I suggest reading this study into differences between genders in technical interviews, as it may give some insight into why there is such a disparity.
Long story short–When controlling for gender, women performed on-par with men, if not slightly better. The biggest difference between men and women was attrition: Men were more likely to pursue further tech interviews after a poor interview experience than women, by a wide margin.
I suspect a similar thing is taking place on SO. Men are more likely to continue using the site after a bad experience. The solution, of course, is to encourage everyone (because generalizations of behavior don't make them exclusive to a particular group) not to give up, and to help them build their confidence. Do not let a bad experience deter you–It is all part of the learning process.
Aside: I'm perfectly aware at how taboo it is to suggest that these differences may be behavioral, but whatever. I'm not going to feign ignorance in the face of actually trying to find constructive solutions to a problem that people otherwise yell angrily about while solving nothing
The thing about a bad experience is that it's not necessarily anyone's fault. No one is necessarily to blame. We are human and being wrong, told we didn't do well enough, or told we didn't do something right feels bad. Learning how to deal with this constructively as opposed to lashing out is something everyone should work on.
The thing about stackoverflow is that it's sometimes necessary to close questions, or point people to documentation that explains how to properly ask a question, and it's going to make people feel bad. You simply cannot moderate that away. You also cannot moderate every single comment and answer in an attempt to avoid unintended offense. It simply is not possible.
He/Him/His
I'm a Software Engineer and a teacher.
There's no feeling quite like the one you get when you watch someone's eyes light up learning something they didn't know.
So you see a study that seems to imply that women deal with a negative experience differently than men do (let's not get into the discussion of whether that's by their nature or due to the way they were nurtured), and your takeaway is not that "gee, maybe we should try to act more empathetic here so we don't alienate approximately half the population (that contains approximately half of the talent) and make the community a more pleasant place for all of us", instead your takeaway is that half the population needs to grow up and learn to deal with it?
That's exactly the toxic masculinity I hated growing up as a kid. Being told to "man up" and "stop being such a girl".
If half the world population has a hard time adjusting to a community that may be a sign that the community may have some room for improvement (rather than a sign that half the world just needs to "man up")
The thing about stackoverflow is that it's sometimes necessary to close questions, or point people to documentation that explains how to properly ask a question, and it's going to make people feel bad. You simply cannot moderate that away. You also cannot moderate every single comment and answer in an attempt to avoid unintended offense. It simply is not possible.
Of course, moderation is necessary for a healthy community, it's needed to protect from bullies and trolls, the problem arises when the moderation rules encourage bullyish and trollish behavior.
I've seen answers that were closed on SO that had helpful comments as to why they were closed with resources where the OP can find what they are looking for, but I've also seen answers that were simply downvoted and reported to oblivion without as much as a word to help the OP in the best case, and downright nasty comments in the worst.
To say that it simply is not possible is not true. I am a part of many communities and platforms (not least of which the one we are on now) that actively promote empathy and civility, where good behavior is rewarded by the community and bad behavior is shunned. contrast that with SO where these are the badges I am being encouraged to pursue now:
Yechiel K
@yechielk
If others "just have to learn your communication style" you're doing communication wrong...
To be clear, this study was conducted by a woman and she concluded that
while the attrition numbers aren’t great, I’m massively encouraged by the fact that at least in these findings, it’s not about systemic bias against women or women being bad at computers or whatever. Rather, it’s about women being bad at dusting themselves off after failing, which, despite everything, is probably a lot easier to fix.
Also, I never once said the solution was to "man up" or anything of that nature. To frame it in a way that paints me as sexist further illustrates my original point.
He/Him/His
I'm a Software Engineer and a teacher.
There's no feeling quite like the one you get when you watch someone's eyes light up learning something they didn't know.
Yes, I noticed the article was written by a woman, and if I was a woman that would be the conclusion I would take from the article as well (the alternative would be to leave the industry, as I would have no hope of changing it on my own).
As a man though, the lesson I take is WTH is wrong with this industry? Why can't we make an environment where women (and others who happen to be of the more sensitive type) feel more welcome for what they bring to the table rather than force them to mold to the environment?
And to clarify, this will make it an environment where everyone feels welcome. I don't know a single person who thrives on criticism and down-putting. At most, some people adjust to it better than others.
Also, I never once said the solution was to "man up" or anything of that nature.
Not quite in those words, but it was implied by the idea that when women have a harder time adjusting to negativity than men, the proposed solution was to have women emulate the men rather than having the men adjust their behavior.
If encouraging people to brush themselves off and to not give up will ultimately help them achieve their goals, then that is what I'm going to do. This aligns philosophically with the idea that you cannot change everyone else, you can only change yourself.
If you disagree that this is a good solution, that's fine. It's a difference of opinion. But a solution that involves baseless attacks on someone's character is not a solution.
He/Him/His
I'm a Software Engineer and a teacher.
There's no feeling quite like the one you get when you watch someone's eyes light up learning something they didn't know.
Yes, when a newbie comes to me and they are all discouraged because they were shot down by some nasty comment I have no choice but to tell them to brush it off and not to let a few jerks convince them that they are any less of a programmer.
That does NOT mean that there is nothing wrong with the community and that we should not try to change and make a more inclusive environment.
But a solution that involves baseless attacks on someone's character is not a solution.
I don't think anyone was attacking anyone's character, the attacks (if you want to call people's frustration that), were against the community and those insisting that the way it is is the way it should be.
I'm a developer who likes testing first, iterative processes, and refactoring, and I care about quality. I speak both C and Ruby with some facility, and enjoy both, which confuses some people.
We should strive to be welcoming, inclusive, and encouraging for people who make honest mistakes, and try to avoid driving them away with harsh responses.
We should encourage people to pursue their interests despite the fact there are unpleasant people in the world who try to shut them down.
We should not attack each other personally when discussing how to deal with the fact some people are easily discouraged when someone attacks them personally.
Learn from each other a bit, in other words, and be the change we'd like to see in the world.
By the way, while W. Brian Gourlie's manner is a bit brusque, I also found Yechiel Kalmenson's characterization of W's commentary as "toxic masculinity" pretty offensive. That, I'm pretty sure, is what primarily prompted W to respond negatively (with reference to "attacks on someone's character"), on a personal level, to what Yechiel said.
He/Him/His
I'm a Software Engineer and a teacher.
There's no feeling quite like the one you get when you watch someone's eyes light up learning something they didn't know.
I suggest reading this study into differences between genders in technical interviews, as it may give some insight into why there is such a disparity.
Long story short–When controlling for gender, women performed on-par with men, if not slightly better. The biggest difference between men and women was attrition: Men were more likely to pursue further tech interviews after a poor interview experience than women, by a wide margin.
I suspect a similar thing is taking place on SO. Men are more likely to continue using the site after a bad experience. The solution, of course, is to encourage everyone (because generalizations of behavior don't make them exclusive to a particular group) not to give up, and to help them build their confidence. Do not let a bad experience deter you–It is all part of the learning process.
Aside: I'm perfectly aware at how taboo it is to suggest that these differences may be behavioral, but whatever. I'm not going to feign ignorance in the face of actually trying to find constructive solutions to a problem that people otherwise yell angrily about while solving nothing
The thing about a bad experience is that it's not necessarily anyone's fault. No one is necessarily to blame. We are human and being wrong, told we didn't do well enough, or told we didn't do something right feels bad. Learning how to deal with this constructively as opposed to lashing out is something everyone should work on.
The thing about stackoverflow is that it's sometimes necessary to close questions, or point people to documentation that explains how to properly ask a question, and it's going to make people feel bad. You simply cannot moderate that away. You also cannot moderate every single comment and answer in an attempt to avoid unintended offense. It simply is not possible.
Wow.
So you see a study that seems to imply that women deal with a negative experience differently than men do (let's not get into the discussion of whether that's by their nature or due to the way they were nurtured), and your takeaway is not that "gee, maybe we should try to act more empathetic here so we don't alienate approximately half the population (that contains approximately half of the talent) and make the community a more pleasant place for all of us", instead your takeaway is that half the population needs to grow up and learn to deal with it?
That's exactly the toxic masculinity I hated growing up as a kid. Being told to "man up" and "stop being such a girl".
If half the world population has a hard time adjusting to a community that may be a sign that the community may have some room for improvement (rather than a sign that half the world just needs to "man up")
Of course, moderation is necessary for a healthy community, it's needed to protect from bullies and trolls, the problem arises when the moderation rules encourage bullyish and trollish behavior.
I've seen answers that were closed on SO that had helpful comments as to why they were closed with resources where the OP can find what they are looking for, but I've also seen answers that were simply downvoted and reported to oblivion without as much as a word to help the OP in the best case, and downright nasty comments in the worst.
To say that it simply is not possible is not true. I am a part of many communities and platforms (not least of which the one we are on now) that actively promote empathy and civility, where good behavior is rewarded by the community and bad behavior is shunned. contrast that with SO where these are the badges I am being encouraged to pursue now:
To be clear, this study was conducted by a woman and she concluded that
Also, I never once said the solution was to "man up" or anything of that nature. To frame it in a way that paints me as sexist further illustrates my original point.
Yes, I noticed the article was written by a woman, and if I was a woman that would be the conclusion I would take from the article as well (the alternative would be to leave the industry, as I would have no hope of changing it on my own).
As a man though, the lesson I take is WTH is wrong with this industry? Why can't we make an environment where women (and others who happen to be of the more sensitive type) feel more welcome for what they bring to the table rather than force them to mold to the environment?
And to clarify, this will make it an environment where everyone feels welcome. I don't know a single person who thrives on criticism and down-putting. At most, some people adjust to it better than others.
Not quite in those words, but it was implied by the idea that when women have a harder time adjusting to negativity than men, the proposed solution was to have women emulate the men rather than having the men adjust their behavior.
If encouraging people to brush themselves off and to not give up will ultimately help them achieve their goals, then that is what I'm going to do. This aligns philosophically with the idea that you cannot change everyone else, you can only change yourself.
If you disagree that this is a good solution, that's fine. It's a difference of opinion. But a solution that involves baseless attacks on someone's character is not a solution.
Yes, when a newbie comes to me and they are all discouraged because they were shot down by some nasty comment I have no choice but to tell them to brush it off and not to let a few jerks convince them that they are any less of a programmer.
That does NOT mean that there is nothing wrong with the community and that we should not try to change and make a more inclusive environment.
I don't think anyone was attacking anyone's character, the attacks (if you want to call people's frustration that), were against the community and those insisting that the way it is is the way it should be.
I think the takeaway here is that:
We should strive to be welcoming, inclusive, and encouraging for people who make honest mistakes, and try to avoid driving them away with harsh responses.
We should encourage people to pursue their interests despite the fact there are unpleasant people in the world who try to shut them down.
We should not attack each other personally when discussing how to deal with the fact some people are easily discouraged when someone attacks them personally.
Learn from each other a bit, in other words, and be the change we'd like to see in the world.
By the way, while W. Brian Gourlie's manner is a bit brusque, I also found Yechiel Kalmenson's characterization of W's commentary as "toxic masculinity" pretty offensive. That, I'm pretty sure, is what primarily prompted W to respond negatively (with reference to "attacks on someone's character"), on a personal level, to what Yechiel said.
Point taken.