I’m grateful for Clay Shirky’s recent rant about women, even though it’s a little embarrassing to read. This comment gets at why:

DRST: I think you rather desperately need to Google “Unpacking the Invisible Backpack” read it. Then think about it for a good long time before you post again.

So, even though I would have hoped he might be more informed on the phenomenon of women seeming to be less assertive and risk taking than men, or would have done some research before tossing up his rant, I’m delighted that he’s stumbled upon an interest in the subject. Undoubtedly, he’ll soon be very informed. He’s doing an excellent job of moderating the heap of comments.

It may well be good advice that women should be more assertive, or that men should avoid being overbearing. Forget analyzing why people are this way, focus on moving yourself forward. While I love that positive attitude, I’m also fascinated with the cultural conditions which cultivate these tendencies of men and women. In Pink Brain, Blue Brain, Lise Eliot talks about brain plasticity, how what we do, which is certainly influenced by culture, shapes our brains. Boys and girls may be born with certain genetic tendencies, but those become exaggerated by experience in ways that are not necessarily inevitable.

In the latest post over at Sutter’s Mill, Sutter’s colleague, Robert Hanz, wonders regarding Agile terminology:

...is it possible that something as simple as the shift in language is also a significant part of the effectiveness? That by priming individuals with messages of success and value, rather than messages of failure, that morale and productivity can be boosted?

In sharp contrast, this reminded me of a part of the Jamie Zawinski interview in Coders at Work:

It was really a great environment. I really enjoyed it. Because everyone was so sure they were right, we fought constantly but it allowed us to communicate fast. Someone would lean over your cubicle and say, "What the fuck did you check in; that's complete bullshit -- you can't do it that way. You're an idiot." And you'd say, "Fuck off!" and go look at it and fix it and check it in. We were very abrasive but we communicated fast because you didn't have to go blow sunshine up someone's ass and explain to them what you thought was wrong -- you could say, "Hey, that's a load of shit! I can't use that." And you'd hash it out very quickly. It was stressful but we got it done pretty quickly.

Zawinski’s description of his cursing coworkers cracks me up. It got me thinking that his group must have had a lot of trust, assuming the yelling wasn’t all handed down one way. I can see how this could be a good thing. This style also reminds me of what I’ve read about David Cutler. On the other hand, maybe it’s not as ideal as he made it out. Later in the interview he described eventually working with a guy who he got along with extremely well, and they just went about dividing up work without any drama.

The other thing the Sutter’s Mill post reminds me of is the phenomenon of stereotype threat, where people who are reminded of a negative stereotype regarding their group are affected in subsequent performance. The idea of negativity in the workplace affecting performance is familiar to experts on diversity. Here is a good article: Stereotype Threat at Work.

Latest on the revolving pile of library books is Women Don’t Ask. Why didn’t I read this years ago? The insights are so obvious, yet I never really connected all the dots before or realized research confirms various inklings.

Girls grow up learning to play by the rules, and expecting boys to take the lead in many areas. By elementary school girls and boys already associate femininity with restriction and boundaries while maleness is associated with independence and opportunity. In addition to these developing gender schemas it has been found that girls favor structure in their play, while boys favor open, unstructured play. While it’s not entirely clear what causes this, whether it’s entirely cultural or partially genetic, it shapes their world view as adults. Girls are used to playing by rules, which are perceived to be out of their control. They learn to wait to be noticed and rewarded based on what other people think of them, whether it be in dating or school work. They also learn that their work often doesn’t have a monetary value, like housework versus the kinds of chores people like to pay a kid to do, like mowing the lawn or washing the car.

The authors describe a spectrum of world views ranging from “can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip” to “the world is my oyster”. Studies show that women lean toward turnip, and men toward oyster. These world views affect the course of people’s lives. Men make more money and get more promotions because they ask for more money from the start. While women tend to have the attitude that they’re not really in control of things like that, and they hope that according to the rules of fairness, people will be promoted based on merit.

Regarding the lack of women in technical careers, I’ve noticed a certain attitude that goes like this: tech careers are very demanding, and women, especially if they have families, just aren’t willing to put in the hard work and long hours that are necessary in a competitive industry.

I can see how this seems logical, and family priorities likely factor in to some extent, but my gut says there must be more to it. And, there are some interesting studies which support my gut. I have to admit that reading through these freaks me out a little. I hadn’t realized that an alarming number of women drop out of technical careers after they’ve reached the ten year mark. I’d assumed that getting started was more than half the battle.

The Harvard Business Review’s Athena Factor project doesn’t appear to be available for free online, but it’s summarized in Why Women Leave Computing Careers. The study compiled a list of “antigens” which are factors that drive women out. Read all about them in the article!

A related study of mid-career women is Climbing the Technical Ladder. This is long and goes into a lot of interesting detail.

I’m glad to have found these, because they validate certain niggling feelings while at the same time serve as inspiration to avoid becoming a statistic.

Today, I was reminded of how much I owe my parents for encouraging me with technical pursuits as a kid. I happened to mention to them that I’m going to check out the Women in Tech event this week. My mom was surprised there’s still a need for special encouragement of women to be leaders in technology. She said she thought that was overcome decades ago. (She had a technical career in neuropathology; we loved visiting her lab as kids.) My Dad said he wasn’t particularly aware of a problem with lack of women in technology, but he was reminded of a particular incident that stuck with him. When my twin sister and I were starting high school we were enthusiastic to sign up for every honors course that was available. But the school actually made a point of discouraging this. They told parents the load could be too much, and they suggested that we not take honors physics, because that was the hardest of all. I wonder who they did encourage to take honors physics; I suspect only people who weren’t interested in honors English. Hmm. My Dad told us at the time that we certainly should take honors physics, and if it proved to be very difficult he’d make sure to help us out. Of course we did end up taking honors physics. It wasn’t nearly as bad as it was made out to be. We both aced it (without extra help) and even became finalists with our science projects at the state level. My Dad’s mention of this reminded me of how I was more oblivious to discouragement than I might have been if he hadn’t been filtering some of it out.