As someone who programs but is not really much of a programmer, it has always been my feeling that programmers who think they can't learn from non-programmers are, in fact, not very good programmers. To me, programming is problem solving, and some problems require different approaches. Many programmers attack problems in the same way -- like, I don't have to tell YOU that it's a creative endeavor, but whenever I start waxing poetic about the creativity or the elegance of a few lines of code, non-programmers look at me like I've lost my mind. But it IS, and I just feel like any creative endeavor is a product of its influences, and the more (and better) your influences are, the better and more creative you're going to be at whatever it is you've undertaken. And, as we know, diversity >> not-diversity; that applies just as much to knowledge and influence as it does to race and gender and orientation.
Anyway, I think that post overreached. I think the end-game message was solid: stop saying you've got more women engineers and then talking about people who aren't engineers. But... yeah. Something about the tone felt off to me, too.
Yes. All of this.
stop saying you've got more women engineers and then talking about people who aren't engineers.
Yeah. If it had stopped there, I'd be happy.
You know, one other thing. Not necessarily from that post, but just more in general. I get so, so twitchy whenever "the girlfriend" is brought up, because it's so often automatically dismissive. It's incredibly loaded, and there are a million assumptions built into that term. And I feel like... women go to sci/tech conferences, or join a band, or do something else that has typically been male-dominated, and so many times the automatic assumption is, oh, she's just a girlfriend, she doesn't count, she can't possibly be interesting or worthwhile. Fuck you, you know? That's something we fight against, that assumption.
... ugh, I was going somewhere with this, but now I'm just cranky. I think where I was headed was that there is a line to walk between assuming that the girlfriend of a boygeek is a geek herself, and dismissing her outright with a snide, "oh, the girlfriend." Neither of those things is the right thing.
(Sorry, typo. You know how I feel about that!)
Agreed. If the post had just used the words "woman near tech" instead of "girlfriend" every place it appeared, it would be so much better. Honestly, I'm not sure that the post brings anything new to the discussion that Kirrily's original "women near tech" post
(and the Dori Smith post that inspired it
) didn't have. I can't say enough good things about Kirrily's post. It's the one that I direct people to when I'm trying to explain why I like Geek Feminism.
[Augh I started to respond to this on a tiny idevice and thought I maybe posted something by accident?]
Ugh ugh the "girlfriend" thing. I'm not a computer-type geek (I am an architecture geek and a letterpress geek!) but one of my angriest memories from high school was that the robotics club advisor refused to take me seriously because I happened to be dating another club member. It certainly wasn't possible that we were dating because we met in the club or anything, nosiree. And yeah, I didn't know a lot about programming or mechanical engineering but 1) neither did most of the other members -- it was high school and 2) several of the other girls would later go on to engineering at MIT and were equally ignored/condescended to.
...man, now I'm cranky too. :P
It was you that I was thinking of for the architecture-geek part! I didn't know you did letterpress, too. I don't think I actually know any model train geeks or constitutional law geeks (of any gender), but I had specific examples in mind for the rest: the audiophile geek is my sister
, the knitting geeks are Beth linettasky
and Megan tornadogrrrl
, the voting systems geek is Ginny gawm
, and the lute-tablature-of-the-15th-century geek was me in college.
Ha, awww. Yeah, I have some experience with letterpress; I was a TA/lab assistant for a few semesters for the School of Design's letterpress lab, and I spent a summer sorting lead type back into type cases ("dismantling poems") there. But actually my biggest geekdom is clothing, though you wouldn't know it from the way I dress. :P
But actually my biggest geekdom is clothing, though you wouldn't know it from the way I dress.
Yeah, I knew that, but I was sort of lumping it under architecture.
Huh... My friends had a different interpretation of the 'girlfriend'. Many of the girls I know who got into table top rpg's (read D&D, pre-everquest) or got into messing around with computers (building them, doing arcane stuff with Linux)... They all first got introduced to the trade by a boyfriend. The basic understanding was that in high school these were all boy's things, and while girls still had cooties an interested girl needed a boy to champion her in order to get access to the social/informational channels (pre useful Internet). So the 'girlfriend' was seen as a girl who'd been vetted by one of the boys... She was certified to be geeky enough to join in.
Maybe we’re not standing in the spotlight because we’re actually getting shit done.
She sounds like a treat to hang out with. And yes, "the girlfriend" raised my hackles as well -- if a man had written that post, with that kind of terminology, he'd be getting absolutely reamed (not that all of her commenters were kind, but I mean it would be much, much worse). It's too bad, because I can see what she's trying to say and I think a good part of her tone may have come from defensiveness, but I was reading it and thinking "If women engineers are all like her, why would I WANT to join them?"
The expansion of the word geek is interesting -- I think it's followed an "autism"-like trajectory where what thirty years ago meant something fairly specific now means an intense interest in almost any given subject. But I have to admit I really wouldn't like to call myself a geek around, say, Andrew's officemates. I'd feel like I was trying to tag along, saying "me too!"
There actually is some truth to the women-in-tech-being-overcommitted thing. We get asked to be spokespeople a lot, which is nice sometimes, but it can get in the way of getting actual work done. As a matter of fact, I just had to turn down a request to be in a video myself -- it's something my department is putting together as a recruiting tool, but I can't be in it because I'm currently thousands of miles away, working! Yet it's really frustrating for me to have to turn it down, knowing that if I'm not there, women might be unrepresented or misrepresented in the video -- to the point where I wasted a lot of time trying to think of some reasonable way to participate remotely before realizing that that just wasn't going to fly.
I think of geekery as any intense interest that involves knowing a lot of arcana and minutiae. I always think of the Edgar Wallace quotation, "The intellectual is someone who has found something more interesting than sex." That's the sense in which I use the word. I don't think there would be anything "me too!"-ish about you using it, if you added whatever qualifiers are appropriate for your flavor of geekiness ("I'm a British royal family genealogy geek, so I'm a fan of Alison Weir's books", or what have you).
I'm really irked about not being around IU for prospietimes, either. Someone from Grinnell (my undergrad school) was also just visiting as a prospective PL student last week, and when I found out about it after the fact, I fell all over myself to Plans
-stalk him and spew enthusiasm at him. I hope it didn't do more harm than good!
Anyway, tell your friend to email me if he wants candid answers to any questions about IU. I'd honestly love to talk to him about it.
*And* it's sad that one person being out of town affects whether the research group looks gender-balanaced or not.
(In my department, I was able to say truthfully at one point that I shared a cube with 3/4 of the female Ph.D students in the entire department. Our cubes held six people each. And half the residents of my cube were guys.)
, in fact! We had dinner last night. He's a pretty hip cat.
I believe he's at PL wonks right now, and probably headed to Gamer's Guild later on.
If someone said that to me, I'd be horrified, because Weir's books are so freaking sloppy! But I take your point :).
See? See?! My point exactly! You are a geek! I don't know anything about her books; it's just the first stuff that happens to come up on Amazon. I was kind of hoping you'd have some sort of specific criticism, because the first stuff that comes up in a search for "programming" looks like worthless dreck to me, but only someone who's already a programmer would realize that; everyone else doesn't have enough domain knowledge to know the difference. A chicken-and-egg problem, that.
Oh, the rant I could write if had the stomach to pick up one of her productions again ... don't worry, it's highly unlikely I will :). But one of the things that drives me mad is that she has all of these online groupies and if you bring up her mistakes, sloppy reasoning, contradictions, complete lack of ability to contextualize and overconfidence, the response is always something along the lines of "But she makes it all come to life! She writes so well! Remember, she's writing for people who want history to be fun!" REAL HISTORY IS EVEN MORE FUN BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DIG DEEPER AND LEARN MORE. REAL HISTORY IS MORE FUN BECAUSE PEOPLE LIVING FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO WERE NOT MODERN PEOPLE WITH PRETTY CLOTHES AND A FUNNY VOCABULARY. People who get their first education on the sixteenth century from her are being fed the historical equivalent of pig swill.
OK, maybe I am one after all. I'm sure you've had the same feeling about other books, so you'll understand my pain!
It's a bit like Physics envy, innit?
2011-04-01 12:40 pm (UTC)
Woman Geek Love WOO
Hm, now that I actually read the article and not just your response to it (as in, I got my butt to a proper full-sized computer), I have to say that, yeah, my reaction to it is pretty strong. A large part of that is, ouch, my pride -- I take a similar view of what "geek" means, and I absolutely am one about a whole lot of topics that do not generally include code, and I also hang out with a whole lot of "real" geeks and do spend a lot of time feeling inferior to them (largely in terms of salary, sigh, but also just general prestige). So her post basically was just another bratty re-statement of something I already spend a lot of time thinking, so it's not surprising that my reaction is kind of angry.
That said, I absolutely agree with, actually, everything you're saying. It's completely infuriating that "women in tech" spots seem utterly incapable of securing actual women in tech. The ways that media can minimize and render invisible are many, subtle, and insidious.
P.S. Golldangit, another blog for my feminism/geek list. "Ouch, my productivity" as well.
Yeah, this too, Lea. I actually think it's even more badass that you don't identify as a programmer and yet here you are, fearlessly making beautiful ActionScript minigames for your friends on a worse-is-better toolchain. In case it wasn't clear at the time, Alex and I were impressed as hell when we met you.
2011-04-02 02:40 am (UTC)
Huh, this was strange for me, because I really haven't noticed a lot of this thing, of women who aren't doing a particular kind of computergeekery being presented as representing women doing that kind of computergeekery. I haven't gotten the impression that things like the video you describe happen a lot, nor can I call up much memory of encountering that myself. So why am I not seeing it? Is it something that happens a lot less in my computergeek field (sysadmin, not programmer)? Is it something I just don't notice or remember as much when I see it? Is it regional, or subcultural, in some distribution that exposes me to less of it?
Anyway, I read that whole post feeling that sort of puzzlement that comes from feeling how important this was to the writer while trying to search my worldview for evidence of it. It must be real or there wouldn't be people feeling so strongly about it, so where is it?
It seems to happen in particular at "women in technology" panel discussions at industry conferences. We also narrowly avoided it recently at my university's Women in Informatics and Computing group. We were trying to decide on who to bring in as a keynote speaker for a special event, and one of our steering committee members suggested Lindsay Manfredi
, who is a self-described ghost blogger. She's someone that companies hire to write their blog posts for them, to drive traffic and customers to their websites. I think she's a good example of an entrepreneur, but I wanted our keynote speaker to be a technologist, so I protested. We ended up not having a keynote speaker and just having a few students speak instead, which was fine, but it was a shame considering that women technologists who could have given the talk do exist.Edited at 2011-04-02 03:05 am (UTC)
I don't have a lot to add to this conversation. I doesn't consider myself a geek -- too much of a generalist -- and I don't work in tech. But thank you for talking about this, and thinking about it, and spurring others to think about women in the workplace as well.
I've experienced a number of revelations about women in my own profession lately. Even though women make up more than half or my colleagues, I see jarring sex-linked disparities in how they're treated and what opportunities they receive. Salaries, promotions, and behavior expectations are often meted out or calculated differently for women than for men. Most of the time, people don't even notice it's happening.
The challenges technical women face may be especially urgent and extreme, but the battle for fairness is being fought on many fronts. Witnessing these challenges, talking about them and advocating for change all can make a difference.
Also: Although my husband and many friends are geeks, I think the idea of being defined as "significant other of geek" is unbelievably lame. I'm an interesting person with lots of stuff going on in my life, so of course geeks want to know me. And I'm interested in smart, creative folks who make a difference in the world, so of course I want to know geeks, too. I'm sure some geeks are happy to live in isolated bubbles where they only talk to like-minded folks, but most that I've met have been happy to welcome other thinking people into their social spheres.
2011-04-03 03:01 am (UTC)
Well put. Too many of these presentations say things like "women CAN be hard-core programmers" and then proceed to interview the graphic design staff. There are valuable tasks being done all around, but the bait-and-switch is particularly annoying in this context.
Well, it's great that hard-core women systems developers exist, but instead of just talking about them, why not interview them?
Because they're too busy gettin' shit done!
A crucial part (arguably the most important part) of getting shit done is talking to people about your shit. If nobody talked about their shit, far less shit would get done. This is why conferences exist. If you are too busy to talk to people about your shit, then your shit will become irrelevant.