The women in tech movement is not about getting more women into techie roles because it’s a nice thing to do.
The reason it’s fuelled so intensely is because it’s about an imbalance of power in society, and it is currently represented in the microcosm of the emerging tech industry.
Power and money
Power is closely associated with money. Just take a look at the coveted software developers of Silicon Valley, who can earn in excess of $124,555. They can go on to become technical co-founders. The top tech companies and their founders are worth around $3,000 billion.
Look at all the funding available for tech companies: businesses billing themselves as software startups can gain access to billions of dollars in Venture Capital.
Tech founders can get rich. And women are missing out on this gravy train. So I say it’s not about equality – it’s about power.
What tech was supposed to be
What began as an idealistic post-corporate, entrepreneurial utopia driven by meritocracy has emerged into yet another conservative, capitalistic power structure that disproportionately benefits those at the top. Another example of every day life, then.
People are so disappointed because it’s been billed as somewhere that women could make their mark, free of the constraints of history. But social forces have come into play and the status quo means women are finding themselves victim to inequality, yet again.
And the power struggle plays itself out on the modern battleground – social media. Many of the women in tech movement’s adherents do not especially embody any core values, and are often little more than a braying mob. But that doesn’t mean the movement itself has no value.
Equality and power
Recent highly politicised events like the Google Memo, the #MeToo campaign, public exposure of sexual harassment at Uber, and election of President Trump who has legitimised sexually harassing women intensify the debates.
Some, like #MeToo and Trump’s attitudes to women truly are issues of equality. But they muddy the waters when it comes to women in tech. They encourage us to confuse equality with power.
This isn’t helped by the fact that most people in tech are seriously committed to preserving the status quo – especially if they are already a beneficiary of the power structure. (Read: rich people are less likely to want to change things because it might not turn out in their favour this time).
Confusing the debate allows opponents to found more arguments against the diversity agenda. People disagree over whether women really are suitable for these prestigious ‘techie’ roles, if they have the natural ‘aptitude’ (for sitting at a computer?) or whether they might just be more interested in raising babies.
Changing the debate
These are not the debates we should be having.
We should be having a debate about who has power, instead of hero-worshipping Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.
The technology industry is an emerging power structure and women are worried about missing the boat. And once the power structure is in place, it’s composition will be much harder to change (see: all other power structures).
No one is campaigning for more women refuse collectors, or more women construction workers. We don’t care about equality in these industries because they aren’t as lucrative. These jobs are widely viewed as dangerous and/or unpleasant, unlike IT.
Deaths in the workplace are overwhelmingly male as these individuals usually hold the most dangerous jobs. No one is campaigning to stop this injustice and put more women in danger.
That’s why I think women in tech is not about equality – it’s about power.
Diversity is a smokescreen
Calling it equality and diversity is a smokescreen, to distract men from noticing that someone is trying to steal their power.
That’s also why there is such a sometimes bafflingly ferocious opposition to equalising the gender ratio. Bringing in new players means power would be diluted among existing players, who would find it harder to get ahead.
The current women in tech rhetoric is seductive. “Bring down the patriarchy!” they cry. Newcomers to the women in tech scene discover a comforting justification for their past failures and hurts.
It makes sense. You get more people into a movement by appealing to their emotions – not their reason. And that’s why there are so many holes in the women in tech argument. It’s emotive; not rational. But this doesn’t help anyone.
The cost of diversity
Sometimes it leads to the movement getting it really wrong, leading people to suppress alternative viewpoints and fuel the opposition (like in the James Damore case).
Suppose Damore is totally wrong in his assertion that maybe women just aren’t as suited to being software programmers. Everyone has the same potential, because their gender doesn’t even come into it. But we should choose women for these roles because their gender is underrepresented. And burn with fire anyone who doesn’t agree.
This strikes me as a very insecure response to an attack.
Timi Olotu argues that if ‘gender’ (and ‘race’, come to that) are socially constructed, then there is no rational argument for diversity. Everyone has the same mind underneath, so diversity is illusory and has no benefits. It doesn’t matter who makes up a team.
I am strongly inclined to agree.
That’s why I think ‘equality’ in tech should be substituted with ‘power’. At least then we would be being honest about our motives. Many advocates for ‘women in tech’ want to gain power, while branding themselves as ‘victims’ (read: someone whom no one can challenge).
Should women have more power?
We absolutely should have equality for women – freedom from workplace harassment and unfair hiring practices, for example. But should we have more power for women?
You can argue that more women in power would be a good thing. Surely this would ‘balance things out’? But according to the internal logic of the women in tech movement, men and women are the same. There is no fundamental difference between a worker that is male or female, since this is a social construct.
And while having equality is a basic right, having power is not a right. Power has to be earned, while equality does not.
Inclusivity as the way forwards
This brings me to inclusivity, which I think is the way forwards. This means making an environment that is innately welcoming to those who are ‘different’ from established norms. Inclusivity is distinct from, but related to, equality, although these abstract concepts are usually treated interchangeably.
We should create corporate structures that are welcoming to everyone, but not necessarily viewing everyone as the same. Then maybe the best people would rise to the top, on merit alone. And if you rise meritocratically, you are (theoretically) deserving of the power you are ultimately rewarded with.
On its current course, the women in tech movement is at risk of getting more women into power, and then repeating the same mistakes of the original tech pioneers.
Final remarks
The solution to the diversity debate will come from uniting everyone under the same banner. It will come from finding the intersection between rationally-minded business strategy and emotionally-charged moral imperatives. And I think that intersection is inclusivity.
Then, we will design better tech, and hopefully free the world of the nightmarish scourge that Facebook, Tinder, Uber, and the like, have all become.
If we focus more on the pragmatic and moral benefits of inclusivity, this will help to take us forwards. Everyone will be able to get on board.
This post was written by Catherine Heath, freelance B2B SaaS writer available for hire. Contact me at catherine@awaywithwords.co to see how we can work together.
