Seattle Pixel

Women, Tech, and Everything Else

Gayle Laakmann

After three internships at Microsoft, one internship at Apple, and three years at Google, Gayle Laakmann decided that she'd spent enough time at the biggies. She left Google with best wishes to her co-workers and went out to explore the world. She spent six weeks in Argentina and three weeks in Asia. Gayle is now back in Seattle exploring the startup scene.

Projects & Activities

Gayle Laakmann spends her time working on CareerCup and Seattle Anti-Freeze. CareerCup is a source for technical interviews, job postings, interview training, and more. Seattle Anti-Freeze is a company Gayle founded a year ago that organizes parties and other events for people in their 20s and 30s.

Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts

A Googly Peek into Racism

Racism is rampant. Maybe this election has made people less racist, maybe it hasn't. At the very least, I hope that it has made people realize that, yes, racism is still very much alive. As a quick illustration, check out the top 10 Google search suggestions for Obama: 30% are race-related issues: "birth certificate", "muslim" and "antichrist".

The most frustrating part is that people don't even see the racism and sexism. A Google coworker who had a "Hillary Nutcracker" displayed in his office window - he probably didn't think about how that's dripping with sexism. Nor did the Republican friend who asked online for one good thing that "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" has ever done. Nor does the other friend who asserts that Colin Powell only endorsed Barack Obama because he's black.

We don't see these things because we see them all too often. We've become immune to it. It's time that we wake up and call these things out for the racist, sexist acts that they are.

Time Calls Rape Case "Sexy and Surreal"

McKinney, charged with kidnapping and rape over thirty years ago, has recently emerged. Time Magazine tells us that in the winter of 1977, McKinney and a friend kidnapped a Mormon missionary by the name of Anderson, whom McKinney had been stalking since their relationship ended in 1975. Anderson was chained to a bed for three days and raped repeatedly by McKinney.

In an odd - if not shocking - choice of words, Time Magazine describes the details as "sexy and surreal". Instead of calling it rape, Time calls it "forcibly having sex." It's also called a "sex scandal."

So how could Time possibly describe an abduction and rape this way? The rapist was a woman and the victim was a man.

Rape is not sex and it is never, ever, sexy.

A Creationist Explains the Male Sex Drive

A creationist explains why men have higher sex drives than women:
I believe God, in order to make certain that the human race would continue on, made sex one of most powerful desires known to mankind. But here’s the problem. If a guy created a baby every time he had sex and he had to take care of each and every baby and it’s mother for the next 20 years of his life and… THERE WAS NO PLEASURE IN THE ACT… how many guys would have sex? None! You think God didn’t know that? Of course he did. So, he had to make the desire for sex so pleasurable that most guys would do just about anything to have sex, baby or no baby. That way the generations would go on and on.

But the problem is, what if he made both men and women with the same desire? What if all men and women had the same intensity sexually as men? What would happen to our society? We’d never get anything done. We’d have so many babies it would overrun the Earths capacity. It would be terrible.

But on the other hand, what if both men and women had the same sexual intensity as most women? What would happen to our society then? We’d die out in one generation.

If the (alleged) difference in men's and women's sex drives is just God achieving population control, couldn't an omniscient, omnipotent God achieve this in other ways? Compared with creating the earth and the sun, tweaking fertility rates should be relatively easy.

Somehow, I find the evolutionary explanation a lot easier to follow...

Albanian Sworn Virgins

Fascinating. An Albanian custom permits women to take an oath of virginity and live their life as men. The gender-swapping custom has its roots in gender inequality: it provided a patriarch for families who were left without one.
The sworn virgin was born of social necessity in an agrarian region plagued by war and death. If the family patriarch died with no male heirs, unmarried women in the family could find themselves alone and powerless. By taking an oath of virginity, women could take on the role of men as head of the family, carry a weapon, own property and move freely.
When traditional Albanian culture accepts sworn virgins as men - complete with men's responsibilities and duties - it is actually demonstrating a belief that women are just as capable as men. Why, then, do you have such strictly defined gender roles? Is it solely due to religion?

A few other thoughts:

On Transgender vs. Homosexuality
Taking an oath to become a sworn virgin should not, sociologists say, be equated with homosexuality, long taboo in rural Albania.
This line sort of caught me off guard. Next time you write about, say, theatre, why don't you just throw in a line like "but enjoying theater should not be equated with homosexuality." Gender identity and sexual orientation are very different things.

On Gender Pronouns
Normally, one should use "he" to refer to people who were born female but identify as male, yet this article uses "she." Is this ignorance on the part of the reporter to this "rule", an inability to accept a different custom, or do sworn virgins continue to use the female pronouns? Given the thoroughness with which they are treated as men (including use of the word "uncle"), I'm inclined to believe that they use the male pronouns. So why didn't the article?

On the Future of Sworn Virgins
As women gain more rights, the incentives to become a sworn virgin become less and less. Some of the remaining sworn virgins, however, appear to encourage the same gender roles that pushed them into becoming men:
“Today women go out half naked to the disco,” said Ms. Rakipi, who wears a military beret. “I was always treated my whole life as a man, always with respect. I can’t clean, I can’t iron, I can’t cook. That is a woman’s work.”

Father-Daughter Purity Balls

Eww. Father-Daughter Purity Ball [tip: get a login / password from bugmenot.com].

The girls, ages early grade school to college, had come with their fathers, stepfathers and future fathers-in-law last Friday night to the ninth annual Father-Daughter Purity Ball. The first two hours of the gala passed like any somewhat awkward night out with parents, the men doing nearly all the talking and the girls struggling to cut their chicken.
...
For the Wilsons and the growing number of people who have come to their balls, premarital sex is seen as inevitably destructive, especially to girls, who they say suffer more because they are more emotional than boys. Fathers, they say, play a crucial role in helping them stay pure.

Between STDs and pregnancy, it's great if a girl chooses abstinence. However, the Father-Daughter Purity Ball is saying so much more than that. It's specifically fathers and specifically daughters. If purity is so important, where are the sons? Is virginity not important for boys? If it's about encouraging virtue, why aren't the mothers there supporting their daughters?

Instead of encouraging girls to respect and value their bodies, this propagates a distorted world view in which boys are the blameless aggressors, girls are the guardians of purity, and their strong, manly fathers must protect from those silly boys. After all, boys are boys - can they really be expected to keep their d*ck in their pants? Better make that the girl's responsibility.
“Fathers, our daughters are waiting for us,” Mr. Wilson, 49, told the men. “They are desperately waiting for us in a culture that lures them into the murky waters of exploitation. They need to be rescued by you, their dad.”
Indeed, rather than encouraging a girl to choose abstinence, this promotes the idea of a girl being unable to make her own decisions about her body and needing a man to make the decisions for her. Guess who's going to make the decisions when she gets a boyfriend?

Furthermore, purity balls like this one can be counterproductive as parents are unlikely to educate their children on safe sex:
Recent studies have suggested that close relationships between fathers and daughters can reduce the risk of early sexual activity among girls and teenage pregnancy. But studies have also shown that most teenagers who say they will remain abstinent, like those at the ball, end up having sex before marriage, and they are far less likely to use condoms than their peers.
Parents: Encourage your children to wait to have sex. That's great. But encourage all of them equally - boys and girls. And, just in case the kids don't listen (as kids are known to do) teach them about condoms and safe sex. Preparing for the "what if" scenario is just common sense.

Planned Parenthood of VA Losing State Funding

The Virginia Senate recently voted to cut off state funding for Planned Parenthood because it offers abortions. Ironically, Planned Parenthood probably does more to prevent abortions than almost any other organization in the country. Planned Parenthood offers pregnancy prevention education, contraception, breast exams, STD testing, etc. Why is it that the people who claim to care so much about the death of a fetus aren't doing anything to stop the fundamental cause? To stop abortions, you need to stop unplanned pregnancies. That's what Planned Parenthood is doing.

Here's the thing that gets me: the US claims to have a separation of church and state. However, we still fund faith-based charities and educational institutions. Sure, the government will only fund the non-religious activities, but doesn't that seem like a somewhat silly distinction? If you give a $1000 to a church's homeless program, you free up $1000 of the church's money that they can then use to expand their religious activities.

Despite the separation of church and state, we are essentially funding religious institutions on the grounds that one service they provide is worthwhile. Other services (eg, religion) provided by the religious institution are unconstitutional to fund. We still fund the institution.

Planned Parenthood of Virginia provides many services with goals that Pro-Lifers would support. They offer contraception to prevent abortion, STD testing to save lives, etc. Yet, because law makers simply don't like one service (which is perfectly legal to fund), they revoke funding for all of these services.

Where's the logic? Why does a church get funding because of one service even though it's unconstitutional to fund another, while Planned Parenthood loses funding for all services because law makers morally oppose one (legal and constitutional) service?

Abstinence-Only Driver's Ed

On Abstinence-Only Driver's Ed (parody):
ABSTINENCE-ONLY DRIVER'S ED.
BY SUZANNE KLEID

- - - -

Thanks for making it out on a rainy Saturday, kids. Slippery out there, huh? Let's get started. We're gonna have some fun today!

Car accidents are a leading cause of death for teenagers. The school board and your elected representatives want to make sure that you and your families are spared from such a tragedy, which is why the money for driver's ed was eliminated from the budget. Whereas last year I was teaching your older siblings how to shift and brake and three-point-turn during a six-week course, it has since been decreed that I actually need just one afternoon to tell you the only piece of safety information I'm permitted by law to share:

The ONLY 100 percent effective method for avoiding car accidents is to ABSTAIN from driving until marriage.

Read the full thing. It's good. :-)

Apples vs. Oranges: Sexism vs. Racism

Today while browsing on Facebook, I ran across this charming group:
Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich
"Dedicated to keeping Hillary Clinton out of the Oval Office and in the kitchen"
It's funny how overt sexism is so much more accepted than over racism. This got me thinking about some stuff...

Racism vs. Sexism

Much as I enjoy my little urban bubble where I don't hear extreme racist or sexist remarks on a daily basis, a quick perusal of Facebook shows me that that's woefully not the case. Any large group quickly turns into a discussion of why {insert race, gender, sexual orientation} sucks. Oops - did I say discussion? I meant punctuation-less rant, LOLs and all. Racism and sexism permeate our society in advertisements, jokes, and in each and every person's minds.

Though they both permeate our society, racism and sexism are different beasts. They have different histories, different present day struggles, and different futures.

History

Historically, black people have won certain rights before women - namely, the right to vote. Black people won the right to vote in 1870, while women didn't receive this for another fifty years. Additionally, if my college legal professor is to be believed, the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1977 only narrowly added in the gender clause. The ADA was really targeting at eliminating racial discrimination - protection for genders was afterthought.

While black people obtained certain rights before women, the struggles were very different. Black people were slaves - (white) women in this time period may have very limited freedom, but there was still pressure to "respect" women. The civil rights movement was marked with more violence than the women's rights movement.

Present Day

Currently, at least in my urban bubble, sexism is more condoned than racism. Take, for example, that facebook group (which I sadly discovered one of my own family members joining) and let's flip it around to race. Which would be more offensive:
Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich

or:

Barack Obama: Stop Running for President and Go Pick Me Some Cotton
I'd argue the second one would be more likely to elicit a jaw-dropping response, whereas the first one might get a little chuckle. Racism is a big no-no, but sexism is kind of ok. [Disclaimer: I've never lived in the rural south. Things might be very different in other parts of the country.]

Let's look at the stereotypes facing each group:
Black People: Lazy, Violent, Unintelligent / uneducated
Women: Irrational, Emotionally Weak, Un-opinionated
What's interesting is that while black people and women both face some sort of "stupid" stereotype, the tone of it is a little different. According to the stereotype, black people are uneducated whereas women are educated and yet un-opinionated (they don't really "think" about things).

Future

Races blend, but genders do not (generally speaking). What steretypes would a person who is 1/4 Black and 1/2 Chinese and 1/4 Caucian experience? People are not, generally speaking, part-male and part-female. Gender has a strict binary divide: you're either male or female. There is no such divide for race.

Socially, we might eventually treat different races equivalently but we will never treat genders equivalently. The fact is that the vast majority of the world is attracted to either men or women, but not both. You might regard a black, hispanic, asian, etc person as "just anyone", but men will identified as men and women will be identified as women. Gender will always be a thought that is front and center in your mind.

The flip side of the social point is that even if you're a man who thinks women are stupid / crazy / some other offensive stereotype, you still probably want them around (unless you're gay, that is - I wouldn't want to be heteronormative ;-)). The extremes of sexism probably won't result in a thought of "I hate this group so much that I don't even want them around." The extremes of racism do. Sexism leads to superiority, violence, etc. Racism leads to all that, and to elimination / exclusion.

Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama: Who's More Impacted by Prejudice?

Suppose Clinton and Obama try to leave the race / gender issues behind by acting more like the typical politician (eg, white male) - how does that impact how people view them? That is, what happens when a person violates the stereotypes of their race or gender?

Obama would be a black person acting "white". Some people might resent him for betraying "his people," but the general public probably wouldn't hold it against him too much.

Clinton, however, would be a woman acting like a man. Women who act like men are seen as cold bitches. Every candidate has opposition, but people hate Clinton on an emotional level that you don't see with other politicians. Ask someone why they hate George W. Bush, and you'll probably hear something about the war, economy, etc. With Clinton, you'll often get an articulate arguments such as, "I just hate her - she's a nasty person."

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If she acts feminine, she's too weak to be president. If she acts masculine, then she's a bitch.

Does that mean that Clinton faces more severe sexism than Obama does racism? No. The problems are just different. Sexism is more condoned in society, but racism can be more severe.

Then again, this is all coming from a white girl who lives in a city in the northwest. One should never forget how their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc affects their experience with prejudice.

Am I a Feminist?

More than one friend has read my blog and asked, "when did you become such a feminist?" The assumption is, of course, that all feminists must be bra-burning and man-hating lesbians. Having never observed me actually burn a bra, universally hate men, or, well, "swing the other way" (much to some people's disappointment), you can see their confusion.

Out of the 100 or so RSS feeds I read, Feministing and Feministe are two of the more interesting ones. Feminists are not man-hating - they're pro-equality. They're not anti-sex - they're believe in each person making their own choice. They are women and men. If I had to generalize about the actual beliefs of feminism, I'd say that they don't believe in generalization. They believe in the individual.

They believe that pharmacists should not be able to deny contraception to women.

In Indiana, the state senate passed a measure that would allow pharmacists to refuse to do their jobs. If a woman wants contraception (including emergency contraception), pharmacists would be within their rights to refuse to fill her prescription. The bill’s sponsor initially said that it wouldn’t apply to contraception, only emergency contraception — a statement he later had to backtrack on, probably when someone informed him that emergency contraception is the exact same thing as standard birth control pills, just in a higher dose. Plus, you know, it’s contraception. And yet, “he claimed this week that it would not apply to birth control pills.”.

They believe that it's wrong that teen girls in the media are either sexualized or picked on for being ugly (think: Chelsea Clinton in the 90s vs. the Olson twins)
So there it is: ugly and worthless, or live bait/freak magnet. Those are the choices patriarchy offers to our girls. Picking on young girls for being awkward is cruel; so is sexualizing them. Men should just leave them alone until they’re grown up. But apparently that’s too much to ask.
They believe that women should not have to live in fear in Iraq.

The images in the Basra police file are nauseating: Page after page of women killed in brutal fashion — some strangled to death, their faces disfigured; others beheaded. All bear signs of torture.

The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other “rules” that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce.

They support Clinton and Obama's views on reproductive rights - they do not support McCain's. They do not believe that you should support Clinton because she is female - in fact, many even support Obama.

They believe that abortion saves lives - literally and figuratively.

I have been an abortion provider since 1972. Why do I do abortions, and why do I continue to do abortions, despite two murder attempts?

The first time I started to think about abortion was in 1960, when I was in secondyear medical school. I was assigned the case of a young woman who had died of a septic abortion. She had aborted herself using slippery elm bark.

They believe that teens should have comprehensive sex education. Abstinence-only programs don't work.
And Republicans have… outlawing abortion and telling people to keep their legs closed until they’re married. The very things that never work. And they oppose the measures that have been proven to decrease the abortion rate. Because they’re pro-life like that.
They believe same-sex marriages should have the same rights as heterosexual marriages.

They oppose the harassment of abortion doctors.
They’re going after Dr. Tiller, a Kansas abortion provider, for approximately the 340,986th time. Dr. Tiller is a favorite of theirs because he’s one of the last abortion providers in Kansas, and he provides late-term abortions. One of their followers shot him in both arms a few years ago, his clinic has been vandalized on numerous occasions, his workers are regularly harassed, and he’s Target #1 for a “pro-life” movement that murders doctors. Tiller’s home address, family members’ information, and pictures are all posted on “pro-life” websites. For protection, he lives in a gated community, has a high-level security system surrounding his home, and wears a bullet-proof vest to work every day.
They know that rape and assault happen to women everyday, and is often covered up. They believe that it must change.
Jamie Leigh Jones was raped by her American co-workers in Baghdad. She was then imprisoned in an effort to cover up her assault.
They believe that sexism is rampant in this presidential election.
Using overtly sexist language, he has referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a "she devil" and compared her to a "strip-teaser." He has called her "witchy" and likened her voice to "fingernails on a blackboard." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom" and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to "Midwest guys." He has called her "Madame Defarge" and "Nurse Ratched."
They believe that domestic violence is very real in the US - and it affects both men and women.
The CDC said 23.6 percent of women and 11.5 percent of men reported being a victim of what it called "intimate partner violence" at some time in their lives.

The CDC defined this as threatened, attempted or completed physical or sexual violence or emotional abuse by a spouse, former spouse, current or former boyfriend or girlfriend or a dating partner. The CDC estimates that 1,200 women are killed and 2 million injured in domestic violence annually.

They believe that calling teens who are having sex "sluts" does not solve the problem. Shame does not effectively discourage sex - it discourages teens from getting help.
A state lawmaker used a derogatory term Wednesday to describe unmarried teen parents as sexually promiscuous and complained that society condones premarital sex.

"In my parents' day and age, (unmarried teen parents) were sent away, they were shunned, they were called what they are," Republican Rep. Larry Liston said during a GOP legislative caucus meeting in Denver. "There was at least a sense of shame."

Liston continued: "There's no sense of shame today. Society condones it ... I think it's wrong. They're sluts. And I don't mean just the women. I mean the men, too."

They believe that sexism is alive and well in the US - even in children.
Men presidents only

I think that having a woman president would be a bad idea for our country. Women are not meant to rule countries and be in charge. They are meant to make decisions but not confirm them.

Our president deals with some countries that don't respect or allow women in leadership positions. I wonder if the United States would have more terrorist attacks because we would be seen as weak with a woman leader. I agree that women can do many things, but leave the ruling of the countries to the men.

BRITTANY BAYLES, 13, Kennewick

They believe that "gray rape" is a myth and it condones rape.
Rape can be confusing, it doesn't make it "gray." Feminists have long fought to dispel the myth that initially consenting to one form of intimacy does not make it okay for someone to force another kind on you. In this case, the young woman was hooking up with her eventual-attacker when he forced her to perform oral sex on him.
They believe there are tough decisions in gender equality. Should you segregate buses by gender in Mexico to make them safe?

They believe that women's rights are changing each and every day.

Feminists believe in equality for men, women and transgendered individuals. They are pro-choice. They believe that teens should receive comprehensive sex education. They do not believe in shaming women on the grounds of their sexual decisions. They believe that sexual violence is a very real problem in the US and beyond. They believe that sexism - and many forms of prejudice - permeate the world.

So am I a feminist? Well, aren't you?

DISCLAIMER: No group can speak for the views of all its members. Opinions vary. Not all feminists are pro-choice, etc.

Sexual Assault on Reality TV

Coming to you from Big Brother in South Africa...
... viewers of the incident, which took place on Saturday afternoon after an extended drinking bout which ended in copious vomiting and apparent blackout for Molokwu, remain adamant about what they saw: Bezuidenhout lay down next to the comatose young woman and penetrated her vagina with his fingers. He carried on despite the pleas of another female housemate for him stop.
The TV station asserts that the incident was consensual:
if a "non-consensual physical relationship" began there, the producers - Endemol SA - would have intervened. "There is no indication that she was unconscious at the time," said Joseph Hundah, an executive at M-Net.
No indication? Really? Yeah, I know the media distorts things, but I'm having a hard time understanding this. How could a woman have clearly given consent while viewers perceive her as comatose and another housemate pleas for him to stop?
Bezuindehout, defending his sexual behaviour in a show that has featured copious nudity, recently told his housemates, "Well, this is Africa."
Yes, indeed. It is Africa....

In addition to being a fairly wealthy country, South Africa boasts the title of Rape Capitol of the World:
  • 1.7 Million rapes per year, in a country of 23 million women. 7.3% of women are raped annually (assuming an even distribution of rape - which is probably not quite correct, but the alternative isn't any less scary).
  • A girl is more likely to be raped than to learn how to read (more)
  • 25% of girls are raped before they turn 16 (more)
  • Of South African men who know someone who was raped (doesn't that have to almost everyone?), 16% believe that the survivor enjoyed their experience and had asked to be raped. (more)
  • 50% of women will be raped in their lifetimes (more)
  • About 30% of adolescents report that their first sexual experience was forced (more)

Lock Your Doors: Wear Conservative Clothing

I've heard this argument before - that women who wear revealing clothing are "asking" to be raped or assaulted. That doesn't necessarily mean that the women deserve it, or that they're glad it happened to the women. Instead, they argue that dressing too sexy is like leaving your doors unlocked - you don't deserve to be robbed, but it doesn't mean you weren't being stupid.

The Daily Mail confirms that people do indeed think this.
If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible.

If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible.
Men, incidentally, blame women slightly higher than other women do. I'm not sure if this is surprising or not, as (in my experience) women are often more judgmental than men about other women.
In each of these scenarios a slightly greater proportion of men than women held these views - except when it came to being drunk, when it was equal.
Something about this idea of calling women partially responsible bothers me. If a woman is partially responsible for being raped, does this make the rapist less responsible? I would hope no one's actually suggesting that.

So, should women "lock their doors" so as to not be "asking" for it?

Several studies contradict this conclusion and suggest that women who dress sexy are actually less likely to be raped:
The men were then asked to evaluate which of the two women he would prefer to approach to do something she did not want to do. The men picked the submissive woman. These researchers also evaluated the differences in non-verbal cues between dominant and submissive women. They found that the submissive women generally gestured with less expansive movements and wore more body concealing clothing than dominant women.
Submissive women are more likely to be raped, and submissive women are less likely to wear revealing clothing. Who knew...

Robbery is about easy money, so that's why we don't walk around with a wad of cash on the street. That's why we lock our doors.

Rape, on the other hand, isn't about lust - it's about power, dominance and violence. "Locking your doors" doesn't make you any less likely to be a victim.

IBM's Technology Camp for Teen Girls - Reinforcing Stereotypes?

IBM Camp apparently has a camp which tries to get teen girls interested in technology. That's great - it really is. But their approach seems something like "hey, let's get women to learn about computers by showing them how to look up recipes!" The article scares me. Here's a few snippets:

Look! Pretty pink flowers!
... they watched a scientist from M.I.T. (Massachusettes Institute of Technology) dip a pink carnation into a vat of liquid nitrogen, and then shatter the frozen flower against the side of a tank.
Let's hold hands and make bracelets!
... girls learned how to make "binary bracelets" (of beads that sported ones and zeroes on them)
Girls like cooking and candy!
The girls learned ... how to make bubble gum
Seriously - whatever works to get girls more interested in technology, and I do applaud their efforts to try to look at it from a girl's perspective. I just question if this is really the way to get girls interested in learning about technology, any more so than little girls playing a barbie computer game would want to learn how to program. Instead, the camp seems to just reinforce existing stereotypes.

Contrast the image of pink flowers, making bracelets and cooking candy with the 7th and 8th grader's essays:
The application process involved an essay in which the girls imagined an invention that would improve their worlds. Yehia wrote about a biodegradable trash bag. Gidla wrote about a USB-based application-specific device designed to help organize her schedule. Bahnham wrote about a double-sided television that would allow family members watch two different shows, while still spending time together in the same room.
Call me crazy - but it sounds like these 7th and 8th grade girls might want to do more than make bracelets, cook candy and play with pretty pink flowers.

Way to go IBM - you've taken geeky girls and shown them how to do things "more appropriate" for their gender.

Sexual Harrassment: Online & Otherwise

The greater the feeling of anonymity the more likely it is that people will behave inappropriately. This holds up both online and in real life.

An article on Shiny Shiny got me thinking about this. A quick quote:
I raised my hand and (desperately not to scream) explained that there is actually a huge issue with women and sexual harassment online, and on blogs. I mentioned Kathy Sierra, Devious Diva, and the fact that women are threatened with rape and violence, simply for speaking their minds online.
While I've never been threatened online, I have seen my share of, well, offensive behavior. I've noticed that guys are more likely to be physically or verbally aggressive at a club where the music is loud and the lights are low. I've noticed that guys are more likely to make an inappropriate comment, gesture, etc, if you're walking by them than if you're standing next to them. I guess it feels more anonymous if you aren't going to stay physically near them. Is it that they think no one will notice, or that they actually think it's ok?

I've also noticed that a woman can't be in the news without someone making remarks about the woman's looks. It's as though many people lack the ability to assess one set of attributes (intelligence, etc) without assessing all attributes (looks, etc).

None of this is particularly shocking, I suppose. I guess what surprised me is how inappropriate the comments get.

About two years ago, the Seattle Times wrote an article about why people are choosing to work at Google over Microsoft. The first few paragraphs were about me, and I stumbled across some forum where they were discussing the article. I started from the beginning of the four pages of comments and at first, it was pretty much on topic. Around the end of page 2, someone found my website and some pictures of me. Pretty quickly the comments degenerated into a very sexual and very vulgar nature. When someone found a picture of me and a Black friend of mine, they became not only vulgar and sexual, but also racist. I would repost some of the comments, but frankly, I don't even feel comfortable re-printing it.

Just a few weeks later, I posted something about Google and Open Source. You expect the usual set of pro-Google or anti-Google comments there. You do not expect someone to make this comment (which, incidentally, didn't even begin to compare to some of the comments on the previous forum): "You certainly are a slut when it comes to corporate fanboyism. I hope you're this easy in getting into the sack."

More recently, digg.com posted a New York times article about students in CS which features a photograph of a few male and female students programming. As expected, a huge chunk of the digg comments were assessing the attractiveness of the women.

After a while, you just start to expect this kind of behavior. You take it as a given that guys will grab your waist in a club, that they'll grab your arm if you're walking away from them, that they'll argue with you if you won't give him your number, that if your name or picture ever appears in the news, that they call you "hot", "ugly", "fat", "easy", etc.

Such is life, and such is the behavior you expect from strangers. But here's what gets me: is it just that the guys I know are that much better, or do they not have enough anonymity to act like the rest?

Female Programmers: Are they special?

Last week, at lunch with two Microsoftie-friends, we got into a discussion about why there aren't many women in Computer Science. I've heard so many theories, but all we really know is that there are so many factors and some of them date back to childhood.

"So how'd you do it?" Jim asked, as though there was some huge obstacle I had to overcome, what with my being a woman and all. "Well, much the same way as you", I replied.

I applied to Engineering school. I was accepted. I did my homework. I took exams. I interviewed for internships. I got offers for some, I got rejected from others. Jim and I - we did the same thing. Was it harder for me to correctly prove that p is prime in discrete math? Do I deserve special recognition because I was able to do that proof despite my having an X chromosome where Jim has a Y?

My mother studied Electrical Engineering and no doubt, she had actual obstacles: people who would actually say "Kathy, I'm not sure Engineering is really for you. Perhaps you'd want to consider something more suitable for you, like fine arts?" Although you'd never hear her say it, women probably did have to fight professors to get into class, or to find an employer who would consider hiring a woman. But look at where we are thirty years later - no one's ever told me "go away - you're a woman."

Instead, we have so much special recognition that it's as though there are two types of programmers: regular programmers and then female programmers. Does it really help encourage this latter type if we give them a special attribute?

I'm not saying there aren't subtle ways which make women less likely to pursue Computer Science. A quick comparison of the United States to other countries tells you that that must be the case. But, by and large, society does not actively push women out of technology - women just aren't getting drawn into it as much.

Is that a problem? Yes, it is. Let's try to fix that.

Was it harder for me to get here because I'm female? No.

So that's all I'm saying - while various cultural issues make women less likely to pursue Computer Science, it's no harder for women to do it. So why label women programmers as "special" if they're doing the same thing as the "regular" programmers?

Women in Computer Science

Being a woman in computer science, I can't deny that I've seen some sexism over the years. Not the blatant "you can't do this" sexism that was prevalent thirty years ago, but rather subtle assumptions from people within the industry.

I've noticed, for example, that if I say that I work for Google and a male friend says he works for Microsoft (most of my friends in Seattle work for Microsoft), someone is much more likely to ask me what my position is - that is if they haven't just assumed outright that I'm in HR or marketing. When I say I'm a Software Engineer, many people are visibly shocked and almost skeptical.

A few months back, I went to an event where all of the 16 guys there happened to work for either Microsoft or Amazon. Guy #1 says to me after introducing himself, "So I assume you don't work for Microsoft." Guy #2 says "It must be great for you to meet all these techies... at least you have someone fix your computer." Guy #3 proceeds to explain to me what "beta" means. Thanks, boys, but I work for Google, I can fix my own computer, and I know all about "beta" ;-).

In truth, I really don't get offended by this kind of sexism; statistically, women in the US are much less likely to go into engineering and it would be difficult for anyone to be blind to this. The question is, why are there so few women in Computer Science and what can we do to change it? Actually, let's start with this: is the percentage of women in Computer Science that low (given our society, the times, etc)?

The Male / Female Ratio in Computer Science

I believe Computer Science is currently around 15% female. That figure alone doesn't worry me (hey, times change, it'll grow, right?). The problem is that the number has actually declined since 1980. Yikes.

Furthermore, I've been told by several people that parts of asia actually have very close to a 50/50 ratio. Why does the US lag so much?

Additionally, recall that fields such as medicine and law were at one point in time a male dominated field, but now have at least as many women as men - if not more.

So while things have gotten better in other fields or in other countries, it seems to have gotten worse within the US. So, yes, there is a problem... and time isn't just magically fixing it.

Why Aren't Women Drawn into Computer Science

This is a big question with many possible answers, but one important one is that women tend to be drawn to more social fields. From a young age, girls are taught to work together whereas it's seen as more "ok" for a boy to show off. As girls get older, it's almost difficult for them not to be social. Think of the uber-nerdy anti-social guys you know: how many women are equally anti-social? I can't think of a single one. Computer Science has an impression of cube monkey staring at their computer all days, and, if you're lucky, talking to those uber-nerdy engineers. That's just not that attractive of an industry to women who emphasize social interaction.

What can we do to change it?

Wish I knew... here are a few of my thoughts though with respect to this:

  • Women in Computer Science clubs: I'm honestly not sure how I feel about those clubs. Personally, they're not for me. I don't feel any need for this support network, and I worry that they promote a victim mentality to both to the women in the clubs as well as to men. But, perhaps if other women need this support network, then ok...

  • Developing an awareness of subtle sexism: Just because it's statistically true that a woman you meet is less likely to be an engineer doesn't mean that it's ok to make that assumption. While I'm not personally offended by these assumptions - I actually think it's somewhat amusing - it does affect the way you view women in the field. If you look at a woman and assume she's not an engineer, then you're more likely to assume that female engineer is less technical... and that's where the problem is. But, if you can consciously recognize that you make this assumption, it's easier to overcome it.

  • Turn it social: If women are less interested in computer science because it's less social, make it a more social field in college. Encourage students to work together and set up study groups for freshmen. Create social activities that people want to go to so that students meet each other. Assign team projects where different teams need to work together (for example, defining common protocols). Turn it into a social field.



Does being female hurt you in Computer Science?

There are pluses and minus. Sure, more people will know who you are, but people know you for the wrong reasons. It's probably easier to get an interview, but probably tougher to get the job (it's tougher to convince someone that you're technical if you're female). I'm not really sure how it all evens out, but here's what I will say:

Everyone will be judged prematurely for something. If it's not your gender, it's your race. If it's not your race, it's your sexual orientation, how you dress, what school you went to, what degrees you have, how much money you have, etc. At the end of the day, does it really matter what people are judging you for? Everyone's going to face prejudice; you just have to learn to shrug your shoulders and develop a thick skin.