FACT: Men and women have significant, measurable neurological differences[1].
FACT: These differences are measurable before birth[2].
FACT: Men and women show large, reproducible differences on average in tests of visuospatial ability, differences that can be mapped back to the brain[3]
Men consistently outperform women on spatial tasks,
including mental rotation, which is the ability to
identify how a 3-D object would appear if rotated in
space. Now, a University of Iowa study shows a connection
between this sex-linked ability and the structure of the
parietal lobe, the brain region that controls this type of
skill.
The parietal lobe was already known to differ between men
and women, with women's parietal lobes having
proportionally thicker cortexes or "grey matter." But this
difference was never linked back to actual performance
differences on the mental rotation test.
...
"Differences in parietal lobe activation have been seen in
other studies. This study represents the first time we
have related specific structural differences in the
parietal lobe to sex-linked performances on a mental
rotation test," said Tim Koscik, the study's lead author
and a graduate student in the University of Iowa
Neuroscience Graduate Program. "It's important to note
that it isn't that women cannot do the mental rotation
tasks, but they appear to do them slower, and neither men
nor women perform the tasks perfectly."
One of the consequences is that in any niche which requires cognitive or physical activity, we should not expect an exactly 50/50 distribution of males and females. Interests differ. Abilities differ.
The religious outcry against stating these basic evolutionary facts got Larry Summers ousted as the President of Harvard in 2005. You simply cannot state these facts and retain your job. And the irony of all ironies is that those who drove the President of Harvard from power will insist that they are actually the oppressed, rather than the powerful.
That's the root of the matter here. The ostensible evil of the term "brogrammer" rests upon the tacit desirability of having a 50/50 distribution of women in programming, which in turn rests upon the presumption that it is even possible to achieve this equality given biological constraints, constraints that are obvious upon a cursory skim of the relevant literature. We are just not blank slates to be blasted clean and remade by ideology.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Female-Brain-Louann-Brizendine-M-D/dp/...
[2] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/uu-spb102309....
[3] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-12/uoi-sdo121708...
There have been several high-ranking HN discussions over the last few days on this topic, all of which revolved around women in the field feeling ostracized and even harassed by their male colleagues. There is absolutely no need to draw in a spurious evolutionary argument to explain this trend.
So maybe its not culture in programming, but culture in society that is to blame here.
You correctly complain about the moralistic fallacy, which is where people assume that the world must be way X because it's how they'd like it to be.
But you do that while committing the naturalistic fallacy, which is the assumption that what's natural (or what currently exists) is what's right.
And of course, you also highlight a very small number of facts, ignoring the millennia of oppression of women, biased educational systems, and a lot of cultural pressure that keeps women away from STEM fields. So what you're engaged in isn't some rational analysis of a problem; you're just using a few small points of data in isolation to justify your predetermined conclusion.
Even if women are and will remain a minority for whatever reason, that doesn't mean we should be dicks to our colleagues. My intuition is that most damage being done is not malicious; I don't think programmers as a community are mean-spirited or misogynistic.
Tess has already made the relevant points about over-sensitization and the relative nature of offensiveness. Ultimately, it's up to you to figure out to what extent you are willing to be conscious of the effect you have on those around you.
I don't think a bunch of script-kiddies that learned a web framework and now think they are the second coming of Peter Norvig or Dennis but with the added benefit that they can "get naked chicks" are necessarily very high on the evolutionary ladder. Sorry to burst your bubble. I know a couple women PhD students that are brilliant Operating Systems researchers and work almost exclusively in the Linux kernel. They are not whipping RESTful CRUD apps with the Web framework du jour.
FACT: all this jibber jabber about evolutionary biology is completely irrelevant and just misses the point in a rather insidious way.
You should check out Top Secret Rosies documentary (its on netflix). They were the pioneers of computing.
As for the reason there are less woman in tech... This article might be interesting http://blog.jolieodell.com/2010/09/07/women-in-tech/
IMO, it doesn't discourage women from joining Greek organizations, as there is a corresponding Sorority girl stereotype and culture that is completely different from the frat bro stereotype.
To bring this back to the topic, I believe that the brogramming stereotype may only be off-putting to women as there doesn't currently exist a corresponding "programmer girl" stereotype that is completely different from the male-focused ones and is also a stereotype that women might aspire to be like.
As such, I don't think telling people to get rid of there new meme, because its off-putting to women, is going to be very effective (I mean, just look at how long people have been trying to get rid of the nerdy CS major stereotype), but starting your own "coding girl" stereotype just might.
Bryan
I'm just using the logic behind how it would be ridiculous to say that the frat boy image is putting women off from joining Greek organizations (beyond having to interact with them), as most women who are thinking about joining a sorority probably aren't worrying particularly much about becoming a frat boy.
But no--I really wish there were, and I think there will be plenty eventually. In the meantime? I think it's worth writing down the ways that college students, male and female, feel about these issues.
My girlfriend is also in the field of software engineering. Often times, we program together. However, on rare occasions I'll get together with my male friends one evening and indulge on Pizza Pockets and Python. We call it "brogramming" as self-mockery. I'm not being sexist; I'm hanging out with my buddies, and she completely understands that.
I don't like watching football with my male friends, so we code together instead. As long as we keep brogramming outside of work, it should not be thrown in the same basket as sexism... and it's ridiculous to propose that we abolish men wanting to sometimes code with men outside of work.
If you hung out with your friends (who all happen to be male) to watch football, that's not necessarily sexist. (1)
If one of the friends brought along an out-of-town friend (who was a football fan, and male) one week to hang out and watch football with all of you, and you welcomed him in for the week, that's also not necessarily sexist. (2)
If one of the friends brought along an out-of-town friend (who was a football fan, and female) one week to hang out and watch football with all of you, and you objected that she wasn't part of the group and you like a time just with friends to hang out, that's still not necessarily sexist. (3)
But if (1), (2), and (3) all pertain, then we have a pretty clear case of sexism, I'd say. Maybe you'd think (1) and (2) pertain but not (3); but if you go around calling the weekly group "boys' night", then (3) is pretty strongly implicated, and if one of the group was thinking about bringing along his (female) friend, he might decide to just skip that week or not invite her, because that wouldn't make sense for something called "boys' night", right? Or maybe he'd bring her along, and someone would make a comment like, "guess it's not 'boys' night' this week, ha ha, I guess some girls like football too" thus calling attention to her sex and re-emphasising that she's weird and exceptional.
As soon as you take a bunch of friends hanging out---which is, at least presumptively, not a sexist activity---and slap a gendered label on it like "boys' night", or "brogramming", you know what? It's probably become a sexist experience. Even if that was not intended and even if you don't think it is.
With regards to "brogramming," I personally don't find the idea all that offensive. But there's a critical mass of women in tech who do, and I think that it's my responsibility--and yours--to respect that.
I respect that they're offended, I just don't think you've targetted the source of offense precisely.
FWIW, I think brogramming is self-deprecating and ironic too, and not the least bit offensive. But Tess doesn't - and I respect that.
EDIT: You're not obligated to stop doing something simply because somebody thinks it's offensive. But it's kind of the polite thing to do.
The thing that they are referring to with the term "brogramming" is not a few guys getting together and coding for fun. Nobody is proposing that that feminism police come and kick in your door if more then 3 guys congregate in the same room with laptops and a bowl of Cheetos. So relax, you're safe. Safe enough that you can find out what they're actually upset about.
Quora's discussion on "What things are most useful for men to keep in mind when discussing theories or topics relating to gender?" http://www.quora.com/What-things-are-most-useful-for-men-to-...
Ellen Spertus's classic "Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists?": http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Gender/pap/pap.html
The handy "Male Programmer Privilege Checklist": http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Male_Programmer_Privilege...
"HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux": http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-H...
And that useful reference "Derailing for Dummies": http://derailingfordummies.com/
EDIT: Previously it was down to -3. Now it's back in the black.
I'm beginning to think that HN is getting sick and tired of having to think about women in tech. What a burden!
I voted you up.
And then punishing offenders instead of helping them learn better. People don't learn by punishment. (See: Karl Popper.)
At best, this gets people to hide overt problems. It sweeps problems under the rug without getting rid of them. People will still think sexist thoughts, then add self-censorship on top of that.
Real solutions will come from discussion of better ways of life and thinking: what to do instead. And how to characterize this by what it's about rather than a list of things excluded. Life needs a whitelist more than a blacklist.
Anyone trying to point out a hurtful behavior is being positive. They're trying to help you not hurt other people. You telling someone they should be nicer when you're being a shitheel is a privileged behavior. "Sorry, but you're not being nice enough so I refuse to listen. I might be sexist, but you hurt my feelings by pointing it out!"
Grow up.
IF men in tech learn to "hide" their sexist thoughts, this will help women in tech feel more comfortable and will thus encourage more of them. And then they will show men how competent women can be in CS, sexist stereotypes disappear because they aren't true at all anymore, etc. etc.
I know this is an optimistic oversimplification, but you get the idea.
PS I don't agree but I don't think you should be downvoted.
Do you have any suggestions on how to help people (men) understand these issues?
(That IS what the forum was supposed to be. Not a punishment.)
There was a recent example where people got really offended by the idea of female beer servers. And the people behind the ad got punished by sponsors pulling out.
Are men not supposed to find that sexy? Are they supposed to find it sexy, but pretend they don't? Does everyone know it's sexy, but it's just taboo to appeal to this preference in advertisements?
Seems like they are either being asked to change or hide their sexual preferences. And just not talking about it is no solution.
So, should men in general change their sexual preferences? Well, I'm happy to go with "yes" on that one. And women should too, in my view. But that's an advanced topic and I wouldn't expect most people to agree with me without discussing a bunch of philosophy and stuff. (See more details below.)
I think most anti-sexists would not agree with my perspective on this topic. I think most of them have inconsistent ideas. When you're doing advocacy but have inconsistent ideas, it's not going to work out so great.
What kind of inconsistency? Liking regular attitudes to sex in some contexts, but then not liking some of their consequences in some other contexts. And not recognizing that these are linked.
It's not at all easy to divorce sexual preferences from sexism. One of the many consequences of ending sexism is that everyone would be bisexual (or asexual). If you're not bisexual (or asexual) then you're sexist! Maybe you won't agree with that but there are plenty of smaller issues that are pretty easy to agree on. If you look at the large majority of common sexual fantasies, they involve some amount of gender stereotypes like a strong man or a pretty woman. The beer related ad basically communicated "hey guys, we'll have pretty women near you", it was appealing to a very mainstream preference.
Tons and tons of women have rape fantasies. And tons and tons of men have nasty fantasies too. In that context I'm not going to get very mad at men for beer server preferences, it doesn't seem all that important to me.
Do anti-sexists want everyone to give all that stuff up? Drop all gender stereotypical sexual fantasies? Drop most (all?) sexual fetishes? Maybe become bisexual or asexual?
I don't think so. They want to keep some of that stuff but a limited amount.
But rationally you can't just stop half way, arbitrarily, and avoid the full consequences of your ideas. What's the argument for partially rejecting sexism? Some kind of practical argument? Well, that's not so bad but when you look at it that way you'll see it in a new way: the sexists and anti-sexists are both partial sexists, who draw their line in the sand a little different (not even very far apart, from my perspective). Then they fight over where the line should be (they both agree on tons of stuff that is and isn't OK, but then there's a small category where they squabble). And there's no principled arguments to determine this because it's just an arbitrary part-way line determined by practicality, cultural norms, fads, etc... Both sides look a bit dumb to me: mostly agreeing and then arguing over small details with no principles to determine who is right. If you're going to take some "practical", unprincipled approach, at least try to be really tolerant of people who do something similar but not quite the same, since exactly how far you go is arbitrary you really shouldn't start a witch hunt over it.
Most people, including most anti-sexists have no clue how to replace all their sexual preferences with new ones created according to modern rationalistic, progressive standards. More generally, little understanding of how to change their personality (let alone change it safely and rationally). And honestly most people shouldn't try it. They will make mistakes and mostly do worse than the (partially sexist) traditions they're currently adhering to.
Yet the anti-sexists demand the "sexists" change their personalities and sexual preferences, without providing the philosophical knowledge of how to do such a thing, which neither side has.
I also don't think it's fair to blame men in general. All this stuff is part of gender roles and lifestyle traditions that both men and women participate in. Just as one example, many women want the man to take lots of initiative and kiss her without asking. But they don't want to be kissed by men they don't fancy. And they don't want to send clear signals. The woman's passive role and the man's active role go together, and combined with the lack of clear communication on both sides, you get false positives where women get kissed who don't want to be. Men get blamed for this by the anti-sexist crowd, and sometimes fired, but it looks to me like it's a consequence of both the male and female behavior. There's no straightforward way for men to unilaterally fix it: if they act less like "alpha males" and do more "beta" behavior (like asking permission to kiss a woman or passively waiting for a lot more evidence to go by), they will have a worse shot with most women.
My own personal theory is that there are two collective phenomenon at play here:
1) There's a self-cyclical force here where some people think brogramming is a label some people use non-ironically, so there are things like marketing materials developed specifically for it, which by definition will be exclusionary and sexist. This material further spreads the idea that "brogrammers are real" and everyone gradually forgets that nobody is actually this ridiculous.
2) There is a fear among programmers that our wonderful merit-based community accepting of all genders, cultures, and creeds -- which it is, really -- is going to turn into Phi Delta Toolbag overnight. For a lot of us, myself included, we've never been one of the "cool kids" and found computers and technology a much better fit for our introverted personalities. And suddenly these pink popped-collared polo shirt sunglass-wearing monsters are going to take that away from us.
Anyway, I understand why the women at UPenn would be offended by the "brogrammer" term, sometimes you just don't want to be associated with a term even if it's satirical. But are there actual brogrammers out there being sexist, or is this an overblown issue?
So, here's the thing. I touched on this (but now I'm wishing I'd emphasized it more).
Brogramming is moving away from satire. There are actually people who want to be brogrammers, just like there are actually people who want to be guidos. Now, almost everyone I know is proud to NOT be a brogrammer (I think some people slyly enjoy the label, but that's another issue).
I would also challenge your idea that our community is accepting of everyone. I think we are in theory--certainly, we all want to be--but there's little things that happen. IMO, the stuff that's been surfacing this week has always been here. It's just people are getting called out on it now.
And, btw, thanks for such a thoughtful comment.
I would think that's pretty offensive to anyone who's in any sort of "* Phi Delta *" fraternity. In a thread that touches on the offensiveness of stereotypes and subsequent alienation, the irony of both the comment and your LOL reaction should be pointed out. As far as "thoughtful comment" goes, there certainly wasn't much thought put into the phrase "Phi Delta Toolbag".
When you take into account that the Sqoot API Jam was very brogrammer-like, too (although they never used the term)... Well, that just underscores that a) People now want to be brogrammers and b) Brogramming is inherently exclusive to women.
If you don't like them, spend your time with programmers who don't brag about sex parties.
And why do you want to be a part of brogramming if you hate it so much? (inferred from your comment on exclusivity to men as a problem)
It's sad to me, because there are so many much more worthy things for us to aspire towards, as software developers, than some stereotype based around degenerate behavior.
I think the author is misreading the entire "movement" by first assuming the false dichotomy she stated, that I've quoted above: that computer science is for the two exclusive groups of "nerdy boys" and "brogrammers". First, the entire meme is mostly satire making fun of bros. Because, hey, easy targets, right?
Second, whatever serious brogrammers there are isn't out of nerdy guys coming out of the woodwork and embracing a culture of bro-ing. I know and socialize with a fair number of self-proclaimed "bros". Whatever non-satire based brogrammers exist, they come from a realization on the part of the bros-who-formerly-did-not-program --- that programming is a useful skill. So a lot of bros who previously took Econ classes and lined up for the investment banking recruiting sessions are now learning how to program and spending more time in the CS department.
I don't think this is something to be "offended" by. If what you're offended by is bro-culture (and yes, I will be the first to say that there are sometimes troubling things about a frat-culture that sometimes objectifies women --- the "brogramming" session cited where recruiters were trumpeting the existence of naked women at parties _is_ offensive.), then decry those bros that _do_ do things that marginalize various groups. But there are plenty of bros who do nothing worse than consume copious amounts of alcohol on friday night, play games of beerpong late into the night, wear popped collars, get excessive tans and lift a lot of weights (which is how I've met most of my bro friends, seeing as I do find some of those activities pleasurable). It's not all Mike-The-Situation out here, and you can empirically verify this fact by walking down Walnut Street on a Friday Night as the frat parties are in session.
But as a computer scientist who has all too often seen too many groups excluded from this beautiful subject --- I'm mostly troubled by this blogpost --- as it is an attempt to marginalize a group of different people (bros) who seem to have taken to learning more computer science. I want more bros in computer science. more women, more goths, more emos, more whatever-stereotype you have in mind. And if they want to brogram, let them.
I find it interesting that you assumed that by "some women" I meant "me." These are not actually my views, exactly, on brogramming. If I were the only woman in the world, I wouldn't consider "brogrammer" offense. I agree--most of them are pretty harmless. Blah blah red bull.
But there ARE a significant number of women who ARE offended. And I don't think that you, or me, or anyone else, should tell them to not be offended by it. We haven't had their experiences, you know? Even as a woman in tech, I don't understand the full range of female experiences and perceptions.
Here's how I see it:
1. Bros be bro-ing, with alcohol and weights. (not sexist)
2. Bros decide to program, bringing with them their bro-baggage (not sexist).
3. This becomes a meme: brogramming (not sexist).
4. Douchebag recruiters capitalize on latest meme in sleazy fashion, advertising "naked women" (definitely sexist).
5. Some women (ok, more than just you) and all reasonable persons are (rightfully) outraged at that blatant display of sexism.
I still don't seen anything offensive about brogramming itself --- insofar as brogramming consists of bros who like to program. If assholes are going to make sexist remarks/be sexist, you are entirely justified in calling them out for those vile acts, and I will happily join you in doing so. But your blogpost reads like a witchhunt against bros for... being bros.
"Is this for Men? Or is this for People?"
Side-note: If you ever think to respond with "But what about lesbians?" you are attempting to justify something sexist. Start over and cater to People.
I took it for granted that the portmanteau of "bro" (never a positive adjective in my corner of the world, e.g. "Ugh, the bar upstairs was full of bros, so we left") and "programmer" was something that was obviously poking fun at (among other things) the social life of the archetypical awkward, introverted programmer.
With the above in mind, I truly adored the satire of brogrammer when I first came upon it. I would have never thought of it being exclusive towards women because, frankly, all of the women in computer science I've ever worked with have been not only good computer scientists, but also properly well-rounded individuals able to comport themselves with other human beings without being painful to be around who never ever EVER desire being a Brogrammer and would be offended to be called as much.
I kind of laughed brogramming off early on in the genesis of the phenomenon when I saw people behaving like they were taking it seriously. My thought was they were using an ultra-mock seriousness in the furtherance of humor. Think of your favorite comedian looking you square in the eye and telling you that, say, they think babies are delicious for breakfast on toast.
The discourse on brogramming sort of percolated over time, then I distictly recall that I saw a post from someone in (Malaysia, maybe?) here on HN where they were referring to themselves as a Brogrammer on their website's bio, and I took it to be either someone who had the misfortune to lose something in translation, or that I misunderstood that they too were in on the joke, as it were. I know when I try to understand humor in French or Spanish I lose a great deal of the nuance and have to resort to fairly broad humor when I communicate in those languages. As a consequence, I tend to avoid trying to be funny in anything other than English. It's for the best.
Then I saw articles popping up in the media about Brogramming as cultural phenomenon and I took it to be the standard sort of journalistic fare where a cultural phenomenon that gets reported on is either wildly misrepresented or turns out to be patently false. Anyone remember "toothing" [1] from early-mid 2000's? Just think how much serious play that got in the news. So much so, that I'd be shocked if there weren't a substantial number of people who tried it out of curiosity.
And now I'm discovering that Brogramming isn't a self-deprecating joke that I've been sharing with nearly as many people as I thought. I'm not sure if this would really happen, but I'd be eager to hear from journalists who reported it as phenomenon, startups and recruiters who chose to use it as recruiting pitch, or someone who internalized Brogramming as aspirational lifestyle. I'm just confused.
At any rate, I give up. No joke is worth the shitty feelings and exclusion and hurt and animosity that I'm seeing being identified now as coming out of brogramming as meme.
I've been wondering whether people are put off becoming musicians/writers/artists due to others having sexist stereotypes in their material. We don't seem to see the same widespread demands for apologies and desistance in those fields (consider the amount of songs talking about "bi^ches" and the like) - or do we? But then I realized that we have seen racism (and homophobia) become taboo in pop culture and the arts, thankfully, yet sexism is still a free for all. Why?
As idiotic as "brogramming" is (IMHO) and as much as I think software development should be a semi-academic, tight-knit discipline with progressive and respectful norms, many of these things causing offense seem to be misjudged attempts at injecting pop culture. "Brogramming" is on par with the group "LMFAO" in terms of stupidity and tact, yet LMFAO are not called upon to apologize or up their game to stop offending people. Why? (Differing standards for pop culture celebrities vs professionals, maybe? But are some developers also pop culture celebrities? Tricky.)
Bear in mind this is just armchair sociological analysis, and no opinion of mine can be derived from these questions (well, other than that brogramming is a bit silly and that I think we should all treat each other with the respect we'd also want to receive) :-)
Wall street was the hot go-to destination, and it was as 'bro' as it got. The never-ending conversation was "can women fit in on Wall street?"
Now SV is the hot go-to destination, and its getting 'bro'. The new conversation is "can women fit on in SV?"
Because it denotes retards trying to pass themselves off as qualified. Just as "humbers" would denote unqualified plumbers trying to ply their trade, or "barpenters" would denote something similar. "Brogrammers" isn't offensive because it's sexist; it's offensive because it's idiotic.
Why is that?
Ever since a very long time ago, we want to be acknowledged and to be put in pedestal. Be it the word "prodigy", "young hacker", "talented nerd", "millionaire boy" or something along that line....