I find it ridiculous how IT, the industry with lowest entry barrier that ever existed, is often marked as sexist and elitist. Wanna program? Here is computer and manual, see you in 10 000 hours.
Sigh. Sexism and elitism are two characteristics of the culture. When people apply those labels, they are criticizing the participation in the culture, not just the learning of requisite skills.
Let's take apart your conjoining of sexism and elitism.
I don't think of the IT industry as elitist. There's certainly plenty of people in IT who think very highly of themselves, but that's just pride.
Sexism, however, is clearly present in the culture of IT. How big of a problem and the proper response to it is debated, but it's presence cannot be.
It is impossible to argue with such generalization. Culture is sexist, ergo industry is sexist. I would only say that LA startup has very different culture from big corporation which still uses mainframes and Cobol.
This is what I always notice. I think it might just be that because there is such a low barrier to entry in IT and SE, that people notice more the sex bias. However, it happens in every industry - imagine trying to have a girl passionate for cars get into an auto mechanic shop gig. It would be constant harassment in 99% of places, regardless of their capabilities or skillset.
Likewise, stick a guy in a fashion designers shop, or as a nurse (rather than licensed doctor), or a secretary. You get the inverse sexual harassment for not filling your "role".
That is why I always see a lot of these attempts in the macro-IT space to try to correct sexism as doomed to fail, because they act like the rest of the world is fair but they are just being immature when the real problem is bigger than they are, it is just obscured by excuses like women are weaker so they shouldn't work in a mechanics shop, or men don't have the empathy to teach 2ed grade, when it is just an inherent long running cultural prejudice I think is evaporating from the collective psyche but it is taking centuries rather than decades.
Men in fashion design shops are far more tolerated than women in auto-mechanic shops. Same with male nurses.
20+ years ago, I started out as a secretary, mainly because I knew how to use MS Word and Excel and nobody else had computers on their desks. I didn't see much inverse sex harassment, mainly because everyone needed me to get their work out.
Meanwhile, my female co-workers were being chased around the desk.
> Likewise, stick a guy in a fashion designers shop, or as a nurse (rather than licensed doctor), or a secretary. You get the inverse sexual harassment for not filling your "role".
Men are not outsiders in the fashion industry at all, its quite the opposite. Moreover, men have get better latitude for moving into job roles where workers are traditionally or majority women (the history of computer workers is an example of this). Finally, there is no such thing as inverse sexual harassment, there is just sexual harassment and we know that men in general experience sexual harassment less in the workplace than women.
The issue in IT [1] is treating women as human beings rather than sexual objects. Too many women in technology have stories of men acting inappropriately, creepy, or occasionally intimidating. This can range from constantly commenting on their clothes or appearance, to making jokes or conversation about sex, to showing inappropriate images or video, to repeated asking out, to inappropriate touching (backrubs, butt pats, "accidentally" brushing up against them).
[1] IT is obviously not the only industry with this problem.
Women talk about sex in the workplace all the time. I've worked at a few all-women companies. If I used your list as examples of sexual harassment, they would have been sued out of existence years ago.
Harassment to me is singling someone out and making them feel uncomfortable. Talking privately with my co-workers about something sexual while may be inappropriate in the workplace, should not be considered "sexual harassment".
I also have to laugh because if you asked a woman out and they are attracted to you, it suddenly becomes a date rather than sexual harassment...which in my mind invalidates it entirely. If someone continues to ask a girl out and they are not interested, it's harassment. Not sexual harassment.
It takes just a single brave woman to build second "Doom" or something like that. Somehow they figured out how to get education and voting rights. It's all about motivation.
Freedom becomes a very big problem, when you are not ready to handle it. Because remember the moment you are free to do anything, you also own up the consequences and failures of your actions. Most people are uncomfortable to be in these situations.
People blame their school, teacher, parents, siblings, country, company and what not their current state. But if they were to sit down and ponder, even if the hurdles they state were actually(Most of the times they are not) something they couldn't overcome themselves- A scary scenario emerges where you are left staring at your deeper self. You know deep down inside you haven't done your part, and you are actually in search of something to blame to justify your own short comings.
Beyond all, there is great benefit in victim mindset. Our society shows far more empathy towards victims(Who are presumed innocent and exploited) than failures(Who are considered losers).
They don't realize how independent they can be. When you're a child, your parents tell you what you're supposed to do. Then, you're in school, and you're part of this institution that tells you what to do. Then, you go work for some company, and the company tells you what to do. So people come in like baby birds in the nest and open their mouths, as if they're expecting us to drop food in. We have to tell them, "We're not your bosses. You're in charge now." Some of them are freaked out by that. Some people are meant to be employees. Other people discover they have wings and start flapping them. There's nothing like being thrown off a cliff to make you discover that you have wings.
I've been talking about entrepreneurship with some people, and realized how true the "Some people are meant to be employees" part is. Most people are so afraid of failing they aren't even willing to try for fear they might not be able to do something.
That would be effective if programming was a solo activity. I suppose there are niches where that is so (eg: the majority of solo web-designers I know are female.)
But most programming jobs happen in companies (even if that "company" is virtual, like an open source project.) Look around your office. What's the prevalent culture? How accepting are you of people of other races, nationalities, sexes, sexual orientation? Which colleges and universities are represented?
Now, it's okay if you're successful and have a limited culture, but at least own up to your lack of diversity.
(and by "you" I mean the generic you, not "you" specifically altero.)
I was in a dev shop for the last 6 years -- we had everything from no degree to PhD's. Eurpoeans, Eurasians, Indians, Caribbean and Americans. 20-30% women, and from 23 to 45 years old.
I know a lot of places that look like this.
I have no doubt the "bro culture" exists, but I think its prevalence is
1. In older (employee age wise) shops where, in those age groups, women simply hadn't been studying CS.
2. in very young startup environments where a team is likely to be a group of friends, vs. an externally sourced, interviewed workforce.
I don't think that the demographics of SV / SF are necessarily demonstrative of the industry as a whole.
My cofounder is women, no employees yet. My last team had 40% woman, some developers, one manager, two sysops. Team was distributed so most people in Europe, some in Southern America, about 30% in India. Questions about sexual orientation are not appropriated at my workplace.
"Questions about sexual orientation are not appropriated at my workplace."
Really? Do you fire me if I say 'my wife really likes that show, but I haven't gotten in to it"?
If someone wants to keep their sexual orientation private, that is absolutely their right, but people do talk about their lives. If you say "don't talk about sexual orientation" you're effectively saying "straight people get to be out, but gay folks stay in the closet."
I hope and kinda suspect that what you really mean is that if someone doesn't say something that indicates their orientation, it's no one else's business. That's certainly a necessary attitude.
But you also need to understand that most straight people are "out" by default, without ever thinking about it. And it needs to be understand that gay and lesbian employees are equally free to be open about their significant others (not sex itself--that's a different topic).
> my wife really likes that show, but I haven't gotten in to it
It is not a question.
In many countries it is illegal to ask question about sexual orientation, religion, marital status, age or even race. Assumption is that such information could be only used for discrimination. If someone would be compiling list of gays at my old workplace, I would probably call the police.
Disclosing sexual orientation to close colleagues after couple of weeks is fine. Scarfs and other sings are also fine. Proactive disclosure at inappropriate moment (job interview) would be probably interpreted as harassment (hitting on someone), same way as saying to woman "I am straight". People who organize gay parades etc.. are perceived as extremists who milk public budget.
I hope I explained it well without sounding homophobic.
I'm not talking about asking questions. Surely you shouldn't ask questions that could be perceived as discriminatory.
My point is that since ordinary human conduct in a professional environment lets straight people reveal their orientation, the same treatment should be expected for gay and lesbian folks, and the expected reaction should be complete understanding and professionalism.
You're right that it will normally not come up in a job interview.
"People who organize gay parades etc.. are perceived as extremists who milk public budget." Not quite sure what this means, but it sounds suspect.
> I hope and kinda suspect that what you really mean is that if someone doesn't say something that indicates their orientation, it's no one else's business. That's certainly a necessary attitude.
Here is computer and manual, see you in 10 000 hours.
Isn't this exactly why it is sexist? [1]
[1] This (being tone deaf to social cues) wouldn't work to attract women in a social setting, so why would it work in a professional one? You're basically offering up a scenario that is more likely to create anxiety for women, and as a result they will (statistcally) self-select into a different activity.
If it is called sexist for that reason, then the person using the term 'sexist' to describe the situation is comically misunderstanding the term. Sexism is basing one's beliefs about another on the basis of their sex, even if those beliefs don't actually relate to sex in any meaningful way. For instance, saying "The IT industry requires you to work hard, so women won't like it, because y'know, women can't stomach hard work" would be incredibly sexist. Conversely, saying anyone is free to join the IT industry is the exact opposite of sexist.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding around what sexism actually is: it's not sexist for something to simply not be favourable to some sample of a given sex. In order for something to be sexist it either has to make assumptions about the qualities of a given sex based only upon their gender, or be discriminatory toward a given sex based solely upon their gender. Discriminating on the basis of hours worked is the opposite of both of these.
I'm suggesting that you are inviting selection bias. That does not provide any grounds to question the median aptitude of the population. It just says that anything you infer from your sample data is most-likely skewed.
Now, a skew is discriminantory (by definition it is bias). Whether or not it is <sexist> is simply a question of distribution of the mechanism responsible.
Is a program of 3.5 years of self-study (lets assume, in social isolation) an equally attractive proposition? Probably not, given that women consider doing anything in isolation to somewhat socially demeaning. We know that women, for example, self-select mates based on quite the opposite: high social standing. A long self-enforced period of social isolation is thus <rationally> counter-productive from the perspective of evolutionary biology. So, if we use this as a gating function, yes we will get biased results.
Fairness is a question of expected value. A fair bet is one where the ratio of cost/benefit is equal. So, in this case where there is an asymmetric cost, the result is uneven fairness (in this sense).
Whether or not it is right or wrong depends upon your criterion for value. By one standard - maximizing the potential peformance - it would be inefficient. This is beacaus you have mean XY and below mean XX performance represented (~regardless of proportionality -- as XX is biased down in both quality and quantity). Whether or not this inefficiency is wrong or acceptable is on the whole, just re-phrasing whether or not gender bias is (or is not) wrong.
The original recommendation was phrased in a somewhat harsh manner. And while I could be wrong, I really don't think it was meant to be taken completely literally.
I think the literal intention of it was: "if you want to join this field, all you need to do is put in the time and effort to get really good at it". Not that you should literally lock yourself away in social isolation and speak to no other human beings for several years.
"Put in the time and effort" could also involve networking with other hackers, finding collaborators for open source project or startups, communicating on IRC channels, and learning from peers in person. Yes, there will be hours of solo grinding out code and debugging - but that's not the only thing that a programmer does.
Actually, look at what is written..."go read the book"...and "don't talk to me until its done", are both clearly implied. It is a dick attitude, sorry.
Some people may respond to this, and some may not. Statistically, without question you will get adverse selection. So, yeah you can now start to make assumptions on how to avoid this fate, or not, but otherwise people with real options will do other things.
Sorry, I don't understand what the problem is exactly.
There are plenty of other professions, like say music, surgery, law, athletics, performance and endurance sports, teaching and many more that require a person to go outside the normal hours and work to practice, to achieve any sign of mastery. The fact that these professions demand such an work setting is not because they inherently like to discriminate against a minority, but that standards of quality are held at such a high bar you inevitable have to work that way to make a living there.
10 000 hours is about 3.5 years study. No need to take mortgage for university, no need to work for free 'to prove yourself'. Hell you can even babysit while doing it (as I am doing now while learning Scala)
Yeah 10,000 hours is not a lot of time. I got my first computer in 1982. If you ignore all the time I spent as a hobbyist learning BASIC, Assembly, C, etc and only count my professional work time then I am still way over 40,000 hours of focused and methodical practice in IT.
What you're describing is the ability to program in isolation.
That's different to the ability to thrive in an industry where basic ability (which is what you'd develop with the manual, computer and time) is just one factor.
"Here is computer". Well, for one out of four households, no one has ever said to them "here is computer".
I used to volunteer at a hackerspace/ISP which gave away very old, cobbled together PCs to black kids in the nearby housing projects. For most of them, these cobbled together PCs from old DIMMs, hard drives, motherboards, etc. they were given were the only computer in their apartments. They lucked out being located near us. Some of their parents migrated from a southern state where their family couldn't vote, ride in the front of city buses, own property in certain areas, take a leak in certain bathrooms, drink from certain bathrooms, go to decent schools etc. In 1963. Which I guess must be ancient history to all the 18 year olds here who were not alive yet when Pulp Fiction was in movie theaters...
Silicon Valley is full of people born on third base thinking they hit a triple. Look at YC founder Robert Morris. He wrote a virus and crashed the Internet, did zero jail time, then went to an Ivy League school, started a company and sold it for millions. Now he's pointed to in HN circles as an example - some smart, hard-working guy who had the personality to hack the system and win. But the guys I knew who hacked into systems with much less damage at the exact same time went to real federal prisons. The spark in their eye was seen as a threat to the system, they should be "made an example of" as the judge said. They were just "spics, niggers and white trash" as a security consultant said at the time. Not a Brahmin WASP whose father had high connections in the government and intelligence establishment. My point is that I learned these lessons of how the world works long ago. People can go on for a long time oblivious, decades, but at some point in time, the real world comes crashing into the palaces of the Louis the Sixteenths and Czar Nicholas's of the world...or the Pentagons...
Of course none of this happened, the system is fair, everyone is born on a level playing field in this American system of Horatio Alger stories where anyone with gumption and a work ethic can be rich...
If Robert Morris was jailed for life, would it make the world a better place?
People in the developed countries wont crash anywhere any day soon. Modern bread and circus - junk food, celebrities, TV shows and professional sports will take care of that.
Computer is for 'elite' is getting old. I learned programming on XT for $20, my current laptop is worth $120. Cheap programmable calculators are available over 35 years.
I think work as a garbage man also has pretty low entry barrier, but it is still sexist, by HN's definition.
Same goes for plumbers, though here entry barrier is higher.
work as a garbage man also has pretty low entry barrier
What makes you think that? There is very little ad hoc freelance work in the business and contracts to collect refuse are very tightly controlled. I imagine that winning those contacts as a newly started one man garbage collection company is almost unheard of. As such the barriers to entry as a plumber are much much lower.
Sexist assholes exist in technology but are rare. I don't think I'm one, and I've only worked at one company where they were common, and that was a VC-funded company with MBA culture, and that's why there was so much sexism (among management). Plenty of these tech companies have the old, sexist MBA culture where women exist to make powerful men feel important, young, manly, etc.; but plenty more don't have that culture.
There's very little explicit classism. However, there is much indirect classism as a result of the severe ageism. If you age-grade peoples' careers harshly and discount accomplishments after 35, you're favoring people who had a head start (rich kids) while downgrading the people who worked hard for decades. That's a real problem but it doesn't exist because people explicitly favor the privileged. They don't. They're just prone to the same biases as everyone else, and thus are influenced by precociousness and pedigree. This is amplified by the groupthink in the VC community, and would be substantially less of a problem if there were more independent thought.
Why are many VCs ageist? (That's where the general "bro" culture comes from; it trickles down.) Because MBA culture (which is different from tech, the latter being far more evolved) is sexist and ageist, and also because a lot of these gatekeepers are middle-aged private-equity guys who did their 20s completely wrong (90-hour weeks) and are trying to live vicariously through young sociopaths whose careers they can make, in exchange for juicy tidbits about what their proteges did on the weekend ("chickenhawking"; see Michael Scott and Ryan Howard in The Office). Most VCs aren't that pathetic, but the groupthink favors the chickenhawk compliant (privileged, young, somewhat sociopathic, party-friendly) at the expense of the true technologists.
The real problem is the lack of fighters in tech, which leads to conformity and groupthink among the crowd that matters (VCs, top founders). Groupthink magnifies the biases of the defective few.
The real problem is that true technologists have done a poor job of protecting the culture; the real technology culture is far more meritocratic than the bastardized version the MBAs and private equity guys came up with. If we want fairness and a return to a maker-centric culture in the Valley and in the software industry in general, we can have it; but we have to get better at fighting for our own interests.
