoyed it. If I was a child today, my parents would have been exhilarated that I was so much interested in Computers.

I am sure if we encouraged a lot more women to get into programming, there will be a lot more women programmers, but the problem is that they will be unimpressive programmers.

It's like aspiring to become a body builder, but refusing to left anything heavy in the gym, and fighting people who give you crap for not lifting more.

Instead, do things you would do, even if nobody in the world encouraged you and you will find that the world will rally around you.

Second, I would argue that the opposite: that all of mankind's greatest accomplishments have been the result of 'validation avoidance.' Van Gogh was well-known because he didn't need validation. He did his art regardless of it not selling, regardless of what happened. He would be mocked for stopping by the side of the road and staring at a flower for hours, but he didn't care.

And that's the sign of a true creativity. If you're concerned about what people will think, you're not going to be able to innovate. Prizes are nice, but for real innovators, they're never the motivation.

Some people are motivated by validation, doing what they do for the prize and the recognition.

Others are motivated by something else...a thirst for knowledge, or a test of their determination and intelligence. Some great thinkers and doers reject these prizes outright as they never wanted the recognition in the first place.

Most people are motivated by a combination of the two, which is fine. Different strokes for different folks.

A mere upvote was not enough; this needs to be echoed.

I don't have enough data to draw any conclusions, and maybe I'm just bitter because a conference we're trying to get off the ground was accused of sexism when all 8 speakers were men. The kicker is that none of the 70 talk proposals the conference received was by a woman...

Or they mistake a rude person at work as being sexist or racist when they're really just rude.

There's no universally agreed-upon definition of rude, and sexism and racism are very hard to define objectively. They're very context-specific and subjective, for the most part.

No, that's a double standard. But if we're using the modern redefined version of sexism, yes you're right.

First, being rude can mean pushing someone's buttons. People have easy buttons to push regarding their gender, orientation, race, etc. So even if your primary motivation wasn't to express hate for their whole category, you can contribute to * ism that way.

Second, a more frequent expression of rude behavior to people of a class that you don't like is *ism even if you aren't using the forbidden slurs normally associated with whatever prejudice you're expressing.

Sexism and racism aren't dependent upon another person's buttons being easy to push. That just means they're more sensitive than others.

Surely not, surely it's the reason for the rudeness - if the reason is based [at all] on the sex of the person one is being rude to then it can veritably be called sexism. Otherwise it's just being rude to another person.

There clearly isn't any easy way to measure "aggregate rudeness" to be able to prove that women receive a higher quantity of "just being rude", but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there.

I wasn't suggesting that it was a necessarily conscious thing either; just that it either is or isn't sexist based on other things than quantity. Aggregate rudeness won't even do, if you happen to see a woman you don't get on with every day and are rude to them then your aggregate rudeness towards women could be huge without you being sexist; equally you could hate and avoid women and so have a very low aggregate rudeness towards them.

It's like the people who get arrested while walking home from work because they happened to enter a protest area. The reason for their being there is totally unrelated to the protest yet the effect of their being there is to increase the size of the crowd by one.

We can argue until we're blue in the face that this is unjust and the truth is that it is: it's unjust for everyone involved. It creates further entrenchment and higher barriers between people.

But as many people have pointed out, quantity can have, well, quantitative reasons. I remember a blog post stating that being the only woman among 100 men at conferences, the author always got at least one stupid comment/question.

She even turned it into a formula:

   #(women at a conference) =  inversely proportional to #(times I talk about women in tech) [1]

Same with rude people. Let's say there's an even 1% of women and men who are rude to the opposite gender and they are equally prolific. If there are 10% women at the conference/company/..., a woman has a roughly 100x greater chance of encountering that type of behaviour. Even though the level of rudeness is exactly the same.

Approximately: 1100 people, 1000 males, 100 females. 1% rude makes 10 rude males per 100 females, roughly 10% chance; 1 rude female / 1000 males, 0.1% chance, 100x difference.

Considering that "badness" of rude behaviour is likely going to be on a bell curve, you not only get more bad behaviour, you also get worse behaviour. Just from he numbers.

So you can have outcomes that look subjectively sexist (women encounter much worse and/or much more bad behaviour) without there actually being any sexism.

[1] http://www.felienne.com/archives/4828

I think the sentiment the author is sharing is that a lot of women feel social pressures to appear outwardly successful, popular, etc, and this creates a very difficult situation where its perceived that asking a question that might make you sound stupid causes you to lose social status.

This seems like a very tangible fear that a lot of women face, and I admire how she has conditioned herself to overcome this fear and it has helped her increase her knowledge and abilities.

It's awesome that you've had a better experience, but I'm positive that many women have dropped out of CS curriculum because of some of these social factors. Recognizing this and trying to improve the state of things is a great goal to have.

This is something i see my wife have constantly forced upon her by her mother. My wife wasn't allowed to do her own hair until senior year of High School, because she "Didn't do it right." My mother-in-law(MIL) would re-do homework that wasn't perfect. Essays that expressed opinions not 100% in-line with her opinion were re-written.

My wife is smart in her own right. She's smarter than me. She has her MS in Statistics. She's really good at what she does, but she has a hard time with confidence and asserting herself. She's been told she's not doing it right her whole life. I think some of the stress and lack of enjoyment at work stems from this. She should probably push back more often than she does. To be fair she has also had a few interactions customers who were outright sexist and make me want to punch somebody in the face.

Now, we let my daughter dress herself most days (She understands there times my wife picks her clothes and doesn't fight it). She may be wearing a purple, shirt, striped pants, and a polka dot skirt (honestly most of the time things don't clash THAT much). My MIL is horrified. "All of the other kids will laugh at her." No they won't, they're in preschool. All of the girls love whatever she is wearing. The boys don't even notice. We were talking her preschool teacher the other day and she told us "She'll be princesses with the girls one minute, and rough-housing playing ninja turtles with the boys the next." I couldn't be more proud.

Now that's not to rant against my MIL. My mother and father are crazy too in their own ways. As is everybody my family and that makes everything fun.

To theorize as to why this is such an issue... I think it's because IT and Engineering is an area where, while still being a creative pursuit, there's still a right and wrong answer.

We have jobs that are entirely based around a right and wrong answer. If I work in an office and my job is to take forms and enter them into a computer, then I've either done it correctly or incorrectly. If someone's criticizing my work, it's because I've objectively done it incorrectly. It's really tough for someone to take it personally.

We have jobs that are entirely based around a creative solution. If I work in marketing my job is to come up with creative ideas. For the most part, no one will ever (or can ever) tell me my idea is "wrong", because it's entirely subjective. Someone might like a different idea better, but it's easy not to take it too personally since it's all a matter of taste.

But in engineering and IT we have an intersection of the two. We're tasked with coming up with solutions to problems which is a fundamentally creative endeavour, but at the same time at the end of it all there's no couching in friendly terms or subjective evaluations... either the solution meets the criteria or it doesn't.

You've got people putting themselves out there with their creativity and effort, but being judged by a harsh and unforgiving system. Some people thrive on that decidedness and the opportunity to make use of their creativity in a place where fickle humans don't get a say. Other people get their self esteem wrapped up in their work, and a blunt "this is wrong", which can and should be acceptable, destroys them.

To me trying to make these fields friendly to these sorts of people (regardless of gender) makes about as much sense as telling gallery owners they can't tell painters they don't like their work because it discourages people from painting.

Your work either works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then no amount of feelings are going to override the reality of the situation.

What women need to understand is that just by solving this problem of "encourage women to do X" won't do anything. Why not? Because that's not the real problem.

What you miss about AlyssaRowan's post is that she is telling you that she never cared about other people's validation. What you read there is as 'her brother and father encouraged her'.

Try ignoring what other people expect out of you and you will find that suddenly everybody is rallying behind you.

That is not true at all. It's a choice, always. Even after not caring for other people's validation or their value judgment, more 'validation' is what you need in order for you to start caring about their validation.

Tell me which one would have a stronger effect upon you to live up to other people's values:

a) tremon I've always seen you happy, and I hope you will keep my daughter always happy

b) tremon you're a loser, you will never be successful in life. My daughter will be so unhappy with you.

If you think the first statement is what will make you not care about your in law's opinions, then you're totally wrong, and it tells me that you have never 'not-cared' for other people's opinion about you.

It's the second statement which makes me wanna work towards my own happiness with my future wife. The first statement pushes me to deny my own feelings because it's only in first case you could disappoint someone else.

I did ask for help during office hours, though, and one of my professors actually said "If you didn't learn it in the lectures there's nothing more I can teach you."

Back then there was very few articles online, and no Stack Overflow, not even Experts Exchange, so my only real resources were two ancient textbooks in the school library and my professor.

But asking questions isn't easy, and in fact it's actively discouraged by your peers in high school, who mostly have nothing better to do with their time at school except judge and gossip about people in their classes.

I've heard many men express vocal shock upon hearing that a good PR (or whole project) was written by a woman. The game is definitely still rigged to varying degrees in programming.

I'll have to read your citations to be sure [hint, hint; ie citations please] but presumably this is context sensitive.

I've been mocked for being able to make a hot drink by a group of women ("Wow, a man who can make their own cup of tea!") and I've also been discriminated against at work ("Can we have the lady please" - I'm the one with the greater experience but it's in an area related to child care and so I'm assumed to be here to help my female colleague). Doesn't bother me, it's pretty petty after all, but it happens and it doesn't look like people assuming I'm more competent because of my sex; perhaps I'm mislead.

As a father I also get remarks like "do you know where his mum is" when the baby is crying ... (and no it's not because they know the baby needs feeding).

I agree that there is bias against men when it comes to domestic and caretaking tasks. The point that people are trying to make is that the discrimination against men is far less painful.

Your examples are actually perfect. They're small issues that didn't bother you. But what if you're a single mother trying to get a promotion? That bias could affect where your kids go to school, how much you save for retirement, and other vitally important parts of your life.

A really important note: we'd rarely discuss inequality in STEM fields if those weren't some of the best-paying and most sought-after jobs at the moment. Context and circumstances do matter here. There are certainly issues of discrimination against men that are important (men are less likely to seek mental health care because it's not "manly" to have feelings or be "weak"). But those things are also caused by men, aren't they? Are women the drivers of any seriously harmful discrimination against men? (I'm genuinely asking here.)

The overall point I'm trying to make is that bias against women happens in ways that have a huge impact on their lives, and bias against men (while still a problem!) happens in ways that harm us far less.

That's all moot, though: if we move toward gender equality, all of the discrimination should diminish. Men and women will be affected positively.

Copious citations:

1a. (writeup) http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/02/11/male-biology-stude...

1b. (study) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

2. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474

3a. (writeup) http://www.amazon.com/Blindspot-Hidden-Biases-Good-People/dp...

3b. (video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL9__gD88xk

3c. (study) http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~banaji/research/publicati...

3d. (study) http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~banaji/research/publicati...

3e. (many more studies) http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~banaji/research/publicati...

4a. (writeup) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/stu...

4b. (study) http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109

5. (research done by my incredibly smart friend showing that the gender wage gap is about $.10 on the dollar when controlling all possible variables) https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2013/04/0...

That was the point that needed citations, that there are biases in both directions. What also comes through in your cited studies is that in science the biases are across sexes and other demographics (see eg 4b. where neither faculty, tenure, sex, nor age was correlated for the person exhibiting the bias against [fake] female applicants). This conflicts with the rhetoric that it's a male vs. female problem.

There are biases against people that aren't perceived as belonging to a group naturally predisposed to a particular activity and these biases are inherent to all people? But you take from this "women are perceived as less competent" which is sexism; you've taken half of the result - people are prejudiced against others from groups they expect to be less competent. By re-couching the result you're just going to introduce a whole new load of biases, how does that help us towards equality of opportunity.

>The overall point I'm trying to make is that bias against women happens in ways that have a huge impact on their lives, and bias against men (while still a problem!) happens in ways that harm us far less. //

Bias against some men, bias against some women. Bias against people based on irrelevant factors isn't useful; completely accepted. It's not helpful in particular to say - we must focus on biases that appear to affect women because men [in general] get an easy ride of things; much of the time that's not going to help an individual fighting against bias.

You say biases against women are more harmful. Tell that to a primary teacher who's regarded with extreme distrust based on his sex alone to the point of being assumed to be a paedophile. Maybe it's worse if someone thinks you can't program.

In short, the idea that adding further discrimination will somehow reduce naturally occurring biases is completely unconvincing to me. But then I don't think we need more of $sex in $profession but instead that all people should be provided with equal educational opportunities and opportunities to enter all professions.

Looking at law in the UK (https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/Law-careers/Becoming-a-solicit...) we see more women being accepted on university courses, more women entering the profession at a slightly younger age than men. Overall there are 51% male and 49% female registered as qualified solicitors; in Scotland 64% entering the profession in 2015 were women [ethnic minorities being over-represented wrt the general population]. Does the legal profession need to start discrimination in favour of [indigenous] men ... I don't think so, I can't see how discrimination leads to a level playing field at all.

Now in law a lot of the top positions are predominantly men, that seems to be an age thing, we can't expect society to change overnight. Indeed if women continue to chose to have and raise children we'd expect a slight imbalance in favour of men [vs. the proportion entering the profession as a whole] all things being equal.

Re your 5. citation the wage gap in the UK for the young favours women. In my city women in full-time employment earn 7% more than men across all age groups. The problem then is that young men in my city are nonetheless discriminated against in favour of young women because "[men have|there is] a bias against women and so we need positive discrimination to give girls a chance" (which I find offensive to the young women and young men). So we have special women only business events, girls only tech events, and the like. Locally I'd expect them to push the gap even more in favour of girls/women. Here this is largely related to the 'hard industries' having collapsed and removed the availability of jobs that boys are interested in doing. In the UK as a whole 20% more men are unemployed than women (https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotin...).

---

Some more general notes on your citations:

1a. Had a discriminatory assumption that because a result suggested a perception bias amongst biology students then the bias in classes with a greater proportion of males would then have a greater perceived bias; it may be true but it was not a claim based on the results of their study. It seemed particularly jarring when talking about bias that those performing a study would jump to a conclusion based on prejudiced stereotyping - I'm not saying it wouldn't be found to be true, but it might not be. That sort of attitude is toxic IMO.

3c. Looked at perception of whether men were more likely to be scientists and matched that with numbers of children choosing science. They assumed the match was due to stereotyping, basically begging the question (petitio principii). They appear to have got their causation wrong - they think stereotypes cause a gender imbalance in school results whilst the likelihood seems pretty high that a gender imbalance causes the stereotype. That suggestion doesn't appear in the discussion and yet seems the most likely objection.

4a. This is a good study, yet still in the Sci.Am. write up the article author demonstrates a sexist bias - "Unfortunately, too, many women are not attuned to subtle gender biases.". Yet the study shows that the bias is equal across men and women: quoting the abstract of 4b "The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student.". The female author has unwittingly implied that 'this is a male problem but oh some women are also to blame' whilst the study says that men and women are equally to blame.

4b. On the subject of their conclusions they don't appear to have accounted for what I'd consider the first alternate hypothesis, that neither men nor women in science like working with other women for reasons unrelated to competency. They do look at whether people "liked" the students, but people liked the female student more than the male which is subtly different to wanting to work with someone [this "likeability" bias didn't even make it to the abstract though]. (It's a pity they didn't look at gender neutral names too).

4b has interesting results that look strongly supported and that I hadn't seen ... I took the IAT test (mentioned in 1a too IIRC) and apparently slightly associated women more with science - I can't work out what in the test suggests that conclusion though presumably timing (I hope they took proper account of left-right biases; my test didn't appear to mix them enough).

Can you or anyone link me to the opposite studies for female dominated fields? Do they show the same bias against women?

I friend had a little sister in high school. And she was very happy learning programming. She thought about studying CS, but she changed her mind. She was never able to articulate a reason; she was not very excited about her chosen career. My guess is that her decision was influenced by social status.

I think this is true of both genders and I believe her story illustrates that. She describes her experience in the lab where the TA was getting frustrated, that is until she proclaimed "I DON'T UNDERSTAND," and suddenly everyone was at ease. I think this shows how everyone, be it student or TA, is silently judging themselves for not knowing.

This not a gender issue, it applies to everyone in every real world setting.

I think this article is for those who didn't start early, but want to become good at programming or computer science, anyway.

Of course, the same issues would be encountered by a man introduced to programming and CS for the first time at college, but statistically it's probably more likely for a woman to first become interested in these topics later in life.

I used to wonder about this myself. But, then I met some ladies that write technical blogs anonymously, or under male or gender neutral pseudonyms. This was because of the harassment they experienced themselves, or witnessed in others, when they originally set out to write as a woman in tech.

So, I suspect that women writing about getting women into tech is one of the few ways that they feel comfortable publicly contributing to their field (even if not from angle they may have originally preferred).

I imagine the typical perpetrator in that case is a man with negligible romantic experience, who is not particularly attractive, lives in a social environment with a 10:1 M:F ratio and statistically may well be encountering someone of the opposite sex who actually nominally has something nontrivial in common with them for the first time. The "something in common" part is contingent on actually signalling being a capital-p Programmer culturally (e.g. by blogging about programming), rather than someone who appears to be closer to a social activist who just happens to have a job in programming (and might as well be the secretary staffing the front desk for the purpose of commonalities, as far as the would-be harasser can see).

Grasping at straws inevitably ensues, and there are sufficiently many around that some don't react gracefully when the straws snap.

Of course, #NotAllDevelopers; I feel like I'm somewhere in between (but in part because of some effort on my own), and my company has quite a few developers that lean towards extroversion.

The problem in this case is that when someone steps upon a soapbox on the internet, they reach an audience of potentially millions; even if 0.00001% is a bit er, maladjusted, that's still enough for a few people to start making that kind of comment or show that kind of behaviour. Even if 99% of people were well-behaved, the 1% could still cause shit. And that's not easy to deal with.

But one of the modern expectations of a professional work environment is that people can manage how they express their emotions. Screaming and hitting because of anger is not permitted; similarly, harassing and touching because of lust is not permitted either.

I actually don't think that programmers are that much worse than other professions in this respect. We just talk about programmers more than lawyers or soldiers here, because most folks here are programmers or interested in programming.

There is also the issue that what is socially acceptable behavior depends upon characteristics which we do not want to admit. The difference between creepy and acceptable behavior is sometimes not found in the behavior itself, but in things like the race or appearance of the one engaging in the behavior.

What's not ok is constantly commenting on a person's appearance or clothes, making sex-related jokes or comments in front of the person, staring at them constantly, questioning them about their love life or sex life, etc.

A lot of that stuff falls into the "harmless in a social situation" category, but is on the wrong side of the line for a professional environment. But, that is the sort of stuff that is often permitted, tolerated, or insufficiently discouraged by managers, especially folks who perceive work as a social setting, or want to believe it is a social setting.

Sorry, learning social skills, learning to manage your time so you can meet people, etc. is not the job of an employer or a profession as a whole.

I'm sure there's plenty of lonely garbage men (purposely phrased as "men"), but no one's suggesting that the public works departments should be ensuring there's more women in the departments for their men to hang out with and fall in love with.

Didn't learn job skills, wasted a free k to 12 education, made bad financial decisions? Here, let society help you. We'll tax people to help fund a social safety net because there should be a basic standard of living.

Didn't develop social skills? LOL, LOSER! Why don't you try to teach yourself some social skills. You deserve to be alone until you improve yourself.

Crass and perhaps too blunt, but people should be able to get the basic idea of this double standard.

You'll also tend to find that women who blog about tech tend to hide their gender a bit more or post on community blogs, or their posts about tech will be on a blog with a wider scope.

But, if you restrict your blogging to the arcane aspects of database replication or whatever, then you can "pass" as a man.

This option isn't really available if you are blogging your experience "as a woman in tech" so this self-selects for people who can cope with abuse, are already receiving so much they won't notice any extra, or that think it's worth it to be a visible example to others.

Are women in tech harassed more than "average" women? I wonder if this is true both in real life and online.

There are a great many total dickheads on the internet. Really. It's hard to comprehend just how many utter dickheads are running around out here. The exact reasons why? I've never really understood all of it. Some of it is because it makes them feel like big men, showing off to their dickhead friends; I've seen them come back to crow about it and they seem to get some kind of approval from their peers.

I really hate this line of thought. The internet is not a different place to the real world, and the truth is that there are a great many people in your town/city/country/world etc who are kinda obnoxious.

In certain vague, slightly pointless ways (i.e. "it's just people doing things on a thing" ) they're exactly the same, sure.

The specifics of what is possible in terms of breadth and time are vastly different though.

With regards to the topic at hand - and assuming I am a jerk - I can find 50 different programming blogs and write sexist epithets in the comments in ten seconds flat.

I cannot do that in the real world to 50 different people in that time frame nor with the same lack of repercussion.

People act differently on it, though.

The effect does happen, but in a far more insidious way.

For a good account of total dickheads (in a nerdy subculture, no less) in meatspace, see http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming... If this were online, I bet the author would have assumed a gender-neutral / default-to-male pseudonym in a heartbeat.

I also edited what I said to remove some of the additional discussion and data, to make it simpler to see where I said it was for peer approval.

In technical writing, I imagine you'd just think "I don't want that in the comments [or to deal with moderating them]".

I definitely agree that the answer is to just shut up about being inspiring, and be inspiring. (To any future CS student - not just women/schoolgirls!)

Of course there are plenty of trolls who are concerned with entirely different things, and of course there are MRAs who don't attack women like that, but I'm at a loss about what other groups would be motivated specifically to shut down women who speak about tech or similar topics.

I do mind being harassed for being a man rather than a woman – that's not something I chose. I was born that way. I can't change that nor can I argue rationally for why I decided to be that way.

What about religion. It is an interesting intersection of 'is a choice' and 'protected demographic'. And why should it be any more acceptable to harass someone for what they choose? Is it more acceptable to discriminate against a Hispanic individual for choosing to identify with their heritage (a choice) than to discriminate against them for being Hispanic (not a choice)? Both seem wrong to me.

>that's not something I chose. I was born that way.

What about those who are of a different gender/sex than they were born? What about people who choose to change their gender?

Even your response itself can be an issue, as there is an implication that others are born a given gender and cannot change it.

If you actually speak to these people, they will inform you they didn't "change" their gender. What you are referring to is the practise of fixing the body to conform to the expectations of the gender they were born with.

To push an agenda. Take as an example people that claim that video games are responsible, either partially or wholly, for an increase in violence. There is no definitive link between violent video games and violence, especially as the violent crime rate in the US has been falling for decades now. The people leading this crusade generally do not like games and feel that their disapproval and dislike means that other people shouldn't get to experience them.

I haven't talked to any of them directly, so I don't know who is "somebody, a lot of people, an awful lot"? How many is "an awful lot", what do you reckon? 1-10, 10-100, 100-1000, 1000-10000? Millions? Maybe if I had more firsthand information, it would change my mind.

This came up when Sarah Sharp quit developing on the Linux Kernel due to 'abuse' from Torvalds [0]. A prevailing notion was that this language was necessary for everyone working in the kernel space.

I've also seen commenters on HN get torn to pieces because their javascript benchmarks ~5-7% slower than the "optimal" solution. Harassment is often based on opinion.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10338094

Maybe more posts should start with "As a man in tech" or something. In gender-skewed areas, removing gender from posts (along with the assumption of what gender wrote it) would maybe be preferable. But, IDK.

“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

FWIW, I have a totally unscientific gut-feeling that feeling cool about the process and the tools (rather than the outcome) is a slightly male-heavy preference.

I wonder how much of that is bias of what information is put up front. I mean, I see a meta-post on female programmers probably just as often as I see posts about Qubes. Both include female programmers, but it's not as apparent in the second case. I'm sure there are some more posts where it's just not "advertised"... or at least not until someone comments that it was written by (gasp) a woman, when it suddenly becomes super-relevant to the discussion.

Or to put it another way, if this post was treated with s/girl/guy/, would anybody mention anything about "being a male programmer"? It would be likely received as just a post about learning. The community seems to be exposed to more "female programmer" posts now and they stand out. Even this post self describes as "female programmer" post to, but only the second paragraph mentions it directly.

Bingo.

There's a recent post on HN trending right now about mistreatment : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11429590

The difference is that the person is male and the comparison of comments here and there is - peculiar.

I disagree.

That is, I kinda agree and I totally disagree. I mean... argh, this is so hard to phrase for me here: I kinda "agree" - that one sees "more of" the writing about the meta-topics by women. But I disagree with the underlying fact (that women actually do "write more about meta-topics than technical aspects"). The problem (but also kinda non-problem?) here is, that women do write, but a reader often may not notice when the technical-aspects writer is a woman!... I know this is true, because I totally was once corrected here on HN for answering "he something" when it was a she - and started looking more carefully since. And now I see there totally are woman technical-bloggers, and many of them highly notable ones! (off the top of my head: Julia Evans, Joanna Rutkowska, Limor Fried/ladyada, ... just to start with.)

With that said, I believe the visibility paradox is a kinda self-fulfilling prophecy and/or hard to untie conundrum: either you have technical-aspects woman writers who don't emphasize being women (and thus can currently often get overlooked), or you have technical-aspects woman writers who do emphasize, and thus easily fall into category of "women writing about meta-topics more than technical aspect"... thus I believe we "see" more of the latter mostly because we typically don't recognize the former :/

Anyhow, I believe you've gotten it right. We don't highlight gender unless that is the topic to be discussed. Otherwise we don't notice, I wonder what the real numbers are a little but I don't care. The person that looks for gender, to harass, is someone I can't identify with or empathize with. I don't understand them at all.

So people of every shade of gender please keep writing technical posts and I'll keep enjoying them! Thanks!

I really agree with this.

Girls just don't seem to be interested in programming when they are young.

Then they go to university, and largely avoid CS because a) they haven't developed any prior interest in it and b) it is perceived as a difficult and male-dominated field.

The ones who do enrol in a CS course often struggle because it's their first foray into programming and they aren't familiar with any of the concepts, unlike many of their male peers who have done it before and cruise through all the 100 level courses

If we want to see more women in CS, get them interested at a younger age and suddenly CS will seem more appealing and they will find it just as easy as the other experienced students.

We need to show girls that programming is a good outlet for their creativity and foster their interest at a younger age

It is difficult. Why would that impression be problematic?

It is also technically difficult, but if that is a turn off to a prospective student of any gender then they might not be suited for a career in software engineering

I agree, but not just with CS, with a lot of things. Most building toys are marketed towards boys, and a lot of baking/cleaning toys are marketed to girls. These things shouldn't be gendered toys.

I don't think it substantially changes anything I said earlier though.

If a girl has been actively programming since a younger age, she will have enough confidence to pursue CS without seeking an advisor or her peers' approval

Yet trolling certainly exists among kids, too. If anyone's looking to make a difference, consider volunteering as a moderator or just hanging out in the scratch community and leaving positive comments.

PS: If you're a troll, seriously, disregard this. Pick on someone your own size.

"Why do girls tend to go into empathizing professions and boys into systemizing professions? Why does the labor market become more gender segregated the more economic prosperity a country has?"

It's freely available online if you're interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

I certainly don't envy the role women and minorities have in tech today. Always being pressured to be a role, or lead, or to be an example, or to strengthen your group, or whatever.

When I got into programming it was because I was curious. No one ever asked me to do it. No one asked me how I was doing. No one directed me, no one told me to do anything different, no one told me I was smart, and overall no one judged me. I was 10. I never even thought it was possible to have a career in it until I was about 15.

The important thing: that allowed me to just enjoy programming with no distractions, no politics, no social aspect involved. I was purely directed by my interests only.

I'm not sure if that's possible today, especially for under-represented demographics, and that makes me sad.

The result is that we'll be pushing people to do things that they might not be comfortable with. We want under-represented groups to be vocal and open about what they do, so they can get other people interested? If I had to be vocal and open about what I was doing, I'm not sure I'd have got into programming in the first place! What attracted me was the fact that I could just be on my own, solving problems in my mind, by myself, with no distractions.

This. I think this is really damaging. A misogynist sees this characterization and thinks, "Lol. See, what did I tell you?" An employer thinks, "Hiring women requires hand holding." A young girl thinks, "My friends won't want to do this with me."

The cottage industry devoted to writing blog posts about how hard it is to be a woman in tech and all the sexism and hardship all women face along the way seems to be doing their part to continue to intimidate and discourage women from learning to code. But for the self-promoter, this continued imbalance offers basically limitless opportunities for career progression through pointing out sexism rather than through technical ability.

Easily 90% of the female engineers I encounter are from East or South Asia where these blogs aren't widely read. It's an interesting correlation, even if by itself it proves nothing.

As long as there is a market for that kind of rhetoric and enough eyeballs show up to generate the ad impressions, blog posts will be written about it. If shit on a stick was what everybody wanted to read about, we'd be up to our ears on whether blue or purple shit was the hotness this fall. The transparency of it and that people seem to find it confusing is the funniest thing of all.

Tech is scary for women. I've seen all kinds of casual sexism on the workplace that, while generally not intended as hurtful, men simply don't have to go through.

As a man, I'm pretty sure I've never had people talk about how hot I was after I left an interview or meeting. I've never been singled out to go fetch coffee, or told to "calm down, love".

FWIW, my mom, mid-50s, has been in tech since the '80s. She has complained of sexism. She also says the idea that tech is more sexist is a joke, and that her younger female co-workers complain a lot.

Anecdotes are anecdotes both ways, you saying zero of those things are scary is missing the point, women are not some sort of fragile creature that will get easily offended or scared; none of that is scary, sexism is not scary most of the time, but it's demeaning to be treated as a lesser.

About 3 years ago, a lady by the name of Jennifer Dewalt submitted her website on Hacker News, in which she had developed 180 websites in 180 days [1]. It was basically a documentation of her self-learning process, starting from scratch and every day's project a little more advanced than the previous day's, and it was impressive.

I emailed it to my sister, who at the time was trying to decide what to do with her life. She was very inspired and started learning JavaScript. The funny thing is that none of the "you should go into tech because..." type articles I had sent her previously had made a dent. Yet apparently all she needed was a "doer" role model!

I, too, feel that if more women focused on doing stuff instead of writing about the difficulties they experience, we would see more women in tech. Dewalt became a YC fellowship founder[2] and I'm sure her leadership by example has inspired many more women than just my sister.

[1]https://jenniferdewalt.com/

[2]https://zube.io/blog/how-i-built-180-websites-in-180-days-an...

Do you perhaps mean a "doer _female_ role model"?

Maybe the problem here is that [younger] females are particularly sexist and so won't consider males as role models?

I'm seeing nothing about sleeping in a car, or any hint of a struggle aside from academia. Maybe it's just because my childhood was so shitty, but I can't feel empathy here.

You don't need a CS degree to become a well paid programmer, I couldn't even afford to finish college and I do well.

The little secret is you need to do a large amount of independent study,programming side projects, etc to become a decent programmer.

One of my most favorite programmer figures quickly became Natasha Murashev...

https://www.linkedin.com/in/natashatherobot

...better known as NatashaTheRobot. Not because she is a woman, but because her Swift/iOS Newsletter is superuseful and interesting and she focuses on technical details instead of "did you know I am a girl?!".

https://twitter.com/natashatherobot

http://www.thomashanning.com/interview-natasha-the-robot/

Similar to Erica Sadun who writes all this Apple/iOS dev Cookbooks.

Paradoxically people will actually think you're smarter for it anyway - it's often when you pretend you know something you don't that you appear dumb.

The gender commentary is a distraction.

Ok, but as a male, I don't blog about everything technical I do. Most of the code I write or fix is just sort of quietly sent into internal code-review or pushed to an unpublicized github repo. I don't see what the problem is with a woman blogging about social/political stuff rather than technical stuff, since I figure it's plenty likely she's doing loads of technical stuff without yelling about it.

very true! The heart of the article is really just pointing out that like anything, learning computer science is about admitting what you don't know, asking questions and perseverance.

I guess it's because I'm not female that the "female in tech" portion of the article didn't really stand out against the greater take away (for me anyway) of what it takes to actually learn. On the role model front though, I do think that they can play an important part in encouraging someone into learning a subject where they haven't had any encouragement/support from family or school.

> I think it's great that this lady is going into this field, but I feel really weird about this characterization that CS is supposed to be so super scary and women need special hand-holding and encouragement to attempt it.

I don't think that is what the author is trying to convey. Rather the opposite, actually. She's trying to get across the notion that computer science is a topic like any other.

The problem is that many CS students (you included, it sounds like) come into CS intro classes with significant prior experience. To those without that experience, and not realizing that their peers have a significant head-start, they may feel dumb when they don't get concepts their peers instantly get. Many people will hesitate to ask for help in such a circumstance. I think members of a minority group are then even less likely to ask for help, because they already feel different and perhaps wondering if they belong.

Not many people come into microbiology programs with years of experience in the topic. So while CS is a topic like any other, it tends to have students unlike any other.

I do not think it is enough to just talk about how cool it is in programming. I think that the culture in our courses needs to change, and some of that is on the instructional staff.

When you put this kind of person in a climate where they feel like they are representing a group in front of others, then you have a recipe for somebody who has a lot of promise, but the environment suppresses learning. That's bad.

On the matter of whether this person feels like they are representing a group, it's important to distinguish whether this person "should" or "actually does" feel that they are representing a group. Women should not feel that they are, but we know that some do as a direct result of someone else generalizing them to represent women as a group. We know it happens. Maybe not by the people reading this comment, but we know it happens.

So this all combines into a situation where somebody saying "hey, asking questions is a good thing, stop worrying about making yourself look dumb" is necessary and helpful.

Having said that, here's a fantastic article I read recently - [1]. Unlike most articles about switching languages, she tried several approaches to fixing her problem in the existing language and shared why it was impossible to do it.

[1] - https://medium.com/@theflapjack103/the-way-of-the-gopher-669...

It's certainly not super elusive but it requires a specific kind of people that don't get anxious/frustrated when tackling complex systems, often badly documented. Some hate this kind of work, others love it. It involves having a certain type of personality as much as high IQ. Most men feel helpless when tacking such problems, too.

Eh, you learn to not let that get to you because you build up experience working through it over time. I think that's a learned skill, not an innate, immutable trait.

Also:

> Basic Cognitive Skills, as measured by standard cognitive ability tests, are not shown to be helpful in predicting programming proficiency

from http://pro.sagepub.com/content/27/7/647.short

I imagine many of us learn to get better at aspects of it. Or we're more comfortable with what the job entails and so can make light of the frustrations and soldier on.

https://youtu.be/MpJGkG1g-Lk

It makes the huge assumption that women will be treated equally on their way to making video games. The video game industry is controlled by a huge majority of men, how do we know that any woman trying to enter the field will be treated fairly? The same goes for any field where there's a big unbalance in gender representation by the way.

I don't think this is really related to gender in any non-superficial way. It's the nature of business that the establishment wants to keep their high status and limit access to newcomers. Gender, if targeted, is an excuse. If you're not of wrong gender, you're of wrong skin colour. If you're not of wrong colour, you're from wrong country. Etc. What do you think would happen if suddenly women were to become majority in game development? Yeah, we'd see what could be perceived a discrimination against men.

The solution is to find a way to level the playing field for everyone, without going into specific characteristics - because those are transient and change depending on who's on the top of the hill.

As much as women would like to focus just on the tech, sometimes the "women in tech" issues are unavoidable.

In any case, this particular article doesn't seem to be about "women in tech" so much as about "how to get into tech when it doesn't come naturally", and I think it's very insightful and inspiring, and relevant for men just as much as it is for women.

This is an ideal situation, but sadly not what many women experience, myself included. Role models are necessary because these negative gender stereotypes are real and need to be explicitly countered, ignoring them and simply focusing on gender-blind education is not enough IMO.

My observation of women I know personally is that they're a lot less likely to write publicly about things they have a less than perfect grasp of than, say, I am.

I do a lot of things that I am, quite frankly, unqualified to do, and most of them turn out crap. You can spend time with google and see megabytes and megabytes of text that came from my keyboard, and the vast majority of it is garbage.

I have, however, produced a few things that I think turned out to be pretty decent. in '09, I finished a book about the virtualization technology I used in my business. (To be clear, I co-authored the book, it wasn't just me, not by a long shot.) - but my point is that throughout my life, I've always felt like only my successes counted. I've always felt like falling on my face wasn't a big deal. And part of that was unhealthy; I kind of saw falling on my face as the default situation, the ground state. But part of it was healthy, too, in that the world really has been pretty forgiving of my mistakes, especially my technical mistakes. (my business mistakes, on the other hand.)

Where am I going with this? my impression is that many of the women I know personally who work in my field feel super uncomfortable with failure, especially with the kind of failure that comes from publicly being provably technically wrong, as you are, from time to time, if you publish technical documentation. My impression is that they fear falling on their faces more than I do. Part of that, I'm sure, is just that online, I think, people are just meaner to women. There seems to be this presumption that because I'm a white guy, I didn't get the job because of some quota... which seems really silly to me, for obvious reasons, but it's there.

I also think that men are socialized to deal with rejection more than women are, from an early age, and I think that if you aren't used to dealing with rejection, you are going to be a lot less likely to put yourself in a position where you are going to be rejected. And, if you are like me in that your technical abilities are a huge part of your sense of self, being proven wrong after writing up a thing does feel like a rejection, especially if the criticism is framed in a "you are not competent to write technical documentation" sort of way. For me, that's a rejection of what it is to be me; probably the worst feeling another person can inspire in me using only text. This goes back to the mean thing. People are very rarely mean to me in this way... and if people were often mean to me in that way? I would probably stop writing.

And it could be a lot more than gender; most of the women I'm thinking of went to good schools, both high school and college, while I barely made it through a terrible high school and have no college to speak of (though I'm working on changing that part) so I have a much different idea of how you learn. It's easy to see how going to a good school, or preparing to go to a good school could give you a different outlook on failure; Just failing one class can bring your grade average way down (I mean, way down by the standards that good colleges have) and a lot of kids feel like they only have one shot to get into the school of their choice. I've never experienced anything like that; If I do really horribly at a job, I can always just leave it off my resume.

Part of that is also that women, in general, are much more sensitive to how other people perceive them; what their social "status" is. This can possibly be explained by their (prehistorical) roles as primary caretakers and being the "social glue" of small tribes. It could very well be deeply rooted in their biology.

With that said, I don't think it's relevant in this case. There are many other lines of work where women are in the majority where it's also easy to repeatedly fall on your face.

eh, I think that explaining behavior through cultural conditioning makes more sense than resorting to evolutionary psychology. Sure, the latter may or may not be the cause of the former, but we can at least directly observe cultural conditioning; it's quite difficult to verify anything about the social structures of prehistoric tribes. You could say the same thing, in a more verifiable way, talking about modern dating norms and expectations.

>With that said, I don't think it's relevant in this case. There are many other lines of work where women are in the majority where it's also easy to repeatedly fall on your face.

Note, i wasn't arguing that there aren't many women in computer science because it is easy to fall on your face, [1] i was observing that many of the women I personally have observed in the field aren't as active when it comes to publicly writing, I believe, because the consequences of that fall would be greater than those consequences are for me. Writing about the technology you use is rather different from directly working with said technology.

Most people write for social reasons; technical writing, generally speaking, returns practically homeopathic amounts of money. I guess I'm different there, too, in a non-gendered way; Being as I've got no education and only the skill that I have wrung from the miserly neck of experience, I need all the credentials I can get, and so writing well probably has a higher return for me than it does for someone who is educated, because I get the social juice, and I enjoy that social juice, but when I do manage to write something worth reading, it also serves to function as a kind of credential, and oh my, do I flog it. But for people who already have credentials? I would think that writing is mostly about the social rewards, and if those rewards are more negative for women than for men, as is my otherwise unsupported observation, that could certainly tip that balance to "I'm just going to do the work, let someone else talk about it."

[1]My own theory is that it's the trickle down from "cultural fit" discrimination at hiring. Why would you spend all the time and effort training if getting a job at the end was going to be really difficult? I'm in industry, in part because every time I've asked for a computer industry job, it has been a fairly easy process. Hell, I do nothing and people try to push or pull me in that direction. Every time I've asked for a job outside of this industry, it seemed like huge walls went up. If you don't want me here, I'm going to leave. But that's just me projecting my own feelings on to other people who have very different experiences.

This is bang on the money to me. The important part is having the interest/curiosity & opportunity to take tech apart and see what makes it tick.

We need more women in software development, but women should not necessarily take it up because we need more women in software development.

Oona Räisänen: http://www.windytan.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=windytan.com

Julia Evans: http://jvns.ca/ https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=jvns.ca

Just thought I’d add another ‘female’ voice here. Apologies for the lengthiness.

For the longest time, I felt and agreed exactly what you said. I grew up being both artsy and techy, was labelled from geek to nerd, took things apart etc (though never at a too deep I-set-up-my-own-Linux-distro level) … in fact gender didn’t even occur to me. I couldn’t understand those who whine about gender issues either, of course I’ve had a few sexist incidents like boys not letting me play with their marble rollercoaster but hey, I didn’t feel particularly insulted as I couldn’t take <i>dumb</i> people seriously anyway. Maybe that sort of ego was what kept me strong, or rather provided the shield needed to keep me happy and giddy-go-lucky.

Adolescence came and I got hit by a series of personal crises – but still I couldn’t understand what the gender issue was all about. It must be noted that I must have had low empathy level to start with, as I couldn’t understand other types of discrimination – despite being non-white, foreign, muslim, short, lispy, bad skin, bespectacled etc. Why would anyone care about your ‘shell’ anyway?

When I went to university to study engineering, for the first time I was surrounded by more males than females. Friends, colleagues, teaching staff – but this is <i>great</i>, as I tend to get on better with guys than gals anyway! So initially it seemed fine, but then the gender issue crept in. Remember my low empathy level? Well that must have shot up, which was probably due to those humbling personal crises I mentioned (and which simultaneously ruined my confidence). So I guess I became more ‘feminine’, and my behaviour became more feminine too. For example, I became more conscious of the way I phrase things to make sure that it doesn’t sound so ‘abrupt’, like asking ‘dumb’ questions as conversation starters which surprise-surprise, was interpreted as reflection of my own dumb state of mind instead. More guys took me less seriously, even though we may have the same idea but I squeaked it out instead. Sometimes I get ignored completely! I admit, it’s my problem. It’s my fault for not being straightforward, for not being clear enough, but the point is, it couldn’t be helped (At least at that time, I’ve since worked on curbing it). But this difference in communication made me think, for the first time, that maybe there is a line between male and female after all. It’s a controversial point, I know, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I began to lose communication with guys and vice versa, that I began to socialise more with my female friends and that I began to relate more to my more timid, female colleagues.

I admit that there’s a lot of factors here, especially my own low confidence, but now I think that the gender issue is real. And it only became real when I became more sensitive and more ‘feminine’. Maybe gender doesn’t really exist, but lack of confidence sure does. And lack of confidence can come from perceived things too, like gender. You might scoff at it, you might be entirely unsympathetic to it, but who are you to judge? Whether something is perceived ‘wrongly’ or not, it doesn’t matter, because that person still feels the reaction from it. And how that person feels can affect his/her own decision-making. Frankly I’m still traumatised enough to decide quite strongly to avoid engineering … I know it’s stupid but I can’t help shudder at the bad memories of scornful male colleagues and embarrassed-looking female colleagues. Toughen up, you say? Get lost.

Let that women-for-tech blogger write. Maybe you think that she got the factors mixed up, just like I might have done in my little essay there, but you never did the full flip coin like I did to know that.

P.S. "You" is basically anyone reading this P.S.2. By saying 'male' and 'female', 'sensitive' and 'insensitive', I don't mean to simplify everything in a black and white way - of course there are many exceptions but my language skills aren't good enough to efficiently disclaim

I have worked with many programmers and PM's over the course of my education and career and many of the sharpest people I've worked with were female. However there is one thing that has always bothered me which I do believe affects an outsized proportion of female programmers. Many times when I'm in a meeting or on a call discussing a project, I've noticed that somebody will ask a question and then immediately follow it up by apologizing and saying "I'm not technical, so bear with me." If you are female (or male- it just so happens that it seems that this person is almost always a female)- Don't. Ever. Do. That. First of all, what does that mean, "I"m not technical?" You don't have an understanding of what is being discussed? Then you should carve out time to meet with people to gain an understanding so that you know what's going on prior to the meeting. That isn't male or female or only applies to some group of people who were destined to be "technical", it applies to everyone.

Second, when you say something that is self-deprecating, the intent is usually to gain favor with others at your own expense, but I think somewhere there's an assumption that the other people still respect you anyway because of the other things you do. But whenever I hear that, I immediately get annoyed because I then wonder why the person is asking questions and attempting to manage timelines for something they clearly don't have an understanding of. It causes me to lose respect for them. I can't help that, they just told me that they don't know what's going on, laughed, and made no attempt to gain an understanding. If you go around telling people you aren't "technical" and laughing, you're giving them license to question your abilities.

Instead, it would be far more constructive to ask people to explain what they mean by X, even if you think X is something really simple. I personally haven't worked with many people who would have a problem taking a couple of minutes to provide a basic background, and if anybody does, then they aren't doing their job and that will reflect poorly on them, not you.

Caitie McCaffrey and Hilary Mason comes to my mind but there are many more.

What we've more seriously considered is randomly funding some companies just below the threshold.

Also, we do look at our ranking to see how companies at the top vs companies near the cutoff do. It's rare (but not unheard of) for a company very near the cutoff to be one of our most successful companies.

Would you ever consider releasing anonymized data on companies that apply and are accepted along with those who apply but aren't accepted into a batch? That'd give future applicants much more insight into the process.

since yc is obviously not going to talk shit on their own applicants, i'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that it's just like every other job application process when six figures (or more) of money is on the line. big paychecks attract plenty of, shall we say, 'aspirational' applicants.

1. apps where spelling and grammar is clearly not a priority (sure, i'll give you 5 figures a month to spell shit wrong) 2. the wrong kind of company will apply, i.e. a restaurant 3. bullshit artists gonna bullshit, even when they stink 4. people simply not smart enough to do the job. just plain dumb is a real thing, folks. 5. people with too little real world experience 6. really stupid ideas (who's to judge? well, the people with the money get to judge, that's sort of how applications work)

the fact that you can use the term 'anonymized data' in a sentence that actually makes sense is going to put you in the top 10% automatically - yes, the bar is that low when you're dealing with the general public. the trick is getting into the top 1% though. it's a power law distribution of difficulty.

every job advertisement attracts applications like these, and yc is basically just a really, really fancy and structured super-duper college/job application process combined, but for crazed entrepreneurs (like me). you are going to get a lot, maybe even mostly people on the left hand side of the normal distribution of iq, talent, and work ethic/experience. the easy thing is the dipshits and fakers are easy to spot-and-drop almost immediately. i can basically glance at a resume and disqualify it in 10-15 seconds if it's not good enough. you just can't bullshit someone far smarter, more experienced, and better at bullshitting than you. CAVEAT: there are extremely smart and experienced bullshitters out there though -- that's the real danger area. that's what you're really worried about.

basically the only thing you can count on is that they want your money!!

Edit: I still think the idea of Dropbox is pretty stupid and I wouldn't have given Drew Houston a penny if I was an investor. But I never thought the average application would be so far worse if Dropbox got funded and succeeded.

the most uncommon and valuable skill in the world is for a smart person to willingly put themselves in a position where they could easily fail, or be ridiculed. dumb people do this all the time. this is an advantage to being dumb. you have no ego to lose. nor much of anything else.

that is the cross-section of intelligence and success. just look in the mirror for an example.

and for what it's worth, if you think dropbox is a tepid idea, just consider slack. enterprise irc with history and attachments. worth billions. there's more to it than just a cool idea. the example i always use is: i've got a great idea. let's build a time machine. it'll be great!

but i can read a lot into sama's "not very good" understatement. for a yc (or vc) partner to say that in an actual post is pretty telling.

and of course, my statement about grammar is grammatically wrong. not much changes on forum banter through the decades, does it?

You don't want to fund a company that doesn't know what they are doing and needs a lot of help to get to that level where they do get funded.

But that is a startup opportunity to help these awful companies get better so they can get funded and then pay the mentors money for the training.

I'm sure they get coffee shops and pizza places apply as well that don't qualify but want to do some sort of cybercafe in their store.

The short version is that there is an inverse relationship between actual and perceived skill. In general, the better someone is at something, the less they rate themselves relative to their peers.

This is a big problem when recruiting people for skilled positions. The best applicants assume that they won't be good enough and don't apply. The newest applicants have no reservations about applying and assume that they are qualified for anything, kind of like someone who graduates with a BS in CompSci and thinks it means he knows everything about being a professional programmer before he's even ever held a real programming position.

Joel Spolsky discusses this too! I can't seem to find the post right now, though. The gist is that he was encouraging good developers to apply to Fog Creek, because he noticed that a lot of developers he would have liked to hire were intimidated about applying there, as he had previously discussed things like dismissing non-amazing candidates, how rare it is for good people to be on the market, and the extensive perks his company extended to its developers (like an office with a door that shuts). The good people read these posts and automatically filtered themselves out, no doubt comparing against their idealized version of what they'd like themselves to be, emphasizing the gaps and flaws that they know are in their resume, instead of the reality of the applicant field, the competence of which most good people grossly overestimate.

There's another cheesy colloquialism that I think encompasses this well: "you're comparing your behind-the-scenes with everyone else's highlight reel". We use ourselves as the reference point for understanding others, but the intimacy we have with our own thoughts and failings can cause us to forget that they're not as big as they seem. We should be cautious before allowing ourselves to be intimidated by others, bearing in mind that we only see a small snippet of the picture.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Even for less technical people it makes sense and it is easily explained. Put the files in this folder and they are safe.

You seem pretty sure about this. How would you validate that belief? What are the consequences if you're wrong?

> i can basically glance at a resume and disqualify it in 10-15 seconds if it's not good enough.

I'd suggest taking a more systematic approach. You may be rejecting some great candidates without decreasing the likelihood of false negatives.

> you just can't bullshit someone far smarter, more experienced, and better at bullshitting than you.

If you can't spot the fish, then ...

Also, why you no use capitalization? It makes your post read dumb.

The thing about saying no is that it's a lot less risky than saying yes, in terms of damage potential, not necessarily in terms of "lost upside" (which IMO is something that rarely merits consideration). If you pass on a good candidate, they will move on and find another home that works for them; no harm, no foul, so one doesn't need to feel bad about admitting that the person is skilled, but just not a good fit.

If you bring someone on board and they turn out bad, they can and often do cause substantial harm to the company/org. Once they're there, they have access to everything they need to wreak havoc, and as I'm sure you know, malicious intentions unfortunately aren't really necessary to cause problems. Big issues for your company can be caused by simple incompetence.

Joel Spolsky discusses this in his essay on interviewing [0]. It's just much safer to let the candidates that aren't enthusiastic yesses go than take a gamble and lose.

>Also, why you no use capitalization? It makes your post read dumb.

I don't really mind this, but I do think this is noteworthy since he specifically called out spelling and grammatical errors as disqualifiers. I assume in reality, he's forgiving of personal quirks or typos, and means that he rejects candidates out of hand who appear genuinely unable to spell or properly utilize much of the industry's vernacular.

[0] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing...

My guess would be that applicants to Y-Combinator are probably along the same spectrum–some great ideas, some decent ideas, and a lot of junk inbetween.