Why we don't need more Lobsters in IT

Based on my experience, the biggest barrier to getting more women in tech isn't men, but lobsters.

Allow me to explain.

When I was little, my mom told me that "women are like lobsters." Which was pretty confusing since a) she said it in Spanish and my Spanish isn't that great and b) it's a pretty random metaphor. She went on to explain: lobsters in a pot claw at each other so no individual can climb over them to get out of the pot, as a result, they all stay at the same level. And boil to death.

That's a pretty intense and bleak metaphor for a 9 year old. (Or a 49 year old. Jeez).

Sure, SOME women (and men) can be petty and short-sighted wastes of space. There are some who would choose to let all women stagnate rather than see one woman rise above or outshine them. Notice my emphasis on some. Because some, is not all, and that's what I took from my mom's advice. I aspired to never be a lobster, and most women tend to be the opposite of that catty stereotype. We go out of our way to help other women learn, grow, and succeed. Because when we see a fellow woman succeed, it feels like a victory for all of us. And we understand that sometimes you need a shoulder to stand on to reach the top. I found this to be especially true in the tech community, as the entirety of women I've seen in this field actively encourage and support other women (and men)...

Then I read an article by Katy Sherman, head of Software Engineering at Premier Inc.

"I'm baffled by the discussion on how to lure girls into STEM, and specifically IT areas of higher education. Why would anybody try to equalize any industry to make it gender-balanced? [...] Do we want to attract more men into healthcare, human resources, retail, insurance, hospitality, accounting, education, and other traditionally female-dominated industries? And yet, the topic of girls in computer science classes and women in software companies seems to come up pretty often."

"My observations and my experience don't support the claim about entry barriers that IT industry supposedly creates for women. I am also skeptical about the glass ceiling in their career growth."

"The benefit of being one of the few female employees: you basically have a private restroom."

"Look up from the first and second levels of management and most likely you'll see all men[...] The good news is, the situation has changed and today many VPs and Senior VPs in IT are women. The bad news: the C-suite is still mostly men[...] I will be happy when one out of four senior executives is a woman. After all, that will reflect the level of interest women in our society seem to have in technology."

Hmm...

Ms. Sherman is right in the sense that we do need more women at the top. More CEOs, more board members, more Presidents and Vice Presidents. But it is baffling that she's separated the gap in women at the top from the gap at the bottom; they are both symptoms of ingrained bias. One is a reflection of the other.

To say we should aspire to a 1:4 rate of representation in the boardroom, as that fits the general interest level of women in tech compared to men,isn't in the same zip code as reality.

Far more than 25% of women are interested in tech, but many are either passively not encouraged, or actively discouraged from pursuing their interest. Perhaps she didn't have access to relevant statistics outside her own anecdotal experience? Hey, not everyone has a JSTOR subscription. (If you do, here, are, some, important papers), but we all have google. If sifting through resources is too much, I collected some bullet points:

• 66% of girls indicate interest in STEM from ages 6-12 - GirlsWhoCode.com
• Although that number dips in high school, girls still account for more than half of all Computer Science AP test-takers - ComputerScience.org
• "We still haven’t solved the problems that kept women out of science decades ago" - American Association of University Professors
• Female academics looking for a grant to support their research? Good luck with that: "Male[s] receive more than twice as much in funding" - BostonGlobe
• If w?omen collaborate, they are less likely to receive credit for their ideas when working with men. They also often need a male to reinforce their ideas for their contributions to be taken seriously. - Harvard, New York Times
• Women who choose to study STEM fields in college are disproportionally met with sexual harassment and assault from peers and superiors, rape remains pervasive and underreported - New York Times, US National Library of Medicine
• Some women make it past academia into careers, but don't aspire to leadership positions, citing "lack of mentoring and networks", "hostile culture", the pay gap, and again, sexual harassment and assault - Forbes.com
• Even women who make it through academia, go on to have successful careers, and want to be leaders are viewed unfavorably for being assertive or confident, or even exhibiting a desire to ascend the power ladder.
• Women perceived as smart are considered less attractive based on how close they are. As in a smart woman in the next room is less attractive than a smart woman on the other side of the world. SIGHT UNSEEN. (Yup, that's a real study).
• Men have trouble counting women, and typically perceive more gender parity than the reality. A room containing 17% women is perceived as being 50-50 while 33% women is viewed as too many, but women need to occupy 60-80% of a room to command 50% of the conversation - InTheseTimes.com (numerous studies cited)
• Study. after. study. proves both conscious & unconscious bias against women at all stages of the STEM career pipeline. Including perceived lower aptitudes in math or computing (despite no actual gap in skill) - Google Research, ScienceMag, Harvard, American Association of University Women (AAUW)
• Important to note for interviews, meetings, or anytime a woman speaks: people feel more comfortable interrupting us, despite "no significant changes in language based on speaker gender." If we do manage to talk for the same amount of time or less than males, it is perceived as women talking much more - Sage Journals, Cambridge
• With all things equal on a resume, do you think having a female name would be enough to make you less likely to a) get accepted to an academic STEM program? b) have your skills rated as valuable? c) get the job? d) all of the above? If you guessed all of the above: you're right! And my soul died a little - Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the USA.
• Once a woman manages to have a career, and aspires to leadership, they are more likely to be passed over for promotions (as Katy herself experienced!) under the assumption that women are on the "mommy-track" or less career-oriented than men. Regardless of whether or not they have or want children. Male promotions are not affected at a statistically significant level if they are fathers, in fact - they are more likely to get a "fatherhood bonus," while women's average wages decrease when having children. - The Bain survey, ThirdWay.org

If those bullet points were too much, here's a quick summary: for women who choose to pursue male-dominated careers, it is harder for us to get into the room where it happens. If we get there, our ideas are likely to be misattributed or not taken seriously, and we're more likely to be paid less for doing the same or superior work as male colleagues. At every turn our presence and voices are disproportionately over counted although we remain underrepresented. We are more likely to be targets of sexual abuse at work or at school by our peers and superiors. Considering the factors women face externally, they tend to devalue their skills more than men do, and not much has changed on this front since 1993. There are more factors preventing women from climbing the chain of command in general, including but not limited to being paid less and passed over for behavior that is encouraged and rewarded in men: like having a frickin baby. (And I recognize my own privilege here; I haven't gotten into the added struggles for women of color.)

Back when I was 30 and had a baby and a toddler, my manager informed me that one of my peers was promoted to a manager's position. "It was between him and you", he said. "But you are a mom, you probably wouldn't have taken the job anyway". I said nothing. I might have even nodded in agreement. But it bothered me for years, how he made the decision without asking me and used my kids as an reason for my non-promotion. - Katy Sherman

Ms. Sherman and others say we don't really need to encourage girls in IT. If girls don't succeed or don't make it to the CEO chair, they just didn't want it enough. I can't blame her for that opinion, since she has only personally experienced blatant sexism and misogyny twice in her career. She's allowed to doubt that a glass ceiling exists, and I'm happy her experiences have led her to believe that. But it doesn't invalidate the countless studies to the contrary, or statements of other women in tech who have personally faced more challenges than she has.

Anecdotal experience does not trump scientific evidence. I have never experienced a volcano eruption, but I'm pretty sure they exist: there is documentation.

Not having experienced sexism or misogyny doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The resources I quoted above are just scratching the surface. Women aren't comprising a minority in IT or boardroom positions simply because they aren't interested, and to say so is factually erroneous. If you think the way to get more women in leadership roles is actively discouraging them from entering IT in the first place, or encouraging the polyanna-esque assumption that girls will pursue STEM if they want to, that the only barrier in their way is their own level of interest, then you are misguided as best, and hampering progress at worst.

You don't get buildings without bricks.

At every step through the pipeline, women look for other women as inspiration and mentors (Forbes.com, Telegraph.uk). Executives don't appear from a void, every CTO was once a student, or intern, or junior developer; every building starts with a brick. So when women already in the field actively discourage others from joining them, women looking for a mentor are listening. It prevents more women from joining, advancing, and occupying leadership roles. For a woman at the head of a Software Engineering division at a substantial company to on the one hand say we need more women in the C-level suites, but on the other hand actively decline to lead women to join her at her level or below and citing their lack of interest as the only deterrent, is not going to help the junior developer looking up to her that is facing hurdle after hurdle. That's not the way to get more women to the top.

Women objectively face opposition in STEM at levels far greater than men. That's why it's important to encourage girls of every size, shape, and color, to pursue careers in IT, and STEM in general. Because a boy who loves this field just as much as she does will simply have an easier time advancing. Encouraging girls to pursue STEM if they already love it, in order to help them achieve despite the significant, documented bias against them, is not at all the same as luring girls "into something [they] don't like or enjoy just because somebody decided there's a gap and it has to be closed." That actually sounds more like sexual assault, a reason women drop out of IT more than men.

What disappoints me most about that article, is a woman had an opportunity to display true leadership. To validate the unique challenges women face, to encourage women to enter at the ground level, and to point them on a path to the top. Instead, she said we need more female executives, but since she hadn't experienced enough bias herself, it must not be real, and therefore women just don't want it enough. Plus she likes having a private bathroom, when there are hardly any other women to share it with.

In short: I don't mind encouraging more women to work in IT. I don't see a point in actively discouraging anyone from pursuing a career they want. Male teachers are important, so are female engineers, so are stay-at-home-parents. I view a crowded ladies room as a step towards a more diverse boardroom: our female students, engineers, founders and CEOs are all part of the same pipeline towards gender parity.

But then again, I'm no lobster.

Are you?

Rachel is a Full-Stack Web Developer who eats, sleeps and breathes code. (Just kidding, she never sleeps). You can find her on twitter as @RachelScodes or at a meetup for female alumni of her bootcamp (the FA of GA).