Categories
Diversity Political

Great Day

I would be remiss to not point out that today was the day our country finally wised up and put a woman in as Speaker of the House. That is two steps away from the Presidency. Now if only we could get Cheney to take Bush hunting.

I liked much of the 100 hour plan, for its energy if nothing else. I would have liked to see more on Iraq, and more pushback against the Patriot Act and Homeland security, as well as more on the environment. Still, it’s the most optimistic I’ve felt about the Congress in a long time.

I guess Ed will need the night time Tylenol tonight.

Categories
Diversity

Lifetime of discomfort

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

At a ‘celebrity’ graphic designer event, an audience member asked the all male participants the following question:

Why do you — all three of you — suppose there are so few female graphic designers — or at least so few female ‘superstar’ graphic designers? Is there a glass ceiling in graphic design?

What was the response for one of the participants, Milton Glasner?

[Glaser said] that the reason there are so few female rock star graphic designers is that “women get pregnant, have children, go home and take care of their children. And those essential years that men are building their careers and becoming visible are basically denied to women who choose to be at home.” He continued: “Unless something very dramatic happens to the nature of the human experience then it’s never going to change.” About day care and nannies, he said, “None of them are good solutions.”

The crowd was silent except for a hiss or two and then Eggers piped up that he and his wife both work from home and share child care responsibilities — but added that maybe New York was different (although we don’t think Eggers really believes this). Then it was clear to everyone in the room that it was time to move on.

We’re brought up from birth to adapt to a standard of excellence that is derived from the male. We’re taught to exclaim at male art, male cooking, male design; to admire male scientists and engineers and their behavior; to respect male assertiveness in politics or war. We hear about the male heroes of history, with only an occasional aside to some female character–usually a duplicitous one.

It starts early: the school boy who raises his hand in class is called on to answer 50% more frequently than the girl sitting next to him. No one ever assumes when a boy does poorly in math, it’s because he’s a boy.

We face blatant double-standards in the work place: being competitive is seen as necessary for ‘manly’ men, but being competitive makes a woman a ‘ball buster’. Speaking out is commendable, if you’re male; shrill, loud, abrasive if you’re not. We have to yell just to be heard, but when we’re heard, we’re told to stop yelling.

When we’re equally capable, we have to hide who we are just to get a chance at an opportunity. Orchestras have finally started hiding musicians behind screens during try outs, so that women would have an equal chance in auditions. It works, too.

If we’re pretty, we’re called ‘hot’ rather than intelligent, astute, erudite. If we want to be feminine we’re not treated seriously. If we don’t want to bind our breasts, flatten our shoes, lengthen our skirts, we’re subtly assured that we’re ‘not committed enough’. Lipstick is the corporate kiss of death.

Managers don’t want us in important positions during child rearing ages because we’ll quit to have babies, though statistics show most women committed to a career, stay with the career. If we want the opportunities, if we show our earnestness they’re still given to Sam or Joe or Don, because they’ll ‘stick’ around. Yet Sam or Joe or Don is just as likely to leave as Sara or Jane.

We’re dependable, but the guys are brilliant. We’re cooperative, but the guys are innovative. We’re nurturing, but the guys are powerful. Anything outside of this pattern just can’t be seen.

In the fields where supposedly it’s OK to be woman and capable, our work is judged as lesser. How many women artists display shows at major galleries, as compared to men? How many famous chefs are women? Other than Julia Child? Women now make up almost 50% of the law school graduates: how many judges are women? How many women on the Supreme Court?

How many women in Congress? In a free and egalitarian society, doesn’t it strike you as odd when those who ‘represent’ us, don’t look like us, don’t act like us, and sure as hell, don’t think like us?

We’re told we’re not good at tech, but we make great librarians. However, even in a field dominated by women, male librarians end up with most of the management positions.

We don’t know how to write to appeal to a society dominated by male viewpoints. We don’t know how to design for a society that is conditioned to a male perspective. We don’t know how to debate when the rhetorical rules are derived by men for men. Even our technology: how do we know that women aren’t put off from technology because the tools are customized for how a man thinks, works, programs?

We’re told to cut along the lines, just like the boys, but then we’re given scissors for the wrong hand and chastised for our clumsiness.

To tell a room full of people who ask, “Why are there no women”, because we’re home having babies should shame the speaker to a lifetime of silence and remorse. Mr. Glasner may love New York, but he doesn’t love women. How can he, when he obviously respects us so little.

As for Michael Bierut, what was his response?

“Superstar” designers — and that’s what we’re talking about; read the question again — aren’t just good designers. They’re celebrity designers. And celebrity is a very specific commodity. It certainly helps to be good at what you do to be a celebrity designer (although celebrities in other fields don’t always seem to have this requirement). But that’s only a start. You also need to develop a vivid personality, an appetite for attention, and a knack for self-promotion. Accept every speaking engagement. Cough up a memorable mot juste for every interviewer. Make sure they spell your name right every time. This is time consuming work, particularly on top of your regular job, which presumably consists of doing good graphic design. Naturally, if you choose this route, it helps to be free of the distractions of ten to twenty years of caring for children, to say the least. In many ways, Milton Glaser’s observations were shocking only in their obviousness.

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that celebrity designers were celibate monks with no family life and friends? Huh. Well, that’s good to know for all the young women and men entering the field: you can’t have a family if you want to make it to the top.

Bierut also wrote:

Yet, you have to start somewhere. Glaser answered the question on the card, but the real question was the unspoken one: “Why is it that you guys up there are always…guys?” There is no good answer for this, and it doesn’t seem we should have to wait 150 years to come up with one. It’s depressing for a profession that’s more than half female to keep putting up 100% male rosters, at the 92nd Street Y or anywhere else. And I say this with no small degree of self consciousness, as a member of a firm where only 10% of the partners are women. This is what made me squirm last Monday night, and it’s what makes me squirm today.

So sorry you had a moment of discomfort. We women have a lifetime of it.

Categories
Diversity Technology

Breaking eggs

The discussion associated with the last post, on the display of a pornographic image at a tech conference, has really been civil and engaged. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a discussion of this nature where many of the concerns aren’t rejected almost out of hand. It’s actually rather refreshing.

One person did bring up the long hours and raising babies, but that’s been almost universally rejected in the comments. As women enter into, and even begin to dominate, other fields that require a strong commitment on time, such as medicine and law, this no longer makes sense as a ‘reason’. In particular, as more men become involved with their children, and reject the so-called ‘horrendous’ hours of IT, it makes less so as time goes on.

No, there’s more here than first meets the eye. I’ve had some ideas on this score for a while now, and when I’m not heavily involved in writing on my books and my Missouri site, I’ve also been researching what I can see of the tech industry: specifically the computer science degree programs.

As I wrote in comments at the site, the tech industry is broken. This state isn’t reflected just in the lack of women–it’s programs like agile computing, which are trying to compensate for behavioral characteristics that we’re finding out, now, cause more harm than good. Yet, the colleges gear their programs to people with these same behavioral characteristics. That’s where we need to start. We need to completely change the curriculum of computer science in school. In fact, we need to eliminate computer science as a separate field.

I wrote in comments:

I’m incredibly behind a book, too much so to be able to spend the time responding as I would really like.

I think we need to go beyond looking at a few classes, or behaviors in school. I think we need to completely challenge how the computer science programs are designed.

It’s not that these programs are antagonistic to women, but they’re also antagonistic to many men. These programs are geared to a specific behavior, as much as they are focused at an interest.

I have met many women who have ended in technology but not through the computer science programs. They come in through psychology, music, business, library science, biology, and so on. That’s what we need to look at doing — removing computer science as this isolated, odd field (what other field focuses purely on the tools?) and split it into other departments, as an option.

Take the data portion of the computer science degree, and put this is as part of a library science program focused on data and organization of such.

Do the same with psychology, business, accounting, and so on–degrees in these fields with emphasis on computing.

Not only would we get more women, we’d get a strong computing community. People grounded in fields of interest beyond just computing.

The computer science programs are padded with so many inconsequential classes to make up a full degree. Who really needs assembly language now? And we have a class in Pascal one day, and databases the next — without any rhyme or reason how these interface into the real world.

We’ve already seen the ‘bleed’ of the computer science classes into the other disciplines. Let’s finish the job.

Let’s break this stranglehold of the aloof, obsessed ‘geek’. Let’s remove computer science out of engineering, where it never really belonged. Let’s stop isolating IT, and bring it into the other fields, where it should have been in the first place.

Our programs are stuck in a time when computers filled rooms, and only an elite few had access. This is just not a viable approach any more.

This is just a start, and I don’t have time to do more than toss a few disjointed sentences out.

I do know that the programs to ‘encourage’ girls to take computer science classes are failing. Probably because the entire field is biased–predetermined to a specific gender and mindset.

The tech field is broken. Only drastic means can fix it.

I checked out the computer science program at Missouri and it looks little different than when I tool computer science almost 25 years ago. Oh, there’s new languages, and more on the web, and a focus more on Java and the like rather than Pascal, but the concepts are the same. We have classes in assembly language, algorithms like our friend the bubble sort, disjointed offerings on database management and OO programming with C+. We also have several requirements for analytical geometry and calculus. Perhaps a class on Unix or graphics, and so on.

We spend our entire time focusing on the tools, rather than the application of the technology. We’re still teaching computer science, as if no one has access to computers because they’re still room sized and only available to an elite few.

Computer Science is still too heavily associated with either the math or the engineering departments, neither of which reflects how computers are used today. Computers are used in business and in social sciences, in psychology, medicine, history, and on and on. We associate computer science with calculus, when something like the library sciences would provide more useful integration, with its better understanding of the gathering and categorizing of data.

We didn’t know how to deal with computers and how to integrate into our school systems decades ago, and so we bunged them in, established a ‘core’ curricula and then stuck with it, like flies caught in amber.

I look at the computer science programs now in most schools and frankly, with today’s technology, they’re dull as dishwater. There’s no connection with what’s happening in the world. There’s nothing more than a desperate attempt to hold on to what’s familiar. Unfortunately, though, the side effect is that the programs attract a certain type of person, and frankly, discourage others who could and would add much to the field.

The most difficult step to take to ‘fixing’ why there’s too few women in IT is first by recognizing IT is broken. In our society, where we supposedly encourage women to go into field, and explore any profession, any such that has this few women in it, is broken. No, we don’t need to encourage women, we don’t need to make men realize that showing porn images at a professional conference is inappropriate. It goes far beyond just these simple acts: the field is broken, and how it is taught in university only encourages the flaws that break it.

Categories
Diversity

Wistful

Oddly enough Jon Udell’s hiring also left me feeling sad, and a little depressed.

I look back on the ‘announcements’ of new hires and moves between and to companies in the last year, and I can’t remember this same level excitement about a tech woman taking a new position. Heck, I can’t remember a tech woman even being offered such positions.

Totally irrelevant to Jon being hired at Microsoft, but that was my first thought when I heard the news.

Categories
Diversity Weblogging

This is not a feminist weblog

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I’ve been informed that I can no longer call myself a feminist because I don’t agree with the other feminist webloggers as regards to the Alas a Weblog issue. To be honest, after reading some of the responses, I must say I don’t feel too unhappy.

I’m not sure where this new breed of feminist webloggers has come from. I do know that I’ve seen a breathless amount of intolerance practiced this week, not to mention enough group think to bring down the house.

It’s not an issue of disagreement–no one denies anyone the right to disagree (including myself). It’s that we can’t disagree and still call ourselves ‘feminists’, at least within these so-called feminist circles of weblogging. In a way, this is rather scary stuff: the more we participate as a ‘community’ member, the less freedom we, as individuals, have.

This has been a rather eye opening experience.