“Things you love are made with code.”
Google invested $50 million dollars in a “Made With Code” program to encourage girls to pursue computer science as a career. This is the culmination of three years of work with partners including Chelsea Clinton, Mindy Kaling, Girl Scouts USA, and the National Center for Woman and Information. The Made With Code website also offers resources and projects for children to learn how to code, discuss projects and lessons, and regional events. Google believes that it is important to encourage young girls to try coding, even if the person encouraging them doesn’t have a technical knowledge base.
I really, really admire Google’s initiative in trying to close the gender gap in the tech industry, and their heart is in the right place, but something feels amiss with their approach. For one, the primary colour in the Made With Code website is pink. Their examples include things like 3-D printing bracelets, fashion, and dance.
I am a woman, and I am an engineering student, but I feel extremely uncomfortable being identified as a woman in engineering. Whenever I am identified as a woman in engineering it is never good – I get invited to workshops, which is good, but I am made more cognizant of how I am a minority and therefore get special treatment and workshops and swag and stuff. I’d rather get swag based on my merits as a person – e.g. “A+++ work report”, “10/10 would hire again” – rather than my gender. Being referred to as a woman in engineering makes me remember that I will never be just a plain ol’ engineer. There is no “men in engineering” program. I am a strong, independent engineering student who don’t need no extra adjective.
This is not, by the way, a rant against the efforts of Women in Engineering here at UW. I appreciate that their work is valuable and useful in connecting women between programs to discuss issues unique to female engineers today (the other day, my friend said “Women in engineering have it easier, they have special scholarships for them” and I was all “I haven’t seen a cent of that”). However, the phrase “women in engineering” makes my skin crawl. Really, I wish it was “Gender Equality in Engineering” or something but WiE has probably already paid for all their swag and branding, so it’s too late.
An aside: what makes this different from the Toronto Catholic District School Board requiring a “Gay-Straight Alliance” to change its name to “Open Doors,” or the UW Chinese Student Association changing its name to the UW Multicultural Club? Well, a Gay-Straight Alliance explicitly recognizes the role of straight people in social change, wheras “Open Doors” is overly euphemistic. Meanwhile, the UW Chinese Student Association does host activities and gatherings for things that primarily Chinese people like, like Chinese karaoke and Chinese food. In contrast, Women in Engineering hosts talks and events that men in engineering would definitely benefit from. While both the UWCSA and WiE expicitly include in their invitations that non-Chinese people and non-women are encouraged to attend, WiE should take a step further to the name of their organization.
Anyway, luckily, for the most part, my gender isn’t an issue, with a few glaring exceptions. Employers refer to me and other female co-ops as “girls”, usually benignly, but one wonders if they refer to male co-ops as “boys”. Another time, I was subjected to a minor sermon by a kindly, middle-aged lab technician about how women and men should reproduce and start families, and that homosexuals were therefore unnatural. And being a lowly co-op serving directly under the lab tech, I shamefully admit that I could do nothing but agree.
Google’s Made With Code is preaching to the choir. Educators and mentors who seek these resources are doing as much as they can to get girls interested in computer science. It is educators who don’t that are the problem. Well-meaning as they may be, not all high school and elementary teachers see the importance of presenting balanced examples of men and women in different career roles, including engineering, or a variety of applications for CS, ranging from robots to life sciences to textile manufacturing.
Google should try implementing a top-down approach instead of a bottom-up approach: focus on those who can directly influence students on a regular basis, instead of trying to reach out to millions of students. One memorable teacher makes infinitely more difference than a weekend conference or a workshop.
Furthermore, what about the general ‘dudely’ attitude of CS? Tech conferences are rife with reports of sexual harassment, sexist jokes, or booth babes. While one appreciates female eye candy, one wonders why no attempt is made to appeal to individuals whose preferences extend in the opposite direction. Future male CS professionals may also benefit from exposure to more traditionally feminine applications of code. Why should women be the only ones trying to enact change in an industry? Why should we have to dress less femininely, or “lean in” like demented pandas, or strive to act more aggressively and use more assertive body language – i.e. emulate men? Women are not the main cause of discrimination in science and technology.
And whatever the approach being chosen, Google should avoid explicitly referring to its young, female audience as young and female. The end result of their educational programs should be empowerment and knowledge. Being singled out for extra educational programs for being female reinforces an impressionable young person’s potential weakness and abnormality. A more gender-neutral approach, but inclusive of a wider range of applications for code to appeal to more students, would be better.
All in all, I am happy that Google feels that the dearth of women in CS is an issue worth at least $50 million, but I dislike that Google treats potential women in CS as a special interest group to be coddled with pink websites and 3-D printed jewellery.
Leave a Reply