Clara Raubertas // Freelance Web Design, Web Development, and Web Consulting // Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts clara raubertas design. development. consulting.

After years of making social networking sites for other people, I’ve finally launched one of my own! Stemming.org is a networking/community site and collaborative blog for girls and women interested in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). I’m super excited about this — I think it has a lot of potential to support and connect women and girls who are often minorities in their fields or discouraged in their interests.

So far, I’ve done all the design and development (in Rails) for the site — it’s been cool to be my own client and get a chance to explore some technical things I might not otherwise have learned. (And being my own client gives me added appreciation for my clients’ perspective when we’re working on other projects like this!)

Stemming welcomes blog posts from anyone who has something to say that would be of interest to women and girls in STEM; I’d also love for people to share the link and send me their suggestions/improvements!

When I first heard about the Ruby on Rails workshops for women organized by Sarah Mei and Sarah Allen in San Francisco, I was jealous that they were on the opposite coast. But lo and behold — the very same event came to Boston last weekend! (Yet another reason why Boston is awesome — the academic/technical community is conducive to cool events like this.)

The event was targeted at women (though some men attended, too) who were either new to programming or new to Ruby; I volunteered as a TA to help answer students’ questions (along with a bunch of super friendly and knowledgeable people from the Boston Ruby community, which is awesome; too bad their meetups generally conflict with improv classes for me). The whole thing was awesome! I loved getting to meet/know better people in the Ruby community and meeting new people who were just getting started with Ruby. There were people from a wide variety of backgrounds there — i loved helping people get their code to do stuff! Some of the students I worked with were clearly smart enough to follow the install instructions and workshop handout on their own, but they just needed some hand-holding and moral support as a motivation to actually do it — which is why events like this are so key to getting people involved in Ruby/programming. I also loved when students got really excited about their code doing stuff — a reminder of why I got into programming in the first place, because I love the high that comes from seeing code you’ve been tweaking suddenly work.

Teacher Sarah and organizer/TA Liana both blogged about how well the event went. A lot of the students, TAs, and organizers tweeted about it too, mostly saying great things!

Unfortunately, I can’t attend the followup Open Source Code Crunch activity organized by Liana, because I’m already involved with a project at the Free Software Foundation on Wednesday nights. (Why yes, I am a huge nerd!)

A couple weeks ago I attended Boston’s Software Freedom Day event — a day-long meetup/conference for local free software users, developers, and supporters.

I’ve been using and thinking about and talking about and installing and writing about free software for a few years now, but this was my first experience meeting up with a group of people who I could already assume subscribed to the free software philosophy, understood the motivations behind it, and used free software in their daily lives. Which was awesome! The feeling of community in the room was quite cool.

The event was set up so that pretty much anyone who had something to say could give a short talk at some point; there were also pre-planned longer speeches and a keynote by RMS (which was pretty ranty and non-technical, and included a characterization of using “their” as a gender-neutral third-person singular as “absolutely disgusting” — I’ve been losing some respect for RMS lately). Most of the speeches were super-interesting; there was a talk about antifeatures, with some pretty egregious examples from a variety of fields, and I learned about OpenLibrary — psyched to have an API to access book info without being forced to use Amazon’s API!

There were also a heartening number of women there &mdash about 20% of the audience, and a few of the speakers (only about 1.5% of F/OSS participants in general are women — way fewer than even the small number of female programmers in general). I got to talk to FSF membership coordinator Deb Richardson about some of the interesting initiatives being taken to increase women’s participation and comfort in F/OSS, which I definitely hope to get involved in!

The books I’ve been reading this year, and some thoughts on them:

• America’s Women – Gail Collins: I love Collins’s columns in the New York Times and hoped this book would have a similar mix of historical detail with genuinely entertaining writing, and I was not disappointed. This is a great take on American history focused on women’s roles. Collins does a great job of weaving stories about particularly noteworthy and accomplished women with painstaking research on daily life and the experiences of average women at different periods of history. Highly recommended!
• The Principles of Beautiful Web Design – Jason Beaird: A good overview of some of the basic aspects of design for the web. The most useful part of this book for me was Beaird’s explanations of the importance of texture and detailed tutorials and examples of how to use appropriate texture on a site – they definitely helped me add depth to my designs.
• Blink – Malcolm Gladwell: I bought this in an airport bookstore and blew through it on the plane. It’s a quick, fun read about the ways in which humans make decisions unconsciously (and often rationalize them later!).
• The Stone Raft – Jose Saramago: Some friends started a book club, and this was the first selection. It was pretty fun to read, if a little slow — a story of magical realism that became a lot more interesting when we looked up its geopolitical context (Portugal in the 1980s) and were able to put together some of the themes with the social and political state of the setting.
• The Crying of Lot 49 – Thomas Pynchon: I’d already read this book more than once (it’s one of my all-time favorites), but I re-read it after I chose it for the book club’s second meeting.
• The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao – Junot Diaz: Another book club selection! I’d heard a lot of praise for this book, and it did not disappoint; it’s a dizzying pastiche of Dominican history, science-fiction and comic book references, mythology, Spanish slang, and compelling characters woven into an intriguing story. Highly recommended!
• A History of U.S. Feminisms – Rory Dicker: With a chapter for each of the three “waves”, this book is a straightforward summary of feminism’s ideas, conflicts, and accomplishments over the past century and a half. I’m still looking for something more theoretical/practical and less historical to recommend as a feminism primer, but for now, this is the best book I’ve found for the general newcomer to feminism.
• Feminism Is For Everybody – bell hooks: This book is really intelligent. hooks clearly explains what she believes should be the core tenets of feminism, and lays out a proposal for a new version of feminism that won’t have the heterosexist and white-centered connotations sometimes associated with the second wave, but instead will be inclusive and useful to all people. Possibly a little dense for people new to feminist thought, but highly recommended.
• Full Frontal Feminism - Jessica Valenti: By the founder of the excellent blog feministing.com. The subtitle is “A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters”, and that’s exactly what it is. I was hoping for a more seriously written introduction for a broader audience; Valenti’s slangy tone put me off a little (I could tell she was trying to be deliberately casual, but it made it seem like she wasn’t forming her thoughts carefully — even though she was). However, this would be a good introduction for the “I’m POST-feminist!” high-school/college crowd. I’ve also heard that Valenti’s later books (He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut and The Purity Myth) are less slangy and more in-depth, so I’ll probably try to pick them up.
• Better - Atul Gawande: Another book club selection. This was interesting to read since I knew almost nothing about the medical system. Gawande mixes personal anecdotes about his experiences as a surgeon with analysis on why things go wrong and what doctors can do to make improvements. A fast read that raises some interesting issues.

I got into a discussion on Trogger this morning about the question of men far outnumbering women in computer science (in my experience, this is very true — in my college CS classes of 20-25 people I would usually be one of 2 women, and of the 20 or so people my year who actually graduated with CS degrees, I was the only woman); why is this, and what can be done about it?

I think a lot of this has to do with unconscious bias and role models. As Cassie pointed out in her original post, a big factor is probably stereotype threat — the finding that members of particular groups stereotyped at being bad at certain subjects actually do worse in tests of those subjects if they are told the tests show a gender/race disparity, or even just asked to list their race or gender, than if they take the tests without race or gender brought up. Research like the Implicit Association Test suggests that most people, even female scientists and mathematicians themselves, unconsciously find it easier to associate math and science with men than with women.

Implicit biases in a person aren’t evidence that the person is actively discriminatory — they’re subconscious ideas that we get from the racist, patriarchal society all of us are raised in. No matter how consciously convinced you are that women make great scientists and technologists, you probably also have the subconscious implicit biases that suggest otherwise. So it’s not so much a question of women thinking, “Hey, I probably won’t be good at programming because I’m a woman!”, as thinking, “Oh, I just don’t see myself as a programmer”, without realizing that this idea might come from subconsciously ingrained biases about what a programmer is like (male).

But these biases can be fought! Research associated with the IAT has shown that people show less evidence of implicit biases when holding counter-stereotypes in their minds; for example, you’re more likely to associate women with science if you read about Rosalind Franklin or Marie Curie right before taking the test. This is what Ada Lovelace Day is all about — promoting the women who are already successful in scientific and technical fields is a win for everybody. The more visible women in science and technology are, the less prevalent these implicit biases will be in the future, and the more girls and young women will be motivated to enter these fields.

It’s easier for women to feel motivated to pursue traditionally male-dominated interests if they can see other women working in those fields; but yet, women’s contributions to technical fields are often invisible. So Suw Charman-Anderson started Ada Lovelace Day to bring these women out of the shadows by encouraging as many people as possible to blog about women in technology on the same day.

March 24? Why, that’s today! Here are some of my computing heroines:

• Ada Lovelace herself, of course! She’s now thought of as the first computer programmer — she was friends with Charles Babbage and wrote a set of instructions for calculating on his Analytical Engine that’s thought of as the first program (although the engine was never built, so she would never get to test her code).
• Grace Murray Hopper was a freakin’ badass. She was a Navy admiral who pioneered the idea that computer programming languages should be similar to English (helping make possible COBOL’s leap away from assembly language to a new level of abstraction, which made programming a lot easier!). She was also one of the first people to develop and promote standards for computer languages and systems.
• Maria Webster is the author of the blog dotfiveone: Geekspace for Women, which covers everything from science fiction to hands-on electronic circuit building. By providing a space on the internet targeted toward women who are already quite geeky, thanks very much, Ms. Webster definitely helps to fill a niche that’s too often neglected.
• Valerie Aurora (formerly known as Val Henson) is a kernel hacker, filesystem geek, and Linux developer who also wrote this great HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux.
• Cathy Malmrose overcame childhood discouragement of her technical interests to found and run ZaReason, one of the few hardware vendors to sell systems with Linux preinstalled. Ms. Malmrose also makes a point of sharing information about open-source software in an open, friendly way to people in her community; as a t-shirt on her site says, “Friends help friends use Linux”!
• Everyone involved in LinuxChix, a great support/information-sharing organization whose motto is “Be polite, be helpful.” Words to live by!
• Gina Levow is an AI/computational linguistics researcher who was also one of my computer science professors in college; she gave me my first technical jobs, first as her research assistant (which is where I first learned UNIX-y command line magic) and then as a grader for an introductory CS class.
• Anne Rogers was another one of my CS professors; her Operating Systems (and Computer Architecture) classes were an intense boot camp for learning the inner workings of computers, and after taking them, I knew I was compelled to pursue even more technical knowledge.

Yikes, that list ended up way longer than I planned (I kept thinking of more awesome ladies to add)! I’d also recommend searching for more Ada Lovelace Day posts — I really enjoyed seeing other bloggers’ profiles of accomplished technical women.

The NYT has a fairly unfavorable review of the Sex and the City movie; while I haven’t seen the movie, have no desire to do so, and am sure several of the criticisms are valid, part of the review rubbed me the wrong way:

Unlike the show, which allowed the men to emerge occasionally from the sidelines with lines of actual dialogue, the male characters in the movie stand idly by, either smiling or stripping, reduced to playing sock puppets in a Punch-free Judy and Judy (times two) show. I’m all for the female gaze, but, gee, it’s also nice to talk — and listen — to men, too.

Uh, right. Men don’t have enough screen time?

Not according to another NYT article by the same author (!), xkcd, Jezebel, or indeed, anyone with half a brain who watches blockbuster movies (or even their advertisements). It’s nice to talk and listen to men in movies, sure, but you have every other movie coming out this summer for plenty of that.

Seeing the following in Slate (in, of all things, an article explaining why it’s righteous for liberals to vote for Obama just because he’s black) helped me clarify some of why I think it was important to bring up the issues my previous post:

(The conservative brand identity also doesn’t have much room for opposition to sexism, another legitimate source of liberal guilt. But Hillary Clinton’s problems, it seems to me, stem less from sexism than from Clintonism.)

Um, what?

Nobody is calling other presidential candidates bitchy, catty, shrill, or emasculating. Nobody is opening an article in a leading national newspaper with a comment on how much skin the other candidates are showing. Nobody is producing novelty nutcrackers modeled after other candidates (and displaying them prominently in places I run errands). Let me guess — could cultural perceptions of gender be at work here?

Yes, there are a lot of reasons not to vote for Hillary that aren’t sexist. If I didn’t think so, I would have voted for her myself. But to say that her gender isn’t a liability in her political career is an attitude both obtuse and harmful.

A lot of older feminists who voted for Clinton seem to think that young people who voted for Obama are naive about the issues of sexism Clinton and other women in politics face — but that’s not true of all of us. And a lot of young men who voted for Obama seem to think that their legitimate, non-gender-related reasons for disliking Clinton mean their perceptions are totally untainted by sexist cultural mores — but that can’t be true, either. People who support these two candidates are fighting when they should be uniting — uniting against racism AND sexism.

Like many people my age, I voted for Obama this year. But while I didn’t vote for the female candidate, it’s not because I think we’ve reached some sort of post-feminist utopia. I’m not choosing any candidate based solely on demographic factors, but I don’t think these factors are irrelevant to the effects a candidate’s election will have or the way a candidate is presented and perceived.

I’ve heard some of my male peers say that Clinton “wasn’t a good feminist candidate” because she gained political power partly through her association with her husband; I’ve also heard them say that it doesn’t matter whether we elect a woman president, because there are already female governors, senators, and world leaders in other countries. But I think it does matter — I think there’s a lot to be gained in terms of public perception from having a woman elected president of the United States. We still live in a country where men shout “Iron my shirt!” at an accomplished professional woman — if they think that’s funny, they don’t get it, and the day we do elect a woman president is one day closer to people like that “getting it”.

The New York Times describes some ways in which Clinton’s gender may have affected the race:

Mrs. Clinton’s supporters point to a nagging series of slights: the fixation on her clothes, even her cleavage; chronic criticism that her voice is shrill; calls for her to exit the race; and most of all, the male commentators in the news media who, they argue, were consistently tougher on her than on Mr. Obama.

The reasons I have for voting for Obama don’t make me blind to these factors — I very much do think that Clinton’s campaign has been presented differently because of her gender and that she’s had to contend with obstacles and perceptions that are never an issue for a male politician. This primary has been framed as a divisive, either-or situation, but it’s a false choice. Obama supporters and Clinton supporters are painted as people with no common ground, when in fact most of us agree about a great deal. Just because I ended up preferring Obama doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize the challenges Clinton has endured solely because of her gender or that I don’t see the value in having a woman president for the sake of having a woman president.

Jesse recently read a few chapters of Joan Williams’s Unbending Gender for school, and recommended that I take a look at them. Although a lot of the more theoretical aspects went over my head, I found it an extremely intelligent and interesting analysis of work/family/gender issues with a lot of practical recommendations that support my own positions about work/life balance.

Williams describes a norm of domesticity based on an “ideal worker” doing market work, who works full-time, is available for overtime, is available for relocation, and takes little to no time off for child-rearing. Especially in cases where children are involved, this ideal worker can only fill this role if supported by someone, usually a partner, who abstains from ideal-worker market work in order to raise children and care for the household (hence the slogan “most women need a wife”). While the feminism of a few decades ago focused (successfully) on giving women access to these types of jobs, it insufficiently accounted for the fact that these workers are intended to be backed up by a partner taking care of family work; most women remain primarily responsible for childcare and household work regardless of their employment status, which leads to a situation in which they can only gain the social power of men through essentially working double shifts, one shift as a market worker and another as a mother and family worker. She describes this as a situation that can and should be legally framed as discrimination. She also points out that divorce laws, which award most of the household assets to the market worker (who “earned” the money) without compensating the family worker who made the market work possible (and who will probably also have to support the children after the divorce).

Williams also argues that this system is not just harmful to women (who disproportionately fill the role of marginalized caregiver, or if they do not, have a hard time living up to the ideal-worker norm because they rarely have partners available for family work), but also to men, children, and society — she quotes both women who “choose” to stay home with children but would prefer to keep working at a schedule that allows them to have time for their children as well as their careers, and men who “would prefer the ‘daddy track’ to the fast track”. While everyone seems to agree that children should have more time with their parents, employers reward the opposite behavior by promoting workers who spend long hours at work and passing over or not hiring workers they think will try to take time to be with their families.

She points out that work hours have increased in the U.S. over the past few decades; not only is there more overtime, but people work farther form their jobs, so getting home at 5 is unreasonable for most workers — but an 8-to-7 schedule for both parents is unreasonable for children, thus perpetuating the situation where it’s only practical for one parent to work (and since societal norms still punish men who don’t work, it’s still usually the man).

Williams has a solution to this: more flexible work hours for everyone. She points out an example of a family that decides that someone should be home with the children two days a week; if one parent asks for a three-day week, an employer will usually consider that unreasonable, but if employers were more open to giving both parents a four-day week they could both keep working and still give their children the time they need. She approaches this from an explicitly pragmatic perspective, pointing out that flexible schedules need not disadvantage employers. My position is that this would even be advantageous to employers, who would have a broader pool of qualified workers to choose from and happier (thus more productive) workers at work if they were more willing to give out schedules that accommodate employees’ values and non-market priorities.

The book focuses on families with children, but she briefly touches on how a more flexible work schedule would be advantageous for single or childless people. This is something I feel particularly invested in — as the text points out, the work-hours it takes now to produce a 1948 standard of living are less than half those it would have taken then, yet people are working longer hours and consuming more, in large part because employment structures discriminate against part-time workers, denying them benefits, fair pay, advancement opportunities, and respect. With more flexible opportunities, all kinds of people who are satisfied with a lower standard of living could work fewer hours and devote the extra time to community service, personal projects, travel, family, or any number of other worthwhile pursuits. I’ve seen a few news articles in the past few years incredulously describing the expectations of “Gen Y” workers new to the workforce — we want “work/life balance”, they scoff. How selfish! Imagine! Market work is not necessarily the most important thing in our lives, and we’d prefer less money to longer hours!

In fact, almost everyone hopes to balance their time between market work, family work, community work, and personal time — but employers almost never offer schedules amenable to such balance. If they did, everyone would be better off.