These are questions for wise men with skinny arms

I finished this book and thought it was a great set of arguments that address a very toxic, now well publicized, aspect of Silicon Valley, and by connection young software and startup companies today. I didn’t have a good review of it other than to agree with it and to outline my own related experiences in this industry. What’s pushing me now to write this review is another negative review that takes the whole book out of context to try to justify the prevailing culture. The first half of the book is an extremely well researched and comprehensive history of the cultural roots that continues to influence Silicon Valley culture. The second half is mostly salacious gossip on the worst offenders named in the first, which cements the concepts of the first half with the details and consequences if you were unfamiliar with the reality of the industry. Sadly, I think this book will convince no one, as with most arguments that become political, both sides continue to talk past each other to argue different points. Because I think this book is both important and interesting I give it an A-.

So I’m not going to link to this other review, but I will be basing my review as counter-points to those arguments because otherwise, I’d just be making an incomplete summary of an already concise description in the first half of the book. The most common point that sounds like it counts against the situation described in Brotopia is that software follows most technical fields in appealing more to male gender proclivities with favoring interactions with things over people. I once espoused this line of reasoning but realized that it’s more descriptive than prescriptive. If software engineering were just like these other technical disciplines, then you’d have billionaire civil engineers and plumbers running companies that changed the world. The jump to realize is that software is more than just a technical field, and participation in that field, especially now, will have a huge impact on society at large. The book shows where the sexist habits of the past are holding it back when it could expand outside the interests of the previous generation. Engineering and coding might continue to be gender biased professions, but if it continues to be the most direct way to get new people into the technology industry, then it’s very important to make it as accessible as possible to those who are under-represented. Those who continue to defend engineering as-is are including its implicit biases and holding it back from an ever-expanding grasp of technology in the world. For those defenders in the profession now, the importance of cultural diversity is a tough pill to swallow, as it shifts the focus away from their strengths into areas where they can’t compete. I think this is probably the most important argument that’s not explicitly made in the book, as it’s touched on a few different times from a few different angles. Those that disagree with this key premise omit it or talk around it, as accepting this makes arguments defending the status quo purposefully exclusionary.

Another easier point to refute is labor statistics around gender complaints in the Bay Area. This and other ‘arguments to math’ all hold the same disconnection with the visible disparity and repetitive stories of those who spent time in the industry. These kinds of arguments would only work to disprove that the problem exists, which from anecdotal evidence should be obvious. If you can find statistics that appear to disprove a reality that you observe, then the odds that the statistics are misleading or incomplete are probably high. For the specific statistics of reported labor discrimination cases, the key component of these situations is that they are never reported. The victim either ignores it or moves on. If the perpetrator is reported to HR, the odds are low that the perpetrator is stopped, much less reported to a government authority. In no cases I’ve heard of escalating a complaint outside the company turned out well for the reporter, further discouraging reports. I just can’t believe when someone tries to argue that this isn’t a real problem, that they’ve never heard of or seen this happen. I’ve only been in the industry for 10 years and of the 7 employers I’ve had, I’ve heard of sexual harassment at 4 of them in some shape or form. The book does a great job of documenting this process and why the victims fall through the cracks of the organizations supposedly tasked with supporting them. Ignoring this when arguing against the book is willful ignorance or malice.

The next argument that comes out of the subtext of Damor’s infamous memo (it’s quite a mess, but its weakest points were already well-refuted), is that diversity of ethnic and gender backgrounds brings no more benefit than diversity of other viewpoints. This only has legs if you dispute the need to change the status quo and ignore the idea of privilege. Gender and ethnicity bring far more differences in culture than trying to pick out a diversity of ideas from an otherwise homogeneous pool. I mean I love straight white mid-western cis guys, but saying you’re going to get more than 3 unique viewpoints on culture among 100 of them can be a stretch. Again, this is a hard change to make. Who doesn’t want to work with people that they agree with and have common interests? Culture interviews can be weaponized in the wrong way, which to Damor’s point could be used to discriminate against people like him (those with culturally conservative viewpoints that clash with progressive technology agendas).

I’m sure there are a number of even less convincing arguments made against the premise of the book, but the goal should be clear. The boy’s club of Silicon Valley needs to be addressed by forcibly introducing more diversity because those currently in power have no intention to share and have shown that they don’t deserve the respect they’ve been given.