[klunger]

> I see women writing about these meta-topics of "being a female programmer" far, far more often than any actual technical aspect.

I used to wonder about this myself. But, then I met some ladies that write technical blogs anonymously, or under male or gender neutral pseudonyms. This was because of the harassment they experienced themselves, or witnessed in others, when they originally set out to write as a woman in tech.

So, I suspect that women writing about getting women into tech is one of the few ways that they feel comfortable publicly contributing to their field (even if not from angle they may have originally preferred).

[gurkendoktor]

Why would women be harassed for blogging about programming, but not for meta-blogging about the experience of being a female programmer (as the OP)? Is one really less dangerous than the other?

[4bpp]

The question what kind of harassment we are talking about seems pretty relevant here. Stories such as http://tech.mit.edu/V136/N9/harassment.html seem to suggest that overbearing, desperate romantic attention (often followed by lashing out when the advances inevitably turn out to be futile) generally is counted as such. In that light, I find the fashionable narrative about boys getting angry about cooties in their club to be somewhat questionable - what if the "unwanted attention" rather than the "sheer malice" type of harassment constitutes the bulk of it?

I imagine the typical perpetrator in that case is a man with negligible romantic experience, who is not particularly attractive, lives in a social environment with a 10:1 M:F ratio and statistically may well be encountering someone of the opposite sex who actually nominally has something nontrivial in common with them for the first time. The "something in common" part is contingent on actually signalling being a capital-p Programmer culturally (e.g. by blogging about programming), rather than someone who appears to be closer to a social activist who just happens to have a job in programming (and might as well be the secretary staffing the front desk for the purpose of commonalities, as far as the would-be harasser can see).

Grasping at straws inevitably ensues, and there are sufficiently many around that some don't react gracefully when the straws snap.

[huherto]

Perhaps the elephant in the room is the large number of young men in our profession that feel desperately lonely.

[Cthulhu_]

It's not related to the job per se though, it's more about personality / character (and there was another word but I forgot, er, words); people in IT and software development tend to lean more towards the introvert spectrum, the socially awkward, the physically less fit, etc. That + choosing to spend more time at a computer instead of interacting with people IRL (doesn't have to be that much even) causes a gap in development.

Of course, #NotAllDevelopers; I feel like I'm somewhere in between (but in part because of some effort on my own), and my company has quite a few developers that lean towards extroversion.

The problem in this case is that when someone steps upon a soapbox on the internet, they reach an audience of potentially millions; even if 0.00001% is a bit er, maladjusted, that's still enough for a few people to start making that kind of comment or show that kind of behaviour. Even if 99% of people were well-behaved, the 1% could still cause shit. And that's not easy to deal with.

[snowwrestler]

Lots of people feel desperately lonely, not just in programming.

But one of the modern expectations of a professional work environment is that people can manage how they express their emotions. Screaming and hitting because of anger is not permitted; similarly, harassing and touching because of lust is not permitted either.

I actually don't think that programmers are that much worse than other professions in this respect. We just talk about programmers more than lawyers or soldiers here, because most folks here are programmers or interested in programming.

[Lawtonfogle]

Harassing and touching shouldn't be and isn't permitted, but asking someone out on dates is pretty common (even if maybe it shouldn't be). The problem is that a mere question can seem like harassment when the ratio of askers to askees becomes too skewed.

There is also the issue that what is socially acceptable behavior depends upon characteristics which we do not want to admit. The difference between creepy and acceptable behavior is sometimes not found in the behavior itself, but in things like the race or appearance of the one engaging in the behavior.

[snowwrestler]

Asking someone out on a date is not harassment, and it's fine if done maturely. Generally that means you take one, at most two shots and then if the other person turns you down, you drop it.

What's not ok is constantly commenting on a person's appearance or clothes, making sex-related jokes or comments in front of the person, staring at them constantly, questioning them about their love life or sex life, etc.

A lot of that stuff falls into the "harmless in a social situation" category, but is on the wrong side of the line for a professional environment. But, that is the sort of stuff that is often permitted, tolerated, or insufficiently discouraged by managers, especially folks who perceive work as a social setting, or want to believe it is a social setting.

[cuckcuckspruce]

Let me say that I agree with you, but that being lonely doesn't excuse their behavior (nor am I trying to say that's what you were implying).

[huherto]

Yes. I am definitely not excusing the behavior.

[cpfohl]

Really? And that's anyone else's problem but their own because...?

Sorry, learning social skills, learning to manage your time so you can meet people, etc. is not the job of an employer or a profession as a whole.

I'm sure there's plenty of lonely garbage men (purposely phrased as "men"), but no one's suggesting that the public works departments should be ensuring there's more women in the departments for their men to hang out with and fall in love with.

[Lawtonfogle]

>Sorry, learning social skills, learning to manage your time so you can meet people, etc. is not the job of an employer or a profession as a whole.

Didn't learn job skills, wasted a free k to 12 education, made bad financial decisions? Here, let society help you. We'll tax people to help fund a social safety net because there should be a basic standard of living.

Didn't develop social skills? LOL, LOSER! Why don't you try to teach yourself some social skills. You deserve to be alone until you improve yourself.

Crass and perhaps too blunt, but people should be able to get the basic idea of this double standard.

[gurkendoktor]

That's a good point. It only applies if you know your blog's audience in real-life (university, workplace, meet-ups etc), but I guess that's actually the common case. I wouldn't know, I'm not a blogger :)

[vertex-four]

Women are harassed when they do both, but as a general rule women who are willing to put themselves out to be harassed are involved in politics in the first place, thus the willingness of women who are willing to write at all to write about the political subject that is being a woman. "If I'm going to be harassed for writing anything, I might as well write about something that only someone with my perspective can write."

You'll also tend to find that women who blog about tech tend to hide their gender a bit more or post on community blogs, or their posts about tech will be on a blog with a wider scope.

[ZeroGravitas]

I think the unfortunate truth is that they'll get harassed either way.

But, if you restrict your blogging to the arcane aspects of database replication or whatever, then you can "pass" as a man.

This option isn't really available if you are blogging your experience "as a woman in tech" so this self-selects for people who can cope with abuse, are already receiving so much they won't notice any extra, or that think it's worth it to be a visible example to others.

[amelius]

> I think the unfortunate truth is that they'll get harassed either way.

Are women in tech harassed more than "average" women? I wonder if this is true both in real life and online.

[untog]

I'm pretty sure they get harrassed for both, but it's possible to write a tech blog in a gender neutral way, while it is not possible to write a "my gendered experience in tech" post in a gender neutral way.

[rndstr]

Males do not have the option to write a post about «being a female programmer». This does not pose a threat for the insecure males but a well-written post about tech does.

[EliRivers]

Why would women be harassed for blogging about programming

There are a great many total dickheads on the internet. Really. It's hard to comprehend just how many utter dickheads are running around out here. The exact reasons why? I've never really understood all of it. Some of it is because it makes them feel like big men, showing off to their dickhead friends; I've seen them come back to crow about it and they seem to get some kind of approval from their peers.

[Ntrails]

> There are a great many total dickheads on the internet.

I really hate this line of thought. The internet is not a different place to the real world, and the truth is that there are a great many people in your town/city/country/world etc who are kinda obnoxious.

[tbrake]

> The internet is not a different place to the real world

In certain vague, slightly pointless ways (i.e. "it's just people doing things on a thing" ) they're exactly the same, sure.

The specifics of what is possible in terms of breadth and time are vastly different though.

With regards to the topic at hand - and assuming I am a jerk - I can find 50 different programming blogs and write sexist epithets in the comments in ten seconds flat.

I cannot do that in the real world to 50 different people in that time frame nor with the same lack of repercussion.

[geon]

> The internet is not a different place

People act differently on it, though.

[EliRivers]

I've never seen anyone (outside a playground) identify a woman talking about something, run over to her shouting "stUPiD BitCH geT baCk iN tHe kiTCHeen!! lol lol lol!!" before returning to his chums for admiration and approval.

The effect does happen, but in a far more insidious way.

[tim333]

Yeah but the internet is more anonymous.

[douche]

If you act like a total dickhead in real-life, you're apt to get your teeth knocked in, which tends to modulate dickheadsian behaviors.

[coredog64]

I would also add that it's easier to be a dickhead online. You don't have to be particularly witty in real-time, and once you've gotten a working schtick, what wit you do have can be replicated via copy-n-paste.

[geofft]

There are a great many total dickheads in the real world, but in the real world, it is much more difficult to mask your gender than on the internet.

For a good account of total dickheads (in a nerdy subculture, no less) in meatspace, see http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming... If this were online, I bet the author would have assumed a gender-neutral / default-to-male pseudonym in a heartbeat.

[tomp]

You haven't really answered parent's question.

[EliRivers]

Perhaps I need to repeat it in fewer words; "because they gain peer approval by doing it".

I also edited what I said to remove some of the additional discussion and data, to make it simpler to see where I said it was for peer approval.

[OJFord]

Those 'meta-blogging' are probably more likely to be resilient to the harassment, seeing it as something they're already fighting.

In technical writing, I imagine you'd just think "I don't want that in the comments [or to deal with moderating them]".

I definitely agree that the answer is to just shut up about being inspiring, and be inspiring. (To any future CS student - not just women/schoolgirls!)

[mcv]

My impression is that some men (trolls, MRAs, you know the type) are uncomfortable with women talking about technical topics, but have no problem as long as they restrict themselves to "women's issues", which would probably includes "women in tech".

[zo1]

Really, you're clumping "Men's Rights Activists" with trolls and saying that they are uncomfortable with women talking about technical topics? That is very blatantly stereotyping.

[cuckcuckspruce]

You've run into the "it's okay when we do it!" mentality here from the poster you're responding to. In their mind, stereotyping, prejudging, and wildly generalizing is completely and totally wrong, a crime on the level of hate speech and misogyny, but they will engage in stereotyping, prejudging, generalizing, and demonizing groups that they disagree with because in their mind they're fighting the good fight, and only bad people would disagree with them.

[mcv]

Where am I prejudging groups on who they are? I'm only calling people out on their behaviour: the people who attack women who speak about tech. I'm labeling them trolls and MRAs, because I think those are the most likely motivations for why people might specifically attack women.

Of course there are plenty of trolls who are concerned with entirely different things, and of course there are MRAs who don't attack women like that, but I'm at a loss about what other groups would be motivated specifically to shut down women who speak about tech or similar topics.

[cbsmith]

There's also a number of them who probably skip over "women's issues" articles. Likely not enough though...

[chris_wot]

Ever heard of GamerGate?

[cuckcuckspruce]

I can't say that I have. Educate me.

[chris_wot]

Google it.

[facepalm]

I'm not convinced that the tech bloggers get harassed because they are female. Look at any hacker news discussion and things can get heated quickly, irrespective of gender. Look at the classic "Apple vs PC" wars and so on. For any technical opinion you voice, you will find scores of people who dislike it intensely (Java vs Ruby, is JavaScript a serious programming language, is agile stupid...).

[kqr]

I don't mind being harassed for preferring Emacs over Vim – it's a choice, after all. I can argue rationally for why you are wrong if you contradict me.

I do mind being harassed for being a man rather than a woman – that's not something I chose. I was born that way. I can't change that nor can I argue rationally for why I decided to be that way.

[Lawtonfogle]

>it's a choice, after all.

What about religion. It is an interesting intersection of 'is a choice' and 'protected demographic'. And why should it be any more acceptable to harass someone for what they choose? Is it more acceptable to discriminate against a Hispanic individual for choosing to identify with their heritage (a choice) than to discriminate against them for being Hispanic (not a choice)? Both seem wrong to me.

>that's not something I chose. I was born that way.

What about those who are of a different gender/sex than they were born? What about people who choose to change their gender?

Even your response itself can be an issue, as there is an implication that others are born a given gender and cannot change it.

[kqr]

> What about those who are of a different gender/sex than they were born? What about people who choose to change their gender?

If you actually speak to these people, they will inform you they didn't "change" their gender. What you are referring to is the practise of fixing the body to conform to the expectations of the gender they were born with.

[Lawtonfogle]

They changed the gender that society assigned them with. And on some level you might be able to say they changed the gender of their body to match the gender of their mind (depending upon where you fall on the mind/brain/body terminology).

[facepalm]

Well if the comments are like "shut up, woman, you can not know anything about this", I agree with you. I am just not sure that is the way it is - or if it is just the usual critical comments and women think they get especially bad comments.

[stepvhen]

Just because you're not convinced doesn't mean it isn't happening. Why would somebody, a lot of people, an awful lot, say X is happening if it wasn't? And why default on somebody lying instead of believing them, or at least giving them the benefit of the doubt?

[cuckcuckspruce]

>Why would somebody, a lot of people, an awful lot, say X is happening if it wasn't?

To push an agenda. Take as an example people that claim that video games are responsible, either partially or wholly, for an increase in violence. There is no definitive link between violent video games and violence, especially as the violent crime rate in the US has been falling for decades now. The people leading this crusade generally do not like games and feel that their disapproval and dislike means that other people shouldn't get to experience them.

[facepalm]

I don't think they are lying, just that their perception might be wrong. Or we are only getting half the story - what I often read is women claiming they get hate for being women online, when really they get hate for being radical feminists and telling random people on the internet they are assholes, for example (not saying that is the case here).

I haven't talked to any of them directly, so I don't know who is "somebody, a lot of people, an awful lot"? How many is "an awful lot", what do you reckon? 1-10, 10-100, 100-1000, 1000-10000? Millions? Maybe if I had more firsthand information, it would change my mind.

[FilterSweep]

There could also be discrepancy in "what exactly is harassment."

This came up when Sarah Sharp quit developing on the Linux Kernel due to 'abuse' from Torvalds [0]. A prevailing notion was that this language was necessary for everyone working in the kernel space.

I've also seen commenters on HN get torn to pieces because their javascript benchmarks ~5-7% slower than the "optimal" solution. Harassment is often based on opinion.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10338094

[facepalm]

That's what my original comment was about - the "harassment" might not be because of their gender, but just "normal" tech discussion that they aren't used to.

[Cthulhu_]

What the other commenters are saying I agree with; language or editor choice is about, well, language or editor choice; gender is about who someone is. It's the ad hominem fallacy, basically. Of course, similarly when someone makes a post about e.g. ruby or emacs, adding "as a X in tech" instantly makes it (to a lot of readers) about the person, not the tech.

Maybe more posts should start with "As a man in tech" or something. In gender-skewed areas, removing gender from posts (along with the assumption of what gender wrote it) would maybe be preferable. But, IDK.

[facepalm]

As I said, it is not clear to me that the women were attacked for their gender. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, I don't have enough information.