“Women in tech”: what gives?

(Long post alert!)

The meme is old but the current phase may well have started with Tereza’s idea of starting an XX Combinator, an incubator for women entrepreneurs. New York based VC, Fred Wilson gave the idea wings on his blog. He was then quoted in a now-widely discussed Wall Street Journal article, in which Rachel Sklar criticised TechCrunch. That riled TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington who wrote a post arguing why women mustn’t blame men for their relatively scarce numbers in the tech entrepreneurs community. In my view, Arrington highlights a key point about women not putting themselves forward enough. It is borne out by many people’s experience, including people like Robert Scoble’s, who invite women and are open to approaches, but have seen few women turn up or promote themselves. A more specific – and actionable – point was made by Alan Patrick, who says that at the moment the low numbers of women may be a flowrate problem. Spoken like a true engineer, I say. Now before you point out that I have overwhelmingly quoted men’s point of view on the issue so far, here are some other views. From women. Cindy Gallop says nobody is blaming men, and that systemic solutions are needed. Jamelle Bouie writes “try harder” is not the answer, adding another voice to the chorus calling for systemic solutions.

So far so motherhood-and-apple-pie. Don’t we all know that systemic solutions are needed? We do. Don’t we all know that women are different from men – no implied normative labelling there – and therefore different approaches may be needed? We do. In all the widely read and most shared posts I cite above, we hear only three creative ideas: Scoble and Arrington asking women to come forward, and Tereza proposing an investment fund for women. I like Tereza’s idea, but as a minority myself, I am no fan of ghetto solutions or “specialist” offerings. I do not believe that positive discrimination of any kind helps women. Nor does positive discrimination or special dispensation of any kind help promote the cause of inclusiveness, going beyond gender segregation.

I also believe that “systemic solutions” have their place but can we really afford to sit around for another 25-30 years for these solutions to take effect? Calling for systemic solutions is also a get-out-of-jail-free card of sorts. Like the trolley problem, it makes it possible for us to distance ourselves from the myriad of moral dilemmas and the choices we make in our daily lives. What is needed is for us to take steps – in our families, in our neighbourhoods, in our communities – to ensure we capture the attention of young girls and attract them to science and maths for careers in science and technology.

Here’s my take on the issue. Most of it is borne out of my own experience as an engineer who diversified and has run her own business focusing on technology-led businesses for a decade now. All of the following requires us – who are upset by the state of “women in tech” – to make different decisions in our lives.

Agree on Definitions. And avoid self-limiting boundaries.

“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms”, said Socrates. Yes, another man, I note. One of the egregious things about this debate bubbling at the moment is that “women in tech” is mostly being narrowly interpreted as “women entrepreneurs who start companies, typically in the USA, and seek venture funding”. Isn’t that too limiting?

There are, for instance, numerous women biologists and with much innovation happening at the cusp of disciplines, physicists and engineers will find themselves working with these biologists with their special expertise. Are these not “women in tech”? An estimated 30% of engineers employed in India’s private sector are women. Granted not all of them start companies, but are they not “women in tech”? What about women leaders of science and technology driven businesses? Some, it may surprise you, did not have degrees in science at all. Are they not “women in tech”?

While the lament of women being relatively fewer in science and technology is not misplaced, the dimensions of that lament can be put in perspective, if we define “women in tech” more broadly. The broader perspective will also lend itself to more creative and wide-ranging possibilities for addressing the issue.

Oh, by way of some data, here are Fierce Biotech’s top 10 women in biotechnology – a “tech industry” that needs a solid grasp of science as well as of business cycles. The list does not include one of my picks for most inspiring women in tech: Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, founder CEO of Biocon, an Indian biotech behemoth.

Eschew early gender stereotyping.

In the 18 years since I graduated from engineering, many of my friends have had children. I have had the chance to observe the children closely. With some stellar exceptions – and I have a working hypothesis for that, which I may write about another time  – most of my well-educated, professional friends have proceeded to imbue gender stereotypes in their children pretty early on. Girls are co-opted into baking, while boys are given errands including things like fixing their sisters’ bikes or polishing shoes. What’s wrong with baking? Well, nothing – I bake most weekends – since baking is a highly controlled chemistry experiment. But also one, where one pays a heavy price for tinkering and taking risks with the recipe. What has that got to do with girls in science? Well, research suggests that girls not being encouraged to tinker is directly linked to their not choosing science, maths and engineering subjects.

Now think of all the activities that are stereotypically considered “girlie” and “boy stuff”. Baking, cooking, sewing, knitting and most care duties, while allowing for some creativity, are not about tinkering. But computer games, opening and mending things, fixing bicycles, repairing fuses etc all require a lot of tinkering. Early gender stereotyping in bringing up girls does them no favours, if we are to address the “flowrate” problem of girls in science and technology.

What about my own experience? I didn’t tinker much as a child, but I was always allowed to be an apprentice to my father, who did tinker an awful lot. I learnt much by observing and then much more when I started living away from home at age 17. I have learnt to curb some of my desire to open things up but I can confidently say that I know intimately the insides of my car as well as my piano thanks to my fiddling and tinkering. I tinker with complex problems and issues in my mind longer than most people which may explain why I do not churn out posts on “hot topics” while they are hot!

Do we need role models? If yes, think laterally.

I started studying engineering in 1988. In India. About 18% of my class was made up of girls. Barring 3, who then proceeded to read for an MBA, all have remained in the workforce in “tech” careers in engineering, and in research and teaching. Most are in Silicon Valley, some are in India. Most studied for second and third degrees, many after their marriages, some while bringing up their children and managing their careers. Nearly all have children. On first glance, all odds were stacked against the emergence of this longitudinal pattern. But it is there for us to see.

I have never sought or cared for role models but if I had to pick, these women would be my role models. They remain committed to science and technology not only in their careers, but also take an open-minded approach to other pursuits they have undertaken in their lives. These, to me, are “women in tech”. Because they show how it is possible to be one. They can, and I have no doubt, do influence young girls around them positively.

For my part, I decided I wanted to be an engineer when I was about 8. I had, of course, been tinkering as an apprentice to my father. But more to the point, I followed the example of an older male cousin. He is everything I wanted, and still want, to be: an engineer, a sharp brain-box, a gifted cook, a whiz with a sewing machine (!), a talented musician. He now has two girls of his own – both are “women in tech” via engineering and medicine. One has recently started her own business in Canada. I find them inspiring and consider myself fortunate that I can mentor them and participate in their journeys.

Role models needn’t be far-away exotic characters about whom we read in magazines. They need to be picked from our lives. For their ability to show what is possible, and for their ability to mentor and guide young girls. The gender of the role model, I believe, is less important than what a young girl can learn from the role model.

Negotiate better to remove barriers in adult life, aka men and women need to cooperate.

I am not making this up. Women scientists do more housework than male scientists. But it is also true that male scientists regret limiting their parenthood choices than women scientists do. Sylvia Ann Hewlett’s research has found that at 40, 31% of men are childless. Her earlier research had found that 40% of successful women at 40 were childless. “So what?, I hear you ask. Well, perhaps women need to understand and respect that life for men in science and technology – and business – isn’t a bed of roses either. They make sacrifices too. In other words, there are some common pain points for men and women, and sustainable change can be better effected if solutions to these pain points are sought jointly.

For women already in the workplace, it is important to recognise that before we can negotiate harder and better deals for ourselves at work and outside our homes, we first need to negotiate better and fairer deals for ourselves at home. With the men in our lives. If we are lucky, we already have relationships and friendships based on common values. These relationships give us advice on and insight into complexities and motivations of people we meet in work situations.

In other words, women need to cooperate. With men. Women need sponsors and champions. To invest their time, money and social capital into our ideas. And to avoid the negative vibes that sometimes dominate women-only groups.

Accept that men and women are different. Life is better for it. Now let’s enable the choices these differences foster.

In a conversation with Alan Patrick (whom I mentioned earlier), I said to him: “Women have lives, men have jobs. Fact.” While I readily admit to the shade of hyperbole in that statement, it does contain much truth. Most women I know – including those in science and technology – seem to have rich lives. They have fulfilling, if sometimes challenging, work lives; they have relationships and families; they have rich social lives; they have outside interests such as culture or sport. Most men however have relatively simplified lives where work and weekends feature heavily. It is not because men don’t try. But my working hypothesis is that it is because men are worse victims of gender stereotyping than women are. It must be tiring for men to live up to these negative stereotypes.

May be to enhance the numbers of “women in tech”, we need to show them the possibility of a rich tapestry of careers. And we need to work to create structures – investment funds, mentoring programmes, whatever it takes – to enable such possibilities. These possibilities may not necessarily follow a set pattern but must allow for women’s different priorities. As life goes, women’s fertile years coincide with their early career years too. It makes sense, where possible, if women wish to start companies or businesses later in their lives, perhaps in their 30s or 40s.

I recognise that not all of these ideas will prove popular. But as a person who sees possibilities in cusps, confluences and convergences, I believe sustainable solutions to the “women in tech” problem will require us to take conscious, mindful, sometimes difficult decisions every day. For a long time. Now would be a good time to start.

Late edit: some excellent articles by women – and men – I found after publishing (I don’t have to agree with all I list below/ disagreement sharpens thinking!):

Stubbornella on Women in technology

Aparna on Empowerment begins at home

Jezebel on What do “where are the women” shitstorms achieve?

Leah Culver on Is there a gender divide in start-ups?

Jon Pincus gives some actionable advice to Arrington

JP Rangaswamy muses about inclusion in technology and discusses anchoring-and-framing

Rachel Sklar’s post on the current wave of the meme

Suzanne Lucas on taking responsibility

Geoff Livingston on mindfulness to find female speakers

18 thoughts on ““Women in tech”: what gives?

  1. I’m a woman in tech. I’m a paraprofessional in charge of the IT in an elementary school. I don’t have a computer science or engineering degree (although I do have a degree), and I don’t write code. But I consider myself a woman in tech.


  2. I have been a woman in tech for twenty years now, recently authoring technical books and doing consulting. (Since I am the CEO of my itsybitsy company, I suppose that makes me the kind of female geek Techcrunch cares about, too. Yeah, whatever… )

    Part of the problem with girls seeing themselves doing technical things seems based in how we think about them. For example, you say:
    “Now think of all the activities that are stereotypically considered “girlie” and “boy stuff”. Baking, cooking, sewing, knitting and most care duties, while allowing for some creativity, are not about tinkering. But computer games, opening and mending things, fixing bicycles, repairing fuses etc all require a lot of tinkering. Early gender stereotyping in bringing up girls does them no favours, if we are to address the “flowrate” problem of girls in science and technology.”

    But, I can draft a clothing pattern from an image in my head – yeah, there’s some engineering for you – and have tinkered with cooking enough to write a cookbook. Fixing a fuse is as simple as screwing in a light bulb, certainly not a technical activity, while gaming CAN be about tinkering but is not necessarily (and assuming that gamers are tinkering is giving far too much credit to many of them).

    I also believe that, done correctly, positive discrimination works as an *interim* solution. You can’t level uneven playing field by adding same amount of dirt to both sides; at this point that field needs serious work….


  3. The definition aspect is big. Thank you for bringing that up.

    And yes, negotiation and a fight to change perceptions is one that every man and woman should undertake themselves. We need a huge cultural shift – one that lets the girls tinker more and one where every woman is negotiating better to remove barriers.

    And not at all sure about segregating women too much at all. Even today, as an entrepreneur myself, it is inspiring to meet and interact with women who are in the same space – but in the end, even I remain selfish – I’d rather interact with the best people and brains, irrespective of their genders.

    Of course, as a woman, I will go the extra length to mentor and help another woman.

    It is complicated, to say the least 🙂


  4. Thoughtful post.

    “But my working hypothesis is that it is because men are worse victims of gender stereotyping than women.”

    In the first world or among very affluent women, maybe. Where I grew up, women tended to have more uni-dimensional lives, with family as the focus. Even work was described as a duty toward family, rather than a source of independent achievement or fulfillment.

    And I disagree that all positive discrimination makes people worse off. An example might be special programs for children particularly inclined or precociously gifted. Similarly, as you highlight, men and women face particularly gendered problems (disparity in housework or disparity in spending time with kids). I do not see why different incentives or programs responsive to gendered priorities are necessarily harmful (after all an after-school program aimed specifically at getting girls to “tinker” would be a special accommodation, but would be beneficial according to your analysis).

    “In other words, women need to cooperate. With men.”

    Are you singling women out as non-cooperators or merely emphasizing the value of bidirectional empathy? The latter is a fair point, while the former seems a rather lopsided and somewhat a historical analysis.

    @NK: Thanks for your note.

    Even where women’s lives are uni-dimensional with a focus on the family, a closer inspection shows that women protect their turf just as much as men do. Cooking and childcare become a point of control for women in circumstances where they control little else. It is hard to figure from your pseudonym and your email where you might have grown up. But at least in India, where I grew up, “triya charitra” is a well-documented concept. Women are not always hapless victims of their circumstances. They can and do change the game to their advantage. The trouble lies where they start to pass on their thus-limited view of the world and possibilities to their girl children.

    On the second part of your comment: the title of that section is what I mean to say. Or as you put it so well: “merely emphasizing the value of bidirectional empathy”. The effort in practice will have to be lopsided – women will have to work harder using all our real and fabled differences to negotiate a fairer deal for ourselves – because as it happens, things are too.


  5. Two of your points that really resonated with me are the need to eschew early gender stereotyping and the need for women to negotiate fairer conditions at home. In the Indian condition, marriages are arranged based on so many other factors – caste, income, family background – that I feel few women can really negotiate fairer labour division at home, although this is changing. in many ‘typical’ marriages I’ve seen, its understood that childcare is the woman’s problem…


  6. Sometimes it helps to think of ‘tinkering’ as ‘tinkering’. Perhaps because girls, even at a young age, are nurtured to come up with ‘socially useful’ products, the recipes for doing so are rather narrow. They do get creative, but they do not think of this creativity as ‘tinkering’. (Rather, it’s limited to improving the output – not as a means of understanding ‘how things work’ – even if the knowledge gained in both streams is rather similar.)

    Equally though, even if boys learn to play around with things and tinker, many of them do not really end up in tech these days anyway.

    It’s the negotiation that is the killer I think. While negotiating as an adult is one thing, negotiating as a child – quite another. So much of this is dependent on how parents raise their children. Not that nurturing makes all the difference. I know of women in tech who have overcome odds such as parents not allowing them to study science etc. By the time you’re 20 – a lot of your career choices have been made. Maybe we do need to focus on women in their 30s rather than just thinking of young girls in schools. But it’ll involve getting them to think differently about their careers and building some confidence.


  7. Shefaly,
    This is ann excellent post and as someone who has been in “Tech” for over 15 years, you are right on the dot with all of your perspectives! On your “Eschew early gender stereotyping”, I have found it often frustrating. I have a 5 yr old who wanted a “solar system and space themed” birthday party after reading Seymour Simon’s science series! And when we went to the store to pick out things, all I found was two neatly-separated aisles one full of transformers, star wars, superheroes and another filled with tinker bell and princesses. So even a child who shows a natural interest and flair for science has to fight peer pressure and this social phenomenon from age 3 onwards!

    I also observe that the numbers are very skewed in tech jobs. You find higher numbers of “program managers”, “account execs”,”project managers” and “support engineers” and “programmers” but fewer and fewer architects, technology consultants, senior analysts etc. Again the numbers are skewed in the number of quantitative analysts vs qualitative analysts and researchers. The tem “Tech” is a large spectrum and in some quarters this skewed ratio is also referred to as the “lower numbers of women in tech”. I am looking forward to a day where I see these ratios reducing as well!


  8. I’m only halfway through reading this so far (good stuff!) but had to say- my daughter has tinkered like crazy from a very early age indeed… in mostly the traditional female areas you mentioned- the kitchen, the art/craft room, around the home etc. She literally invented recipes aged four and made dresses aged 12 with no teaching (I can’t make dresses myself). The downside though- an enormous amount of mess all over the place! I spent years mostly clearing stuff up, or it seemed that way (lots of funny stories though!). But the answer to that is to get help, from the whole family &/or the cleaner!

    Whereas my son’s computer games don’t need cleaning up at all! I’m thinking the average dad’s garage workshop may well be more of a mess than the average mum’s kitchen, as men often care less about tidiness. Some homes are tyrannies of tidiness- highly uncreative for small people learning about the material world. But boys very likely have more areas of acceptable mess than girls.

    Conclusion: tinkering= wonderful, absolutely. Important for all humans! Girls do seem to be more tyrannised by tidiness therefore disallowed from learning creativity. Being “messy” is considered normal for boys, unfeminine for girls.


  9. Great posts. We also need to deal with tech magazines obsession with bikini girls which make it pretty clear that tech is for boys. Certainly put my niece off – she was very keen for a while then saw T3 magazine and decided tech was not for her. Many pc mags seem to assume you are a bloke and this can be pretty wearing.

    @Emma: Thanks for your comment. That is a very valid point. And tragic too.


  10. I am not a woman in tech – a normal, harried working mum and i think some of the points you raise apply across the board.
    I would go one step further on the bit on ‘negotiate fairer conditions at home’ – my experience is that if you don’t take your job/career seriously, no one else in the family will. The problem is that we consider this part negotiable – if concerned dramatis personae know that it is as important and dare I say, non-negotiable, as the maths monday quiz, they work around it.

    Ah – the issue of gender stereotyping – my only credential for commenting on this is that amongst my twin daughters, one plays football with the boys every evening and the other collects fallen flowers, so perhaps we have made some efforts to minimise stereotyping. Yes, it exists, however, my experience suggests that there are some natural inclinations kids have – being an Enid Blyton fan myself, it was the natural place to start all my kids for reading – my girls ‘strayed’ naturally into some fairy and magic puppy series and my son into horror.

    Having said that, I have rewritten some fairy tales for my girls – so Cinderella wasn’t the prettiest at the ball – she was the coolest, mixing with everyone and no, she didn’t leave her shoe behind – the Prince went door to door lookin for the smartest girl to talk to!


  11. Pingback: Quora

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s