September 29, 2017 • 47 mins
E&B continue the conversation on why the tech world can be so hostile towards women - and what's being done about it.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, this is Emily and you're listening to stuff Mom
never told you. Today is the continuation of our conversation
on Silicon Valley sexism. So if you haven't already, make
(00:27):
sure to check out part one of the episode that
came out just two days ago. And in that episode
you'll hear just how big of an issue sexism in
Silicon Valley and tech fields large really are, including the
startling fact that women are leaving the world of tech
at twice the rate that their male counterparts are. You'll
(00:47):
learn more about the brave women and whistleblowers who are
calling out tech companies on their gender discrimination and harassment issues,
including Ellen Pow and Susan Fowler at Uber. You'll also
hear some of the underlying reasons behind tech, which is
really a very young industry. It's still struggling so obviously
(01:09):
with gender inclusion, things like the genius fallacy and the
meritocracy paradox. So if you haven't heard that episode yet,
go back there listen to it. It's full of good stuff.
So today we want to take it back a second
and ask the question that is on some people's minds,
which is why does diversity in tech even matter. Only
(01:29):
nineteen percent of students and computer science programs are women,
so she would really even care that a quarter of
US computing and mathematic jobs, a fraction that has actually
slightly fallen over the past fifteen years, are held by women.
Some might even argue that we don't even really need
culture change, that those kinds of cultural changes are actually quote,
social engineering run amok. Some people might even say women
(01:50):
are showing up more in tech spaces because they're not
really born being good at tech, or that's not something
that women want to be doing. And by some people
bridget we have horse are talking about Google Guy, the
guy behind the viral manifesto released at Google last month
that we absolutely have to talk about. I almost don't
(02:11):
want to say his name, calling him Google Guy. That's
his name, forever and ever exactly learned it. And before
we continue, I just have to also go on the
record is saying Google has paid me money in the
past for my gender inclusive training public speaking for their
women at Google. Yeah, and I'm not sorry about it.
(02:33):
So let's talk about what went down at Google last month,
because it really did send shock waves through an already
dramatic conversation. So basically, Google guy, as we're now calling him,
wrote this, I guess you would call it a manifesto
if that's the way you want to call it. That's
what he called it is. Basically his argument is that
places like Google are creating quote safe spaces, and those
(02:53):
spaces are actually discriminating to promote women and minorities over
white men, the poor, poor, disenfranchise as white men. And
this is not a new argument. It is not a
new argument. But I think it's interesting is how you
can tell from the from the manifesto, he thinks it's
the newest thing. Like he's blowing the lid right off
this thing, these things that he's like at the forefront
of this, he think he's a genius. He might be
(03:15):
caught up in the genius fallacy. If if I knew
this guy in real life, I might say that. But yeah,
and this is the same argument that's been brought to
affirmative action in the past when it comes to college acceptance.
This idea that you know anything beyond nature, right, what's
naturally occurring in the marketplace when it comes to achievement,
hiring promotion is what we should value and we shouldn't
(03:38):
look at how nurture might be impeding not only the
pipeline of women in tech, but also the promotion of
women in tech. Basically, what he's saying is anything that
we do to mess with what's naturally occurring too. I
don't know, advance women and minorities in tech because there
are benefits of diversity in tech is social engineering and
(03:59):
it's bad, right And his his What I think is
so messed up about that argument is it totally overlooks
the fact that we live in a gosh dang society, right,
Like people are not competing with each other in a
vacuum where no other kinds of factors, underlying factors are
at play. We're in a society and in the world
that he describes, all things are equal. We're in a vacuum.
We don't live in a society. Everyone is the same
(04:21):
and that's I mean, hello, is not the case. And
what shocking is if you look at how people treat babies.
I'm talking fifteen month old boys versus fifteen month old girls.
A viral video came out recently that I stumbled across
on Facebook that show when an adult is playing with
a little baby who they think is a girl, they're
(04:41):
more likely to give that little baby toys that are dolls,
toys like soft, plushy toys, not the kind of toys
like connects and legos and things that maybe not a
fifteen month old should be playing with Legos, but you
get the idea, not the things that help baby brains
develop spatial awareness, us the kinds of skills that set
(05:01):
them up to kick but in tech. So if you're
saying that it's pure nature and nurture has nothing to
do with men's proclivity for the sciences and stem fields,
not just advancement we can like, which we can talk
about bias and hiring and promotion too, then I think
you're missing the bigger, more influential point, which is nurture
(05:22):
and how nurture and how the society we live in
sets up winners and losers totally. And I think they've
even done studies that show that we start treating people
differently along the lines of gender in the womb, that
that stuff is happening already, you know. And I think
this idea that all kinds of people have been treated
the same throughout life is just bunk. And his manifesto
doesn't even acknowledge that exactly. And here's the thing, he
(05:45):
was very careful to appear reasonable. That's my of all
the things that are my least favorite thing about Google guy,
that's the one I hate the most. I'm trying to
not like someone. He reminds me so much of someone
I know, so I'm trying not to I'm trying not
to like go off on this guy who I hate
as a proxy for him. But screw what I'm doing
it anyway. Basically, it's this idea that oh, if I
(06:07):
appear very rational and like like, I'm just presenting the
data in a very rational way, don't attack me. These
are the facts. But he doesn't actually rely on a
lot of facts, and he spews a lot of really racist,
messed up stuff with no grounding and facts. There are
actually the kinds of things that have been you know,
circulated on you know, racist corners of the Internet since forever.
(06:30):
So these are not new ideas. There are actually a
lot of his points are not actually grounded by data
or facts, but he's pretending as if they are in
this attempt to seem really reasonable and you know, measured exactly,
he disguises what is basically of racist, misogynistic rant in
this really approachable packaging of I just want to raise
(06:52):
the alarm bell on this. I just don't want to
be a part of a culture at Google where you know,
women and minorities voices are louder and the only right
voices here, and that's concerning to me. And I should
be able to dissent without being eaten alive. And he
makes a very reasonable argument on that, and he goes
in to say a very unreasonable argument something. I think
it is so interesting is that again, even though he
(07:13):
clearly thinks this his new ground, that rhetorical device is
so common and even as a name where they call
it just asking questions, I'm just asking questions. I'm not
presenting data. I'm just asking questions. I just want to
lift this. And it's a really smarmy rhetorical device to
seem measured and approachable when you're anything but exactly. And
it worked because there are lots of corners of the
(07:34):
Internet where maybe some of our Mingtow friends from our
Mingtow episode hang out, where there are a ton of
men who found solace and are cheering Google guy on
for for bravely speaking out against PC culture. And it
just really reminds me of some of these white supremacists
who are trying to seem reasonable and approachable and just
(07:57):
asking questions. That's a perfect way to put it for
fortunately for all of us. Cynthia Lee at Vox Media
wrote the best piece in response to Google Guys memo,
and it's titled I'm a woman in computer science. Let me,
lady explain the Google memo to you. I love that title, y'all.
You've ever heard the phrase an epic drag this? I
(08:18):
don't use it for Vox articles a lot, but this
box article is an epic drag. I love it. I
love it. So she goes on, if I could just
read the whole article on this podcast, I would. I
think it would be like job. But clearly we don't
have that kind of time. What she does so brilliantly
here is she explains to the public why there was
such a vociferous backlash against Google Guy, because Google Guys
(08:44):
memo created so much anger and indignation that it almost
turned out to look like he was the poor victim
here because he did get canned by Google, and so
when he lost his job, everyone said, this is what
happens in PC culture, run him up. This is what
happens when you dare to dissent with the progressive social
(09:04):
engineers over at Google. You know, a poor white guy
just lost his job for speaking out on behalf of
all of us. Can I just say, if there's one
phrase I would love to never hear again, it's PC culture,
run amuck. I know, I would love to just throw
that in the dustbin of history. We should do an
episode on PC. Mean, what does that even mean? But
that's a whole other tangent. So she beautifully explains why
(09:28):
a memo that seems so benign and polite and like
just asking questions the memo, why there was such a backlash,
And she goes point by points, starting with a really
important one, fatigue. Women are tired, y'all. To be a
woman in tech is to know the thrill of participating
in one of the most transformative revolutions human kind has
(09:48):
ever known. To experience the crystalline satisfaction of finding an
elegant solution to an algorithmic challenge, to want to throw
the monitor out the window, and frustration with a bug,
and later due to a happy dance in a chair,
we'll find fixing it. To be a woman in tech
is also to always and forever be faced with skepticism
that I do and feel all those things authentically enough
to truly belong. There is always a jury and it
(10:10):
is always still out. Imagine if this was how you
felt in work, that you had all these ups and downs,
and you always felt like your interloper, You always felt
like your colleagues were looking at you like you didn't
quite belong. You faced this day in and day out
a lot of times silently, and then someone comes along
and says, you know, it really has it bad me
a white guy, I would be infuriated. Yeah, And also
(10:34):
she's points to this. You know what people of color
have been dealing with for a long time. Thankfully, there's
a term for it now, racial battle fatigue, which is
dealing with microaggressions at work all the time. Whether they
are a seemingly innocuous, offhand comment about you being really
smart for uh woman of color or really articulate for
(10:56):
being a black man, you're just like what, you know,
they don't even have to say the lot part of
the sentence for you to put it together, or being
told this is the worst You're not like most girls, Bridget,
You're so much cooler and smarter and better at science
and technology than most girls. You're like, that is not
a compliment. Please don't like drop that kind of misogyny
(11:18):
packaged in a gift box to me. Please. I can
see how that is meant to be flattering, but it's
totally She also goes on to acknowledge and really call
out Google guy for the fact that his memo treats
women at Google as the pair average. He almost talks
about women's lack of leadership and rise and retention at
(11:40):
Google as that he's talking about the average woman. And yes,
we know that only of computer science majors are women,
but we also know that the vast majority of women
at Google are not being pulled from just the average
pool of all women who study all things. So his
(12:01):
use of data, just like you mentioned earlier, it is
very misleading because the data he references are about the
average woman's proclivity for tech. She goes on to say,
what do averages have to do with hiring practices at
a company that famously hires fewer than one percent of applicants.
In the name of the rational empiricism and quantitative rigor
that the manifesto holds some dear shouldn't we insist that
(12:23):
it only cites studies that specifically speak to the tales
of of the distribution to the actual pool of women
that Google draws from. So basically, what she's saying here
is that Google does not hire a lot of people.
It's specifically does not hire a lot of women. If
you are a woman who ends up working at Google,
you are exceptional. You're You're not average. I almost quoted
Beyonce and swore, but we're not talking about you know
(12:45):
the lot. I'm going for it. You're not average, you
are exceptional. And this idea that he's dealing with all
these average women in tech who are bringing down the company,
Who are these pity hires because of their gender is
bf Cynthia goes on to really hammer this point home
by pointing out that women currently make up about thirty
percent of computer science majors at Stanford, which is one
(13:07):
of the key sources of Google's elite workforce. Right Stanford's
right around the corner, it's in Silicon Valley. Basically, they
get a lot of recruits from Stanford, but that thirty
percent turns into just nineteen percent when you look at
the percentage of Google's workforce that's female. So quote. Even
if we imagine for a moment that the manifesto is
(13:28):
correct and that there is some biological ceiling on the
percentage of women who will be suited to work at
Google less than fifty percent of their workforce, isn't it
the case that Google and tech generally is almost certainly
not yet hitting that ceiling. In other words, it is
clear that we are still operating in an environment where
(13:49):
it is very much more likely that women who are
biologically able to work in tech are chased away from
tech by sociological and other factors, van that biologically unsuited
women are somehow brought in by over zealous diversity programs.
And something else I want to lift up here is
that as a woman of color, a common idea is
(14:11):
that to get in the same place as a white man,
you have to be twice as good. And I think
the women that he works with are probably better than
he is. They probably to get where they are, they
had to be twice as good all the time. And
so if he's looking around and just assuming, of course,
I'm better than all of these women and they are
just you know, they're their pity hires who you know,
worko ins or whatever. That is so wrong, because any
(14:32):
woman who works in a male dominated field knows to
be taken seriously, you've got to be twice as good
to go half as far right to be in that
one percent of people actually hires. My other huge beef
with his manifesto that Cynthia points out is that this
is not philosophy class. Okay, this is not an innocuous
just asking questions conversation over the theory behind nature versus
(15:00):
nurture when it comes to women and deck. There is
a very clear intent behind his very organized memo. Cynthia
goes on to write, quote, if his proposals were adopted,
it wouldn't be some abstract concept of average that doesn't
get a scholarship. It would be an actual individual woman.
(15:22):
It would be an actual female Googler who doesn't get
to attend the Grace Hopper conference, which provides many women
with their first experience of being in a majority woman
tech conference space. So she basically is making this point
that this is seemingly innocuous in how he wrote it,
and his tone was going for benign right he was
going for harmless. There is nothing harmless about the proposals
(15:44):
he was suggesting. He was literally suggesting taking away resources
from his female colleagues, opportunities from his female colleagues, because
he wasn't invited to those opportunities like the Grace Hopper
conference completely. And I think that you you really ailed it.
This is not some abstract person. These are real people
who would have real things, concrete opportunities taken away from them.
(16:07):
And I just think I can't even imagine writing a
memo at work where I say, oh, I don't think
Bobby in accounting should get x Y. We shouldn't be
taking x y Z away from Bobby, and then being like, WHOA,
why is Bobby so upset? It's like, yeah, because that's
screwed up exactly. So he's trying to not name names
and yet take resources away from his colleagues. I also
(16:30):
think it's worth noting I'm curious with people who were
big supporters of him know this how he deals with race.
So she writes, it's striking to me that the manifesto
author repeatedly lists race alongside gender when listing programs and
preferences he thinks should be done away with. But unlike gender,
he never purports to have any scientific backing for this.
This omission is telling and so basically saying, well, we
(16:52):
all know people of color are biologically worse at this,
and she says, well, defenders of the memo still be
comfortable at the author had casually summarized race and i
Q studies to argue that purported biological differences and not
discrimination or an equal access to education, explain Google's shortage
of African American programmers. Basically, he's just sort of casually
(17:13):
like everyone just knows that blacks aren't good programmers. They're
just biologically not good at this. That's basically the point
he's making for women. If he made that point, I mean,
it's baffling and it's so messed up, and I don't
see how people can't look at this and how this
holds up under that kind of scrutiny. But I will
say that again, in these in these pockets of the Internet,
that is not that is a theory that would fly.
(17:35):
People really do get very invested in this idea of
certain people being biologically good at things and other people
being biologically bad at that. Are you saying that that argument,
the racist one would fly. I think for a lot
of people, if presented with that, they would say, sure,
of course blacks can't understand geometry. That they would they
would really think up. And I think it's telling that
(17:56):
you don't have to go to corners of the internet
to find people who would agree of that conclusion on
gender correct because it's definitely less even plausible to say
that kind of an argument out loud about race. But
when you saying about women, is like, yeah, this this
guy seems like if you made that argument about race,
people would be like, well, saying that blacks are innately worse,
(18:17):
that computer science is racist and messed up, right, But
you can kind of make that argument about women, and
it's kind of fine. Bizarre, it's not bizarre. It's infuriating. Yes,
it's I'm like livid right now just thinking about the
handstry and the facial expressions that are happening in the
studio right now. I wish everyone could see them. But
here's something to set us off here for a second.
(18:38):
Her conclusion in this piece, Cynthia Ly's piece is really perfect,
in my opinion, she writes in the end, focusing the
conversation on the minutia of the scientific claims in the
manifesto is a red herring. Regardless of whether biological differences exist,
there's no shortage of glaring evidence in individual stories and
(19:00):
in scientific studies that women in tech experienced bias and
a general lack of a welcoming environment, as do underrepresented minorities.
Until these problems are resolved, our focus should be on
remedying that injustice. After that work is complete, we can
reassess whether small, effect sized biological components have anything to
(19:21):
do with lingering imbalances. And that's that's why I love
her response so much. It's because I've no matter what
this guy says. Obviously, the data is very very clear,
both in personal stories and in hard numbers, there's a
problem with women and minorities in tech. And to say
that there isn't. It's just it's just turning a blind
eye to this data. It's just it's not being fact based,
(19:44):
as he and even and he's doing that while pretending
to be super a fact base. No, I just I know,
I know, I know that I don't know this guy,
but I know this guy. You know what you mean.
And I'm raising my fist at the air like I
wanna pull an Abe Simpson and yell at a cloud
about old. Okay, so we're gonna take a quick break,
(20:06):
but we I just want to hammer home be where
we do that this is the world's most profitable industry.
So for all their proclaimed data driven nous, an argument
like the one that Google guy made doesn't seem to
give a hoot that better decisions are made with more
diverse teams, that companies outcomes and bottom line results tend
(20:27):
to improve with more diverse teams. And this is an
argument that even Cheryl Sandberg, the whitest, wealthiest voice in feminism,
really made to her fellow Silicon Valley coworkers, which is
it's just good business to have gender inclusion and diversity
on your docket for corporate priorities. So in this industry,
(20:52):
especially the one that's shaping the future we are all
going to live in, it's critically important that we actually
rectify these and justices and focus on what can be
done on the cultural level. And I think we should
get into why this is such a big deal after
this quick break and we're back and we're talking about
(21:18):
why it's so critically critically important that tech get its
act together. Now, we know that tech is the most
profitable industry out there, but it's also the industry that's
poised to solve some of our biggest, most critical life challenges.
This is an industry that if we if they really
put their mind to it, they could possibly really get somewhere.
When you think about climate change, immigration, all of these
(21:39):
things that are critically important life or death things tech
could probably solve if they put their mind to it.
But if they don't figure out that what makes for
good tech solutions are inclusive teams and inclusive hiring practices,
they'll never get there. And I think what really frustrates
me is that they don't see the way this is
costing them money and costing them at efficiency. The data
(22:01):
is so clear that when you have inclusive teams and
diverse teams, you're better at your job, And it almost
feels like they are prioritizing being a browy frat house
over making actual, effective, cost driven choices. I completely agree,
and I am still an unbridled optimist on this, even
though all the data and these stories are depressing as hell.
(22:25):
The reason I'm optimistic is because when we say they
don't seem to care that minority in tech is being
fired like Google, guy, that I mean not all of them, right,
But there are majorly well funded efforts to rectify these injustices,
and I want to dive into some of the imperfect
(22:47):
solutions that are being worked on. But the good news
is that there are solutions being put forth. There's a
lot of money being invested in increasing diversity and inclusion
at companies like Google. Um, So let's let's talk a
little bit about how, like, what are the multi phase
interventions that tech companies can make to really close the
(23:10):
gap when it comes to women in tech. Well, I
think the first one is probably filling the STEM pipeline. Um.
From this Atlantic article that you keep quoting from because
it's amazing and you should definitely read it. More than
half of college and university students are women, and the
percentage of women entering many STEM fields has risen. Computer
science is a glaring exception. The percentage of female computer
at information science majors peaked in nineteen four at about
(23:34):
It is declined more or less steadily ever since. Today
it stands at eight, which is shocking because computer science
was way less sexy. A you know what, what's what's
the opposite of sexy boxy boxy? Also, I'm thinking about
the design of computers were similarly right, So like now
tech is so sexy, like you can solve the biggest
(23:55):
world's problems. It's such a financially attractive industry if you
want to not only have social impact but also get
rich along the way. And somehow that's attracted more men
to the table than women. I think that's very telling.
But I also think it's interesting when you add race
to that dynamic. As a black woman who worked for
a while on a tech sector, I think adding that
(24:16):
extra layer of intersectionality is so critically important. So I
don't want to say that you know, when black women
and women of color are not there, We are there,
but I think so much more can be done to
sort of bring us into the pipeline. You really have
to see it to be it. So I think what
it really comes down to is creating these inclusive and
diverse workplace cultures in ways that are baked into the framework,
(24:37):
not just sort of tacked in after the fact um.
When I was working into Lacon Valley, I worked for
an organization called Medium Shout Out to Medium, which I
still know and love and used to this day. UM.
But something I was really struck by with my employment
there was how good HR practices were sort of baked
into the framework very early on. This didn't feel like
something that you just got a you know, five minute
(24:59):
let sure about after you've been hired. It was clear
that they had made really really critical steps to have
that be part of what made the organization the organization.
And one of the things I really liked about Medium
was that even when they were hiring for hard tech
jobs like engineer or you know, UM coders and things
like that, they would have really inclusive and diverse hiring
(25:21):
teams who were interviewing people. So even though you know,
I don't have a hard hard tech background, UM, I
don't have a computer science degree, I would sometimes be
on a team that was interviewing someone for a hard
tech job, and so, you know, I don't know anything
about software engineering, but I know what makes someone a
good team player. I know what makes someone UM a
good person to have on a team. And I felt
(25:43):
like my input as a non hard skills person, as
a woman of color, as someone who really advocates for
soft skills, that was taken just as seriously as the
head software senior engineer who was sort of saying like, oh,
this guy can code this way or that way. And
I think that was really a good way of making
sure that we had people who just knew how to
(26:03):
not be jerks. That that was an important part of
how we hired and I really I think that that
really made a difference in terms of the climate at
Medium that whereas other tech companies are should have known
for these hiring these like special snowflake hard skills, folks
who you know, can be awful to their coworkers, can
be awful to women, and people of color can make
(26:24):
workspaces really tough to show up in. We we did
them out. I'll never forget one of our engineers. He
didn't hire someone who was, you know, technically and on
paper very very good. And I think I was like, oh,
why this guy? You know, it seems like he had
all the all the tech skills that you were looking for.
And he said, well, one of the questions I asked
him was, you know, why are you leaving your last
(26:46):
job and he said, because them it was two team focused.
I wasn't getting enough of the credit. And he said
that was a huge red flag for me that he
saw himself as it should be about me and how
great I am, because I am so great, and that
he didn't understand all the different aspects of a team
that go into be making your team effective. And he
was like, no dice, no dice. That's amazing, definitely. I mean,
(27:08):
it's also so clear to me that one of the
other big takeaways that I think other companies can gain
from this is that it sounds to me like Medium
had a very clear set of values, so they brought
into the hiring process. It was clear what we value
as a company. And you'll note it wasn't pure merit
because that guy would have gotten through it was on
(27:30):
merit alone. So you're you're basically communicating what it looks
like to have a hiring process that not only reflects
the diversity of your company, which is beneficial for the
person on the other side of the interview, but also
integrates your core values as a company. Is equally important
with the hard skills that are hiring for exactly, and
I think when you look at the data, more and
(27:51):
more hiring managers want these kinds of soft skills. You
could be the best, you know, have the best hard
skills ever. But if you can't work on a team,
if you can't have a conversation through co worker without
insulting them or being a hostile, and you know, adding
to a hostile work environment, you should you have no
business working some places like those skills are important too,
so and it's beyond a meritocracy, beyond I like that.
(28:12):
Another company that I would say is doing this right
is Pinterest, which is adopted an anti bias checklist that
they use in hiring, and that checklist basically helps those
who are making hiring decisions prime against unconscious bias. It
illuminates some of the ways in which unconscious bias can
impede those decisions and helps counteract it systematically from the
(28:34):
hiring process. And what I like so much about that
is that it under it kind of shows that they
understand that these things can be sort of innate and
it takes a little bit of unlearning to work past them.
Because I know myself, if I was a hiring manager
for a project and a woman who walked in who
was a black woman with natural hair who went to Howard,
I automatically be like, oh, she's like me. I would
(28:57):
have to fight through the bias because we all like
people who are like us, and so I like that
this that that that technique, it accounts for the fact
that this is a mate, and then it takes working
through that to counteract it. It It says, no, you have
to take a step back and really analyze candidates along
the lines of who they are, not just who you are,
(29:19):
and what you want to see exactly exactly, and it
it designs against it, which I think is as full
proof and as full provous we can be as fallible
human beings. One other company I want to shout out
to you because they've done this in a really creative
and somewhat controversial ways. Actually Intel, Intel, which you know
in tech terms, is ancient, right, Intel, like an ancient
(29:42):
been around for a long long time. Um. They've actually
been releasing their diversity numbers since two thousands, so like
almost a decade earlier than Google and a lot of
the others had to be pressured into it. What was
interesting is that they have implemented hiring goals along diversity
lines that are very public. To be entire company knows
that we value diversity in hiring. That means we are
(30:05):
going to put our money where our mouths are on
this issue and incentivize financially having other members of the
Intel team recruit diverse hires. Now you might be thinking
that the word quota is coming to mind. Here in
the United States, we can't talk about hiring quotas, which
(30:25):
here in the United States are illegal, although they're widely
practiced in some European countries like Norway that you know
has a real actual quota, like say, you know of
a public company's board must be female, and that's worked
quite well in Norway. But here in the US, they
have hiring goals that Intel that quote to make its
(30:45):
goals a little more well quote alike, Intel introduced money
into the equation in Intel's annual performance bonus plan. Success
in meeting diversity goals factors into whether the company gives
employees and across the board bonus, so the amounts differ.
But basically, if Intel as a whole meets its diversity
(31:06):
goals in hiring, everyone gets paid. I love that so
so much, and I actually think that incentivizing it is
great because it's possible to think that you're making a
good faith effort to find candidate pools by just posting
on a few list serves. But our networks tend to
look like us, like my network looks like me. And
so if you have a job opening and you just
post it to your network, I'm sorry, You're gonna get
(31:27):
people who are like you. And if they posted to
their network, is gonna be people that are like them.
If they're like you, it's just recreating this problem. But
if you incentivize it financially, that incentivizes people getting creative
and going outside their networks in a big way because
they want that financial incentive, which I think is great. Now,
we could talk literally for I don't know, five different
episodes worth of ways that your company can mitigate unconscious
(31:51):
bias can create cultures of inclusion, but that would be
an hr podcast. It would be a very different, much
longer conversation. Fortunately, Ellen Pow of All People teamed up
with a bunch of other senior women in tech to
provide resources, very detailed resources for how companies in tech,
(32:12):
and I would argue across industries can implement diverse, inclusive
team cultures. You can find all of that info for
free at project include dot org, where at the very
top of their website they start the whole conversation off
with this value statement. They say, quote, true diversity means
(32:33):
better teams, better financial returns, better companies, and a better,
more innovative world. Projects include is our community for accelerating
meaningful and during diversity and inclusion in the tech industry.
And they have so many resources on everything from hiring, onboarding, compensation,
providing feedback, training, training managers, leading as venture capitalists, measuring progress.
(32:58):
I mean, the resources there are robust and we would
love to talk through every detail of them, but we
don't have the time. The last thing I want to
update folks on for this section on progress that's being
made is actually some progress that not only can be
made on the corporate front, but on the legal front.
(33:18):
So until recently, the government has been largely absent, and
how these companies deal with their employees. Um. I feel
like it's a theme of how we deal with things
on this show that we always say, well, there can
be a government or a policy solution to that, and
luckily we might be getting somewhere on that front. Earlier
in August, California State Senator Hannah Beth Jackson introduced a
bill that but a men the California Civil Code to
(33:41):
tackle an ongoing pattern of sexist conduct into the Coon Valley,
specifically sexual harassment in the venture capitalist and entrepreneur context.
So I just love that. You know, even though these
companies have been taking steps on their own policy, good
policy choices can help sort of buttress what they're doing
and make this a more could cool part of how
they're addressing this problem exactly. So what this law, this
(34:04):
proposed law, will really do is strengthen the already existing
civil code, California's Civil Code fifty one point nine, which
imposes liability for sexual harassment when there is a quote,
business service, or professional relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Now,
that language has been a little bit vague because it
doesn't explicitly include venture capitalists into that equation. So in
(34:31):
certain situations, the law being unclear, there could be problematic. Um,
what they would actually do is add relationships to that
list of who's liable in a sexual harassment situation according
to the Civil Code. Now, in addition to such relationships
like teachers, landlords, attorneys, and physicians, the new proposed legislation
(34:53):
adds venture capitalists to that list. And I think that's
so important because we've acknowledge the ways that power dynamic
can really impact these relationships when they get toxic and
you know, sex and sexual harassment is involved, it's fine.
I feel like this is a case where the law
is finally catching up with what is actually happening and
recognizing the unequal power dynamics that are often at play
here exactly. And it's part of the other ways that
(35:16):
that we need stronger legal protections for people like Ellen
Pow who whose case got thrown out because she wasn't
able to legally prove sexual discrimination and harassment despite everything
we've learned about her story in this episode and really
the last episode. There's also some ways that on the
federal level, agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or
(35:39):
the National Labor Relations Board, which is my favorite new
thing to talk about, yeah, as a new vehicle for organizing,
and even the Securities and Exchange Commission have already began
placing greater scrutiny on these non disparagement agreements that oftentimes
when employees are being hired in tech sector are required
(36:01):
to sign those non disparagement agreements forbid them from whistle
blowing like Susan Fowler did, who, by the way, tweeted
recently that she's still in debt due to the fact
that she came out and publicly to make these statements.
So she's experienced a net loss for being a whistleblower.
So let's not pretend like the bravery and courage that
(36:24):
comes of being Ellen Pow or Susan Fowler and daring
to speak out and go public with your story doesn't
come with a pretty hefty price tag legally, professionally and personally.
And I mean, just to just to lift that up.
And it's so sad and such a shame that women
have to make that kind of a tough choice that
they have to decide between financial stability and keeping their
(36:46):
job and keeping their event paid and speaking out about
something that's really toxic that's happening to them at work exactly. So,
these arbitration clauses in employment agreements and non disparagement agreements
that are pretty common in hiring in the tech sector
make it really hard for employees who are experiencing discrimination
(37:06):
and even harassment to do anything other than settle quietly
out of court or like have a whisper campaign where
you're just telling your girlfriend over drinks like, hey, this
guy's a creep. Watch out. And again, I mean it's
important to note that if you don't, if you're not
able to speak up about it, that's what happens, and
it becomes gossip and whispers and it helps. It really
doesn't help anybody to have that, to have this be
(37:27):
happening in the dark. Exactly when we come back from
a quick break, we're going to talk through more ways
that you, as an individual woman, whether you are experiencing
harassment in tech or not, can take action on this
issue with us, because like all of us, we just
want to see women men treated fairly and equally and
given the equal opportunity to achieve our full potential in
(37:49):
shaping the future. Will be right back after a quick
word from our sponsors. So we're back and we are
talking through some of the ways that individuals can take
action on making tech a safer space for all of us. Right,
(38:11):
that's really what we're what we're about here. So the
first couple of things to consider if you are in
a position, whether it's tech or not quite frankly, in
which you are basically the victim of harassment, unwanted sexual
advances feeling fearful for your safety at work, or bearing
(38:32):
witness to overt or not so overt discrimination based on
race or gender. When it comes to hiring and promotion
at work, You've got some options, You've got some choices,
and we mentioned earlier before the break right how difficult
those choices can be. But do you want to speak
to that at alvertation? Yeah, I mean, I just want
to be real about it. It's I feel like it's
(38:52):
easy to say you should be I feel like this
episode has been a lot of us being ra Ra
Ellen Pale, Ra Ros Susan Feller. But if you don't
have it in you to be An Ellen Pal or
Susan Fowler, that is understandable and okay, right, Like we
it's it's an unfair system that we should be expected
to take on this burden, and I don't think it's
fair to you know, you shouldn't be single handedly responsible
(39:14):
for dismantling systems that we did not set up exactly,
And so I think it's important to lift that up
and acknowledge it that as much as we're talking about
how awesome what these women did and how they started
these these amazing dialogues, that's not for everybody, and you
shouldn't feel like it's on you singularly to do that.
If it's not, you're not in a position to do it, exactly.
I'm thinking back to one of my favorite quotes from
(39:35):
Audrey Lord, who says, caring for myself is not self indulgence,
it is self preservation, and that is an act of
political warfare. And the context that she brings to that
conversation as a woman of color, as a queer woman
of color, speaks to the fact that we are living
amongst and within institutions of power and supreme to see
(40:00):
I would go as far as to say, they weren't
set up by us, weren't set up by women, weren't
set up by people of color, weren't set up by
queer people. And so if you are tasked with dismantling that,
that's an unfair fight. It's an unfair fight, and it's
a fight you can't win. There are things we can
all do, but feeling the need to sacrifice yourself in
(40:21):
order to tackle this system should not be one of them.
And so I think it really comes back to small
things that everyone can do. Right. We can all acknowledge
things like racial battle fatigue. We can all acknowledge the
ways it plays out for gender right, like some of
the women that wrote in working at Google saying dealing
with this stuff day in day out, day in day out.
We can all understand that and acknowledge that it is
(40:42):
real and has consequences. We can all do more to
be less microaggressive. We can learn what that looks like.
We can learn why it's not okay to say certain
things to your to your colleagues, even if you mean it,
you know you don't mean it in a bad way,
you don't mean a fan, you didn't know you were
saying something wrong. Understanding why that intent is not that
important and how it impacts your colleagues. We can all
do that, and I think for more on that especially.
(41:04):
We dove into that on our episode about coming out
at work too, and how intent might be pure, but
the outcome might be you're making your colleagues feel isolated
and other and that's not cool and that's not okay,
and it contributes to racial battle fatigue and to the
fatigue being a woman in tech in a minority majority environment.
The other thing I want to think about, because I'm
(41:26):
now a huge fan of the Labor Relations Board is
Going back to our women in Labor episode, we highlighted
some of the ways in which labor organizing looks really
different nowadays. So, if you are engaged in a whisper
campaign with all the women in your office about a
known harasser or a known predatory coworker, with the help
(41:49):
of the Labor Relations Board, you can actually team up
with your coworkers to form a work site committee. Not
a labor union, right, but sort of a modern, temporary,
a substitute form of organizing and then send a certified
letter petition case, make your case, document your case as
(42:10):
a collective that protects you from retaliatory consequences. So what
I found really compelling in this New York Times article
about the use of these work site committees from back
in two thousand and fifteen, the title of which is
workers organized, but don't unionize to get protection under labor
law and really, you know, again we're not attorney is
(42:30):
so talk to the Labor Relations Board and find out
if your workplace is eligible. And this is all compliant
given your workplace situation. But if you team up with
your colleagues to make a formal complaint and then they
you experience retaliatory punishment. That retaliation is definitely illegal, but
you have to have this on the books. You have
to have the record of you putting forth a formal
(42:53):
complaint as a collective right. I think it's so telling
that it's all about avoiding retaliation because so many of
the stories that we talked about today, that's such a
big component of those stories is being retaliated against if
they if they speak up. Exactly. I think one of
the key messages I want to close out on is
(43:13):
we don't want to talk about how lousy women have
it in text so much that we gloss over the
fact that tech is actually a very attractive industry and
that there are plenty of women who are thriving in
tech because in some ways, the worst off we talked
about how much women have it. The more we highlight
(43:34):
how bad women have in tech, the more we perpetuate
the myth that women are not welcome here. Yes, I
I super want to close on, you know, I don't
want to go too hard on how bad women have
it in tech because I don't want to discourage other
women from joining this field. I really found myself in
the tech space right. I loved working there. I made
more money than I ever made any job. I ever
had skills like impulsive decision making and creative decision making
(43:57):
and taking risks. All of these things I'd strong with
during my career. We're finally being rewarded, and so I
loved my time there. Even in the Atlantic piece, but
when we quoted time and time again about how lousy
women have it and whose hyperbolic title really lives up
to the dire situation that was described in that article,
even that article goes on to say, quote, the dozens
(44:19):
of women I interviewed for this article love working in tech.
They love the problem solving, the camaraderie, the opportunity for
swift advancement and high salaries, the fun of working with
technology itself. They appreciate their many male colleagues who are
considerate and supportive. Yet all of them had stories about
(44:40):
incidents that, no matter how quicker glancing, chipped away at
their sense of belonging and expertise. I would plus a
hundred that that sounds exactly like my experience. I love
the fast paces. I loved how fun it was, and
I really did appreciate being in a space where even
if they didn't always get it right, My male colleagues
were supportive and vocally supportive exact and that's one of
(45:00):
the other action items we should just I want to
highlight there, which is calling out micro aggressions and making
sure you're not contributing to micro aggressions can be taken
a step further, especially for our male listeners who can
step in and use your male privilege to really call
out misogyny on display at work and when micro aggressions
do happen, to step in and try to rectify them. Yeah,
(45:22):
and really just be an advocate, be an advocate for
the for women and people of color who are showing
up in this space. So in case you I don't know,
women have historically always been at the forefront of technology.
Um Grace Hopper invented coding languages. Aida Lovelace invented the
idea of algorithms way back in the eighteen hundreds. I
to be Wells, one of my personal heroes was a
(45:43):
data scientist who really brought a data driven approach to
research and journalism around lynchings. And even now, finally Hollywood
seems to be taking up the mantle of retelling the
story of women's involvement in tech, my personal favorite being
In Figures, which was I think my favorite movie that
I've seen in the last year, probably multiple years, all
(46:06):
about the data scientists and the computer scientists, women, women
of color, black women in particular of NASA that helped
put a man on the moon, uh for the United States.
And even the Imitation Game, that movie that tells the
story of the World War two code breakers at Bletchley
Park fails to really clarify in in the most overt
(46:27):
terms that they could that over two thirds of those
code breakers were women. So we need to as a
society remember that. Yes, even though tech is very male
dominated right now and is in many ways overtly hostile
to women in tech, this is an industry for which
women have always been instrumental from its very early groundings,
(46:48):
especially here in US history. Yeah, and don't let crappy
dudes or pop culture tell you otherwise, because we've always
been here exactly. Well, thank you so much for tuning
into this hefty double episode of stuff Mom never told you.
There is so much more to dive into, and it
comes to women in tech. We want to hear from you.
Are you a woman in tech right now, What has
(47:11):
your experience been like, what positive changes do you see
on the horizon, and what work do we all still
have to do to make sure tech is being as
inclusive to women and minorities as it can. We send
us a tweet at mom Stuff Podcast, find us on
Instagram at stuff mom Never Told You, and, as always,
send us your lovely emails at mom stuff at how
(47:32):
stuff works dot com
Hey, this is Emily and you're listening to stuff Mom
never told you. Today is the continuation of our conversation
on Silicon Valley sexism. So if you haven't already, make
(00:27):
sure to check out part one of the episode that
came out just two days ago. And in that episode
you'll hear just how big of an issue sexism in
Silicon Valley and tech fields large really are, including the
startling fact that women are leaving the world of tech
at twice the rate that their male counterparts are. You'll
(00:47):
learn more about the brave women and whistleblowers who are
calling out tech companies on their gender discrimination and harassment issues,
including Ellen Pow and Susan Fowler at Uber. You'll also
hear some of the underlying reasons behind tech, which is
really a very young industry. It's still struggling so obviously
(01:09):
with gender inclusion, things like the genius fallacy and the
meritocracy paradox. So if you haven't heard that episode yet,
go back there listen to it. It's full of good stuff.
So today we want to take it back a second
and ask the question that is on some people's minds,
which is why does diversity in tech even matter. Only
(01:29):
nineteen percent of students and computer science programs are women,
so she would really even care that a quarter of
US computing and mathematic jobs, a fraction that has actually
slightly fallen over the past fifteen years, are held by women.
Some might even argue that we don't even really need
culture change, that those kinds of cultural changes are actually quote,
social engineering run amok. Some people might even say women
(01:50):
are showing up more in tech spaces because they're not
really born being good at tech, or that's not something
that women want to be doing. And by some people
bridget we have horse are talking about Google Guy, the
guy behind the viral manifesto released at Google last month
that we absolutely have to talk about. I almost don't
(02:11):
want to say his name, calling him Google Guy. That's
his name, forever and ever exactly learned it. And before
we continue, I just have to also go on the
record is saying Google has paid me money in the
past for my gender inclusive training public speaking for their
women at Google. Yeah, and I'm not sorry about it.
(02:33):
So let's talk about what went down at Google last month,
because it really did send shock waves through an already
dramatic conversation. So basically, Google guy, as we're now calling him,
wrote this, I guess you would call it a manifesto
if that's the way you want to call it. That's
what he called it is. Basically his argument is that
places like Google are creating quote safe spaces, and those
(02:53):
spaces are actually discriminating to promote women and minorities over
white men, the poor, poor, disenfranchise as white men. And
this is not a new argument. It is not a
new argument. But I think it's interesting is how you
can tell from the from the manifesto, he thinks it's
the newest thing. Like he's blowing the lid right off
this thing, these things that he's like at the forefront
of this, he think he's a genius. He might be
(03:15):
caught up in the genius fallacy. If if I knew
this guy in real life, I might say that. But yeah,
and this is the same argument that's been brought to
affirmative action in the past when it comes to college acceptance.
This idea that you know anything beyond nature, right, what's
naturally occurring in the marketplace when it comes to achievement,
hiring promotion is what we should value and we shouldn't
(03:38):
look at how nurture might be impeding not only the
pipeline of women in tech, but also the promotion of
women in tech. Basically, what he's saying is anything that
we do to mess with what's naturally occurring too. I
don't know, advance women and minorities in tech because there
are benefits of diversity in tech is social engineering and
(03:59):
it's bad, right And his his What I think is
so messed up about that argument is it totally overlooks
the fact that we live in a gosh dang society, right,
Like people are not competing with each other in a
vacuum where no other kinds of factors, underlying factors are
at play. We're in a society and in the world
that he describes, all things are equal. We're in a vacuum.
We don't live in a society. Everyone is the same
(04:21):
and that's I mean, hello, is not the case. And
what shocking is if you look at how people treat babies.
I'm talking fifteen month old boys versus fifteen month old girls.
A viral video came out recently that I stumbled across
on Facebook that show when an adult is playing with
a little baby who they think is a girl, they're
(04:41):
more likely to give that little baby toys that are dolls,
toys like soft, plushy toys, not the kind of toys
like connects and legos and things that maybe not a
fifteen month old should be playing with Legos, but you
get the idea, not the things that help baby brains
develop spatial awareness, us the kinds of skills that set
(05:01):
them up to kick but in tech. So if you're
saying that it's pure nature and nurture has nothing to
do with men's proclivity for the sciences and stem fields,
not just advancement we can like, which we can talk
about bias and hiring and promotion too, then I think
you're missing the bigger, more influential point, which is nurture
(05:22):
and how nurture and how the society we live in
sets up winners and losers totally. And I think they've
even done studies that show that we start treating people
differently along the lines of gender in the womb, that
that stuff is happening already, you know. And I think
this idea that all kinds of people have been treated
the same throughout life is just bunk. And his manifesto
doesn't even acknowledge that exactly. And here's the thing, he
(05:45):
was very careful to appear reasonable. That's my of all
the things that are my least favorite thing about Google guy,
that's the one I hate the most. I'm trying to
not like someone. He reminds me so much of someone
I know, so I'm trying not to I'm trying not
to like go off on this guy who I hate
as a proxy for him. But screw what I'm doing
it anyway. Basically, it's this idea that oh, if I
(06:07):
appear very rational and like like, I'm just presenting the
data in a very rational way, don't attack me. These
are the facts. But he doesn't actually rely on a
lot of facts, and he spews a lot of really racist,
messed up stuff with no grounding and facts. There are
actually the kinds of things that have been you know,
circulated on you know, racist corners of the Internet since forever.
(06:30):
So these are not new ideas. There are actually a
lot of his points are not actually grounded by data
or facts, but he's pretending as if they are in
this attempt to seem really reasonable and you know, measured exactly,
he disguises what is basically of racist, misogynistic rant in
this really approachable packaging of I just want to raise
(06:52):
the alarm bell on this. I just don't want to
be a part of a culture at Google where you know,
women and minorities voices are louder and the only right
voices here, and that's concerning to me. And I should
be able to dissent without being eaten alive. And he
makes a very reasonable argument on that, and he goes
in to say a very unreasonable argument something. I think
it is so interesting is that again, even though he
(07:13):
clearly thinks this his new ground, that rhetorical device is
so common and even as a name where they call
it just asking questions, I'm just asking questions. I'm not
presenting data. I'm just asking questions. I just want to
lift this. And it's a really smarmy rhetorical device to
seem measured and approachable when you're anything but exactly. And
it worked because there are lots of corners of the
(07:34):
Internet where maybe some of our Mingtow friends from our
Mingtow episode hang out, where there are a ton of
men who found solace and are cheering Google guy on
for for bravely speaking out against PC culture. And it
just really reminds me of some of these white supremacists
who are trying to seem reasonable and approachable and just
(07:57):
asking questions. That's a perfect way to put it for
fortunately for all of us. Cynthia Lee at Vox Media
wrote the best piece in response to Google Guys memo,
and it's titled I'm a woman in computer science. Let me,
lady explain the Google memo to you. I love that title, y'all.
You've ever heard the phrase an epic drag this? I
(08:18):
don't use it for Vox articles a lot, but this
box article is an epic drag. I love it. I
love it. So she goes on, if I could just
read the whole article on this podcast, I would. I
think it would be like job. But clearly we don't
have that kind of time. What she does so brilliantly
here is she explains to the public why there was
such a vociferous backlash against Google Guy, because Google Guys
(08:44):
memo created so much anger and indignation that it almost
turned out to look like he was the poor victim
here because he did get canned by Google, and so
when he lost his job, everyone said, this is what
happens in PC culture, run him up. This is what
happens when you dare to dissent with the progressive social
(09:04):
engineers over at Google. You know, a poor white guy
just lost his job for speaking out on behalf of
all of us. Can I just say, if there's one
phrase I would love to never hear again, it's PC culture,
run amuck. I know, I would love to just throw
that in the dustbin of history. We should do an
episode on PC. Mean, what does that even mean? But
that's a whole other tangent. So she beautifully explains why
(09:28):
a memo that seems so benign and polite and like
just asking questions the memo, why there was such a backlash,
And she goes point by points, starting with a really
important one, fatigue. Women are tired, y'all. To be a
woman in tech is to know the thrill of participating
in one of the most transformative revolutions human kind has
(09:48):
ever known. To experience the crystalline satisfaction of finding an
elegant solution to an algorithmic challenge, to want to throw
the monitor out the window, and frustration with a bug,
and later due to a happy dance in a chair,
we'll find fixing it. To be a woman in tech
is also to always and forever be faced with skepticism
that I do and feel all those things authentically enough
to truly belong. There is always a jury and it
(10:10):
is always still out. Imagine if this was how you
felt in work, that you had all these ups and downs,
and you always felt like your interloper, You always felt
like your colleagues were looking at you like you didn't
quite belong. You faced this day in and day out
a lot of times silently, and then someone comes along
and says, you know, it really has it bad me
a white guy, I would be infuriated. Yeah, And also
(10:34):
she's points to this. You know what people of color
have been dealing with for a long time. Thankfully, there's
a term for it now, racial battle fatigue, which is
dealing with microaggressions at work all the time. Whether they
are a seemingly innocuous, offhand comment about you being really
smart for uh woman of color or really articulate for
(10:56):
being a black man, you're just like what, you know,
they don't even have to say the lot part of
the sentence for you to put it together, or being
told this is the worst You're not like most girls, Bridget,
You're so much cooler and smarter and better at science
and technology than most girls. You're like, that is not
a compliment. Please don't like drop that kind of misogyny
(11:18):
packaged in a gift box to me. Please. I can
see how that is meant to be flattering, but it's
totally She also goes on to acknowledge and really call
out Google guy for the fact that his memo treats
women at Google as the pair average. He almost talks
about women's lack of leadership and rise and retention at
(11:40):
Google as that he's talking about the average woman. And yes,
we know that only of computer science majors are women,
but we also know that the vast majority of women
at Google are not being pulled from just the average
pool of all women who study all things. So his
(12:01):
use of data, just like you mentioned earlier, it is
very misleading because the data he references are about the
average woman's proclivity for tech. She goes on to say,
what do averages have to do with hiring practices at
a company that famously hires fewer than one percent of applicants.
In the name of the rational empiricism and quantitative rigor
that the manifesto holds some dear shouldn't we insist that
(12:23):
it only cites studies that specifically speak to the tales
of of the distribution to the actual pool of women
that Google draws from. So basically, what she's saying here
is that Google does not hire a lot of people.
It's specifically does not hire a lot of women. If
you are a woman who ends up working at Google,
you are exceptional. You're You're not average. I almost quoted
Beyonce and swore, but we're not talking about you know
(12:45):
the lot. I'm going for it. You're not average, you
are exceptional. And this idea that he's dealing with all
these average women in tech who are bringing down the company,
Who are these pity hires because of their gender is
bf Cynthia goes on to really hammer this point home
by pointing out that women currently make up about thirty
percent of computer science majors at Stanford, which is one
(13:07):
of the key sources of Google's elite workforce. Right Stanford's
right around the corner, it's in Silicon Valley. Basically, they
get a lot of recruits from Stanford, but that thirty
percent turns into just nineteen percent when you look at
the percentage of Google's workforce that's female. So quote. Even
if we imagine for a moment that the manifesto is
(13:28):
correct and that there is some biological ceiling on the
percentage of women who will be suited to work at
Google less than fifty percent of their workforce, isn't it
the case that Google and tech generally is almost certainly
not yet hitting that ceiling. In other words, it is
clear that we are still operating in an environment where
(13:49):
it is very much more likely that women who are
biologically able to work in tech are chased away from
tech by sociological and other factors, van that biologically unsuited
women are somehow brought in by over zealous diversity programs.
And something else I want to lift up here is
that as a woman of color, a common idea is
(14:11):
that to get in the same place as a white man,
you have to be twice as good. And I think
the women that he works with are probably better than
he is. They probably to get where they are, they
had to be twice as good all the time. And
so if he's looking around and just assuming, of course,
I'm better than all of these women and they are
just you know, they're their pity hires who you know,
worko ins or whatever. That is so wrong, because any
(14:32):
woman who works in a male dominated field knows to
be taken seriously, you've got to be twice as good
to go half as far right to be in that
one percent of people actually hires. My other huge beef
with his manifesto that Cynthia points out is that this
is not philosophy class. Okay, this is not an innocuous
just asking questions conversation over the theory behind nature versus
(15:00):
nurture when it comes to women and deck. There is
a very clear intent behind his very organized memo. Cynthia
goes on to write, quote, if his proposals were adopted,
it wouldn't be some abstract concept of average that doesn't
get a scholarship. It would be an actual individual woman.
(15:22):
It would be an actual female Googler who doesn't get
to attend the Grace Hopper conference, which provides many women
with their first experience of being in a majority woman
tech conference space. So she basically is making this point
that this is seemingly innocuous in how he wrote it,
and his tone was going for benign right he was
going for harmless. There is nothing harmless about the proposals
(15:44):
he was suggesting. He was literally suggesting taking away resources
from his female colleagues, opportunities from his female colleagues, because
he wasn't invited to those opportunities like the Grace Hopper
conference completely. And I think that you you really ailed it.
This is not some abstract person. These are real people
who would have real things, concrete opportunities taken away from them.
(16:07):
And I just think I can't even imagine writing a
memo at work where I say, oh, I don't think
Bobby in accounting should get x Y. We shouldn't be
taking x y Z away from Bobby, and then being like, WHOA,
why is Bobby so upset? It's like, yeah, because that's
screwed up exactly. So he's trying to not name names
and yet take resources away from his colleagues. I also
(16:30):
think it's worth noting I'm curious with people who were
big supporters of him know this how he deals with race.
So she writes, it's striking to me that the manifesto
author repeatedly lists race alongside gender when listing programs and
preferences he thinks should be done away with. But unlike gender,
he never purports to have any scientific backing for this.
This omission is telling and so basically saying, well, we
(16:52):
all know people of color are biologically worse at this,
and she says, well, defenders of the memo still be
comfortable at the author had casually summarized race and i
Q studies to argue that purported biological differences and not
discrimination or an equal access to education, explain Google's shortage
of African American programmers. Basically, he's just sort of casually
(17:13):
like everyone just knows that blacks aren't good programmers. They're
just biologically not good at this. That's basically the point
he's making for women. If he made that point, I mean,
it's baffling and it's so messed up, and I don't
see how people can't look at this and how this
holds up under that kind of scrutiny. But I will
say that again, in these in these pockets of the Internet,
that is not that is a theory that would fly.
(17:35):
People really do get very invested in this idea of
certain people being biologically good at things and other people
being biologically bad at that. Are you saying that that argument,
the racist one would fly. I think for a lot
of people, if presented with that, they would say, sure,
of course blacks can't understand geometry. That they would they
would really think up. And I think it's telling that
(17:56):
you don't have to go to corners of the internet
to find people who would agree of that conclusion on
gender correct because it's definitely less even plausible to say
that kind of an argument out loud about race. But
when you saying about women, is like, yeah, this this
guy seems like if you made that argument about race,
people would be like, well, saying that blacks are innately worse,
(18:17):
that computer science is racist and messed up, right, But
you can kind of make that argument about women, and
it's kind of fine. Bizarre, it's not bizarre. It's infuriating. Yes,
it's I'm like livid right now just thinking about the
handstry and the facial expressions that are happening in the
studio right now. I wish everyone could see them. But
here's something to set us off here for a second.
(18:38):
Her conclusion in this piece, Cynthia Ly's piece is really perfect,
in my opinion, she writes in the end, focusing the
conversation on the minutia of the scientific claims in the
manifesto is a red herring. Regardless of whether biological differences exist,
there's no shortage of glaring evidence in individual stories and
(19:00):
in scientific studies that women in tech experienced bias and
a general lack of a welcoming environment, as do underrepresented minorities.
Until these problems are resolved, our focus should be on
remedying that injustice. After that work is complete, we can
reassess whether small, effect sized biological components have anything to
(19:21):
do with lingering imbalances. And that's that's why I love
her response so much. It's because I've no matter what
this guy says. Obviously, the data is very very clear,
both in personal stories and in hard numbers, there's a
problem with women and minorities in tech. And to say
that there isn't. It's just it's just turning a blind
eye to this data. It's just it's not being fact based,
(19:44):
as he and even and he's doing that while pretending
to be super a fact base. No, I just I know,
I know, I know that I don't know this guy,
but I know this guy. You know what you mean.
And I'm raising my fist at the air like I
wanna pull an Abe Simpson and yell at a cloud
about old. Okay, so we're gonna take a quick break,
(20:06):
but we I just want to hammer home be where
we do that this is the world's most profitable industry.
So for all their proclaimed data driven nous, an argument
like the one that Google guy made doesn't seem to
give a hoot that better decisions are made with more
diverse teams, that companies outcomes and bottom line results tend
(20:27):
to improve with more diverse teams. And this is an
argument that even Cheryl Sandberg, the whitest, wealthiest voice in feminism,
really made to her fellow Silicon Valley coworkers, which is
it's just good business to have gender inclusion and diversity
on your docket for corporate priorities. So in this industry,
(20:52):
especially the one that's shaping the future we are all
going to live in, it's critically important that we actually
rectify these and justices and focus on what can be
done on the cultural level. And I think we should
get into why this is such a big deal after
this quick break and we're back and we're talking about
(21:18):
why it's so critically critically important that tech get its
act together. Now, we know that tech is the most
profitable industry out there, but it's also the industry that's
poised to solve some of our biggest, most critical life challenges.
This is an industry that if we if they really
put their mind to it, they could possibly really get somewhere.
When you think about climate change, immigration, all of these
(21:39):
things that are critically important life or death things tech
could probably solve if they put their mind to it.
But if they don't figure out that what makes for
good tech solutions are inclusive teams and inclusive hiring practices,
they'll never get there. And I think what really frustrates
me is that they don't see the way this is
costing them money and costing them at efficiency. The data
(22:01):
is so clear that when you have inclusive teams and
diverse teams, you're better at your job, And it almost
feels like they are prioritizing being a browy frat house
over making actual, effective, cost driven choices. I completely agree,
and I am still an unbridled optimist on this, even
though all the data and these stories are depressing as hell.
(22:25):
The reason I'm optimistic is because when we say they
don't seem to care that minority in tech is being
fired like Google, guy, that I mean not all of them, right,
But there are majorly well funded efforts to rectify these injustices,
and I want to dive into some of the imperfect
(22:47):
solutions that are being worked on. But the good news
is that there are solutions being put forth. There's a
lot of money being invested in increasing diversity and inclusion
at companies like Google. Um, So let's let's talk a
little bit about how, like, what are the multi phase
interventions that tech companies can make to really close the
(23:10):
gap when it comes to women in tech. Well, I
think the first one is probably filling the STEM pipeline. Um.
From this Atlantic article that you keep quoting from because
it's amazing and you should definitely read it. More than
half of college and university students are women, and the
percentage of women entering many STEM fields has risen. Computer
science is a glaring exception. The percentage of female computer
at information science majors peaked in nineteen four at about
(23:34):
It is declined more or less steadily ever since. Today
it stands at eight, which is shocking because computer science
was way less sexy. A you know what, what's what's
the opposite of sexy boxy boxy? Also, I'm thinking about
the design of computers were similarly right, So like now
tech is so sexy, like you can solve the biggest
(23:55):
world's problems. It's such a financially attractive industry if you
want to not only have social impact but also get
rich along the way. And somehow that's attracted more men
to the table than women. I think that's very telling.
But I also think it's interesting when you add race
to that dynamic. As a black woman who worked for
a while on a tech sector, I think adding that
(24:16):
extra layer of intersectionality is so critically important. So I
don't want to say that you know, when black women
and women of color are not there, We are there,
but I think so much more can be done to
sort of bring us into the pipeline. You really have
to see it to be it. So I think what
it really comes down to is creating these inclusive and
diverse workplace cultures in ways that are baked into the framework,
(24:37):
not just sort of tacked in after the fact um.
When I was working into Lacon Valley, I worked for
an organization called Medium Shout Out to Medium, which I
still know and love and used to this day. UM.
But something I was really struck by with my employment
there was how good HR practices were sort of baked
into the framework very early on. This didn't feel like
something that you just got a you know, five minute
(24:59):
let sure about after you've been hired. It was clear
that they had made really really critical steps to have
that be part of what made the organization the organization.
And one of the things I really liked about Medium
was that even when they were hiring for hard tech
jobs like engineer or you know, UM coders and things
like that, they would have really inclusive and diverse hiring
(25:21):
teams who were interviewing people. So even though you know,
I don't have a hard hard tech background, UM, I
don't have a computer science degree, I would sometimes be
on a team that was interviewing someone for a hard
tech job, and so, you know, I don't know anything
about software engineering, but I know what makes someone a
good team player. I know what makes someone UM a
good person to have on a team. And I felt
(25:43):
like my input as a non hard skills person, as
a woman of color, as someone who really advocates for
soft skills, that was taken just as seriously as the
head software senior engineer who was sort of saying like, oh,
this guy can code this way or that way. And
I think that was really a good way of making
sure that we had people who just knew how to
(26:03):
not be jerks. That that was an important part of
how we hired and I really I think that that
really made a difference in terms of the climate at
Medium that whereas other tech companies are should have known
for these hiring these like special snowflake hard skills, folks
who you know, can be awful to their coworkers, can
be awful to women, and people of color can make
(26:24):
workspaces really tough to show up in. We we did
them out. I'll never forget one of our engineers. He
didn't hire someone who was, you know, technically and on
paper very very good. And I think I was like, oh,
why this guy? You know, it seems like he had
all the all the tech skills that you were looking for.
And he said, well, one of the questions I asked
him was, you know, why are you leaving your last
(26:46):
job and he said, because them it was two team focused.
I wasn't getting enough of the credit. And he said
that was a huge red flag for me that he
saw himself as it should be about me and how
great I am, because I am so great, and that
he didn't understand all the different aspects of a team
that go into be making your team effective. And he
was like, no dice, no dice. That's amazing, definitely. I mean,
(27:08):
it's also so clear to me that one of the
other big takeaways that I think other companies can gain
from this is that it sounds to me like Medium
had a very clear set of values, so they brought
into the hiring process. It was clear what we value
as a company. And you'll note it wasn't pure merit
because that guy would have gotten through it was on
(27:30):
merit alone. So you're you're basically communicating what it looks
like to have a hiring process that not only reflects
the diversity of your company, which is beneficial for the
person on the other side of the interview, but also
integrates your core values as a company. Is equally important
with the hard skills that are hiring for exactly, and
I think when you look at the data, more and
(27:51):
more hiring managers want these kinds of soft skills. You
could be the best, you know, have the best hard
skills ever. But if you can't work on a team,
if you can't have a conversation through co worker without
insulting them or being a hostile, and you know, adding
to a hostile work environment, you should you have no
business working some places like those skills are important too,
so and it's beyond a meritocracy, beyond I like that.
(28:12):
Another company that I would say is doing this right
is Pinterest, which is adopted an anti bias checklist that
they use in hiring, and that checklist basically helps those
who are making hiring decisions prime against unconscious bias. It
illuminates some of the ways in which unconscious bias can
impede those decisions and helps counteract it systematically from the
(28:34):
hiring process. And what I like so much about that
is that it under it kind of shows that they
understand that these things can be sort of innate and
it takes a little bit of unlearning to work past them.
Because I know myself, if I was a hiring manager
for a project and a woman who walked in who
was a black woman with natural hair who went to Howard,
I automatically be like, oh, she's like me. I would
(28:57):
have to fight through the bias because we all like
people who are like us, and so I like that
this that that that technique, it accounts for the fact
that this is a mate, and then it takes working
through that to counteract it. It It says, no, you have
to take a step back and really analyze candidates along
the lines of who they are, not just who you are,
(29:19):
and what you want to see exactly exactly, and it
it designs against it, which I think is as full
proof and as full provous we can be as fallible
human beings. One other company I want to shout out
to you because they've done this in a really creative
and somewhat controversial ways. Actually Intel, Intel, which you know
in tech terms, is ancient, right, Intel, like an ancient
(29:42):
been around for a long long time. Um. They've actually
been releasing their diversity numbers since two thousands, so like
almost a decade earlier than Google and a lot of
the others had to be pressured into it. What was
interesting is that they have implemented hiring goals along diversity
lines that are very public. To be entire company knows
that we value diversity in hiring. That means we are
(30:05):
going to put our money where our mouths are on
this issue and incentivize financially having other members of the
Intel team recruit diverse hires. Now you might be thinking
that the word quota is coming to mind. Here in
the United States, we can't talk about hiring quotas, which
(30:25):
here in the United States are illegal, although they're widely
practiced in some European countries like Norway that you know
has a real actual quota, like say, you know of
a public company's board must be female, and that's worked
quite well in Norway. But here in the US, they
have hiring goals that Intel that quote to make its
(30:45):
goals a little more well quote alike, Intel introduced money
into the equation in Intel's annual performance bonus plan. Success
in meeting diversity goals factors into whether the company gives
employees and across the board bonus, so the amounts differ.
But basically, if Intel as a whole meets its diversity
(31:06):
goals in hiring, everyone gets paid. I love that so
so much, and I actually think that incentivizing it is
great because it's possible to think that you're making a
good faith effort to find candidate pools by just posting
on a few list serves. But our networks tend to
look like us, like my network looks like me. And
so if you have a job opening and you just
post it to your network, I'm sorry, You're gonna get
(31:27):
people who are like you. And if they posted to
their network, is gonna be people that are like them.
If they're like you, it's just recreating this problem. But
if you incentivize it financially, that incentivizes people getting creative
and going outside their networks in a big way because
they want that financial incentive, which I think is great. Now,
we could talk literally for I don't know, five different
episodes worth of ways that your company can mitigate unconscious
(31:51):
bias can create cultures of inclusion, but that would be
an hr podcast. It would be a very different, much
longer conversation. Fortunately, Ellen Pow of All People teamed up
with a bunch of other senior women in tech to
provide resources, very detailed resources for how companies in tech,
(32:12):
and I would argue across industries can implement diverse, inclusive
team cultures. You can find all of that info for
free at project include dot org, where at the very
top of their website they start the whole conversation off
with this value statement. They say, quote, true diversity means
(32:33):
better teams, better financial returns, better companies, and a better,
more innovative world. Projects include is our community for accelerating
meaningful and during diversity and inclusion in the tech industry.
And they have so many resources on everything from hiring, onboarding, compensation,
providing feedback, training, training managers, leading as venture capitalists, measuring progress.
(32:58):
I mean, the resources there are robust and we would
love to talk through every detail of them, but we
don't have the time. The last thing I want to
update folks on for this section on progress that's being
made is actually some progress that not only can be
made on the corporate front, but on the legal front.
(33:18):
So until recently, the government has been largely absent, and
how these companies deal with their employees. Um. I feel
like it's a theme of how we deal with things
on this show that we always say, well, there can
be a government or a policy solution to that, and
luckily we might be getting somewhere on that front. Earlier
in August, California State Senator Hannah Beth Jackson introduced a
bill that but a men the California Civil Code to
(33:41):
tackle an ongoing pattern of sexist conduct into the Coon Valley,
specifically sexual harassment in the venture capitalist and entrepreneur context.
So I just love that. You know, even though these
companies have been taking steps on their own policy, good
policy choices can help sort of buttress what they're doing
and make this a more could cool part of how
they're addressing this problem exactly. So what this law, this
(34:04):
proposed law, will really do is strengthen the already existing
civil code, California's Civil Code fifty one point nine, which
imposes liability for sexual harassment when there is a quote,
business service, or professional relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Now,
that language has been a little bit vague because it
doesn't explicitly include venture capitalists into that equation. So in
(34:31):
certain situations, the law being unclear, there could be problematic. Um,
what they would actually do is add relationships to that
list of who's liable in a sexual harassment situation according
to the Civil Code. Now, in addition to such relationships
like teachers, landlords, attorneys, and physicians, the new proposed legislation
(34:53):
adds venture capitalists to that list. And I think that's
so important because we've acknowledge the ways that power dynamic
can really impact these relationships when they get toxic and
you know, sex and sexual harassment is involved, it's fine.
I feel like this is a case where the law
is finally catching up with what is actually happening and
recognizing the unequal power dynamics that are often at play
here exactly. And it's part of the other ways that
(35:16):
that we need stronger legal protections for people like Ellen
Pow who whose case got thrown out because she wasn't
able to legally prove sexual discrimination and harassment despite everything
we've learned about her story in this episode and really
the last episode. There's also some ways that on the
federal level, agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or
(35:39):
the National Labor Relations Board, which is my favorite new
thing to talk about, yeah, as a new vehicle for organizing,
and even the Securities and Exchange Commission have already began
placing greater scrutiny on these non disparagement agreements that oftentimes
when employees are being hired in tech sector are required
(36:01):
to sign those non disparagement agreements forbid them from whistle
blowing like Susan Fowler did, who, by the way, tweeted
recently that she's still in debt due to the fact
that she came out and publicly to make these statements.
So she's experienced a net loss for being a whistleblower.
So let's not pretend like the bravery and courage that
(36:24):
comes of being Ellen Pow or Susan Fowler and daring
to speak out and go public with your story doesn't
come with a pretty hefty price tag legally, professionally and personally.
And I mean, just to just to lift that up.
And it's so sad and such a shame that women
have to make that kind of a tough choice that
they have to decide between financial stability and keeping their
(36:46):
job and keeping their event paid and speaking out about
something that's really toxic that's happening to them at work exactly. So,
these arbitration clauses in employment agreements and non disparagement agreements
that are pretty common in hiring in the tech sector
make it really hard for employees who are experiencing discrimination
(37:06):
and even harassment to do anything other than settle quietly
out of court or like have a whisper campaign where
you're just telling your girlfriend over drinks like, hey, this
guy's a creep. Watch out. And again, I mean it's
important to note that if you don't, if you're not
able to speak up about it, that's what happens, and
it becomes gossip and whispers and it helps. It really
doesn't help anybody to have that, to have this be
(37:27):
happening in the dark. Exactly when we come back from
a quick break, we're going to talk through more ways
that you, as an individual woman, whether you are experiencing
harassment in tech or not, can take action on this
issue with us, because like all of us, we just
want to see women men treated fairly and equally and
given the equal opportunity to achieve our full potential in
(37:49):
shaping the future. Will be right back after a quick
word from our sponsors. So we're back and we are
talking through some of the ways that individuals can take
action on making tech a safer space for all of us. Right,
(38:11):
that's really what we're what we're about here. So the
first couple of things to consider if you are in
a position, whether it's tech or not quite frankly, in
which you are basically the victim of harassment, unwanted sexual
advances feeling fearful for your safety at work, or bearing
(38:32):
witness to overt or not so overt discrimination based on
race or gender. When it comes to hiring and promotion
at work, You've got some options, You've got some choices,
and we mentioned earlier before the break right how difficult
those choices can be. But do you want to speak
to that at alvertation? Yeah, I mean, I just want
to be real about it. It's I feel like it's
(38:52):
easy to say you should be I feel like this
episode has been a lot of us being ra Ra
Ellen Pale, Ra Ros Susan Feller. But if you don't
have it in you to be An Ellen Pal or
Susan Fowler, that is understandable and okay, right, Like we
it's it's an unfair system that we should be expected
to take on this burden, and I don't think it's
fair to you know, you shouldn't be single handedly responsible
(39:14):
for dismantling systems that we did not set up exactly,
And so I think it's important to lift that up
and acknowledge it that as much as we're talking about
how awesome what these women did and how they started
these these amazing dialogues, that's not for everybody, and you
shouldn't feel like it's on you singularly to do that.
If it's not, you're not in a position to do it, exactly.
I'm thinking back to one of my favorite quotes from
(39:35):
Audrey Lord, who says, caring for myself is not self indulgence,
it is self preservation, and that is an act of
political warfare. And the context that she brings to that
conversation as a woman of color, as a queer woman
of color, speaks to the fact that we are living
amongst and within institutions of power and supreme to see
(40:00):
I would go as far as to say, they weren't
set up by us, weren't set up by women, weren't
set up by people of color, weren't set up by
queer people. And so if you are tasked with dismantling that,
that's an unfair fight. It's an unfair fight, and it's
a fight you can't win. There are things we can
all do, but feeling the need to sacrifice yourself in
(40:21):
order to tackle this system should not be one of them.
And so I think it really comes back to small
things that everyone can do. Right. We can all acknowledge
things like racial battle fatigue. We can all acknowledge the
ways it plays out for gender right, like some of
the women that wrote in working at Google saying dealing
with this stuff day in day out, day in day out.
We can all understand that and acknowledge that it is
(40:42):
real and has consequences. We can all do more to
be less microaggressive. We can learn what that looks like.
We can learn why it's not okay to say certain
things to your to your colleagues, even if you mean it,
you know you don't mean it in a bad way,
you don't mean a fan, you didn't know you were
saying something wrong. Understanding why that intent is not that
important and how it impacts your colleagues. We can all
do that, and I think for more on that especially.
(41:04):
We dove into that on our episode about coming out
at work too, and how intent might be pure, but
the outcome might be you're making your colleagues feel isolated
and other and that's not cool and that's not okay,
and it contributes to racial battle fatigue and to the
fatigue being a woman in tech in a minority majority environment.
The other thing I want to think about, because I'm
(41:26):
now a huge fan of the Labor Relations Board is
Going back to our women in Labor episode, we highlighted
some of the ways in which labor organizing looks really
different nowadays. So, if you are engaged in a whisper
campaign with all the women in your office about a
known harasser or a known predatory coworker, with the help
(41:49):
of the Labor Relations Board, you can actually team up
with your coworkers to form a work site committee. Not
a labor union, right, but sort of a modern, temporary,
a substitute form of organizing and then send a certified
letter petition case, make your case, document your case as
(42:10):
a collective that protects you from retaliatory consequences. So what
I found really compelling in this New York Times article
about the use of these work site committees from back
in two thousand and fifteen, the title of which is
workers organized, but don't unionize to get protection under labor
law and really, you know, again we're not attorney is
(42:30):
so talk to the Labor Relations Board and find out
if your workplace is eligible. And this is all compliant
given your workplace situation. But if you team up with
your colleagues to make a formal complaint and then they
you experience retaliatory punishment. That retaliation is definitely illegal, but
you have to have this on the books. You have
to have the record of you putting forth a formal
(42:53):
complaint as a collective right. I think it's so telling
that it's all about avoiding retaliation because so many of
the stories that we talked about today, that's such a
big component of those stories is being retaliated against if
they if they speak up. Exactly. I think one of
the key messages I want to close out on is
(43:13):
we don't want to talk about how lousy women have
it in text so much that we gloss over the
fact that tech is actually a very attractive industry and
that there are plenty of women who are thriving in
tech because in some ways, the worst off we talked
about how much women have it. The more we highlight
(43:34):
how bad women have in tech, the more we perpetuate
the myth that women are not welcome here. Yes, I
I super want to close on, you know, I don't
want to go too hard on how bad women have
it in tech because I don't want to discourage other
women from joining this field. I really found myself in
the tech space right. I loved working there. I made
more money than I ever made any job. I ever
had skills like impulsive decision making and creative decision making
(43:57):
and taking risks. All of these things I'd strong with
during my career. We're finally being rewarded, and so I
loved my time there. Even in the Atlantic piece, but
when we quoted time and time again about how lousy
women have it and whose hyperbolic title really lives up
to the dire situation that was described in that article,
even that article goes on to say, quote, the dozens
(44:19):
of women I interviewed for this article love working in tech.
They love the problem solving, the camaraderie, the opportunity for
swift advancement and high salaries, the fun of working with
technology itself. They appreciate their many male colleagues who are
considerate and supportive. Yet all of them had stories about
(44:40):
incidents that, no matter how quicker glancing, chipped away at
their sense of belonging and expertise. I would plus a
hundred that that sounds exactly like my experience. I love
the fast paces. I loved how fun it was, and
I really did appreciate being in a space where even
if they didn't always get it right, My male colleagues
were supportive and vocally supportive exact and that's one of
(45:00):
the other action items we should just I want to
highlight there, which is calling out micro aggressions and making
sure you're not contributing to micro aggressions can be taken
a step further, especially for our male listeners who can
step in and use your male privilege to really call
out misogyny on display at work and when micro aggressions
do happen, to step in and try to rectify them. Yeah,
(45:22):
and really just be an advocate, be an advocate for
the for women and people of color who are showing
up in this space. So in case you I don't know,
women have historically always been at the forefront of technology.
Um Grace Hopper invented coding languages. Aida Lovelace invented the
idea of algorithms way back in the eighteen hundreds. I
to be Wells, one of my personal heroes was a
(45:43):
data scientist who really brought a data driven approach to
research and journalism around lynchings. And even now, finally Hollywood
seems to be taking up the mantle of retelling the
story of women's involvement in tech, my personal favorite being
In Figures, which was I think my favorite movie that
I've seen in the last year, probably multiple years, all
(46:06):
about the data scientists and the computer scientists, women, women
of color, black women in particular of NASA that helped
put a man on the moon, uh for the United States.
And even the Imitation Game, that movie that tells the
story of the World War two code breakers at Bletchley
Park fails to really clarify in in the most overt
(46:27):
terms that they could that over two thirds of those
code breakers were women. So we need to as a
society remember that. Yes, even though tech is very male
dominated right now and is in many ways overtly hostile
to women in tech, this is an industry for which
women have always been instrumental from its very early groundings,
(46:48):
especially here in US history. Yeah, and don't let crappy
dudes or pop culture tell you otherwise, because we've always
been here exactly. Well, thank you so much for tuning
into this hefty double episode of stuff Mom never told you.
There is so much more to dive into, and it
comes to women in tech. We want to hear from you.
Are you a woman in tech right now, What has
(47:11):
your experience been like, what positive changes do you see
on the horizon, and what work do we all still
have to do to make sure tech is being as
inclusive to women and minorities as it can. We send
us a tweet at mom Stuff Podcast, find us on
Instagram at stuff mom Never Told You, and, as always,
send us your lovely emails at mom stuff at how
(47:32):
stuff works dot com
Stuff Mom Never Told You News
Hosts And Creators
Anney Reese
Samantha McVey
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.