Eight little words inculcate imposter syndrome

The great Maria Klawe, ACM Fellow, AAAS Fellow, president of Harvey Mudd, wrote a surprisingly humbling and honest article in Slate on imposter syndrome.

In some ways, this type of article is good for young women in the field, because they figure if superstars like her can feel it, they can feel it too. i.e., "It's normal to feel this way."

Except, it's not normal to feel this way.

The reason we feel like we don't belong / aren't good enough, is because we've been encultured to believe this since Day 1. The message from the media is passive pink, and rarely are young women cast in roles of lead scientist in film and television. The whiz computer genius in a show usually looks like this:

"That doesn't look like me. Also, he seems really unhappy. I don't belong in computer science."

Readers protest, "But it's just TV! It doesn't matter!"

But it does. This is how kids choose careers. As much as we'd like to think that our annual science outreach visit to our children's classrooms hugely influences students' future career learnings, we're talking marbles vs. Large Hadron Collider. Hollywood is it.

So for the lucky few who manage to beat the cultural odds and enter our field anyway, they have one more major hurdle.

It's not the intellectual requirements of the job.
It's not work-life balance.
And it's certainly not babies!

Nope. It is eight little words that skewer you with a knife. Eight little words that knock you down in one fell swoop.

Eight little words that men never hear.

"You only got here because you're a woman".

Have you ever said this to someone? Have you ever thought this and not said it?

This is an awful, awful thing to say. Why? Because underlying it is the assumption that only men can do computer science. Why on earth would you think that?

I first heard these words as an undergraduate, from someone I thought was a close friend. I felt sick to my stomach. I never felt imposter syndrome before that point. I loved technology, I was good at understanding how it worked, and how to make it do the things I wanted it to do. Up until that point, I assumed my strong technical abilities and grades was why I had been admitted into the program. Surely not my gender!

After I felt sick, I felt mad. Really mad! Who was this joker to tell me I didn't belong here? I'll show him.

Now, I'm fortunate, because I face adversity with stubbornness. It's just my nature. But most people are not like this. They get beaten down with a stick enough times, and they head for the hills. I can completely understand that, I've had my moments.

Here's the thing. Every time you say or even think these eight words, you're beating someone with a stick. You might think it's an innocuous statement, but really what you're saying is, "Go home dumb little girl."

Don't be a boorish bear.

Signal Boost: Help get GoldieBlox off the ground

This is absolutely, positively awesome.

It's called GoldieBlox, and is a new engineering toy marketed to 5-9 year old girls, developed by Debbie Sterling, a female engineer from Stanford. It's meant to inspire girls in the same way legos and erector sets inspire boys, and uses storytelling to do it. (Reminds me a little of Computational Fairy Tails, actually :-))

I think it's brilliant. I always hated the "pink aisle" at the toy store, and agree that we definitely need more toys geared toward girls that engage their spatial and problem solving abilities.

She has a KickStarter campaign to get her toy into production, and is 25% toward her goal. So go watch the video, then donate some money if you are able. Even $5 could go a long way.

And, Debbie - kudos for a great idea. I wish you lots of luck!

Even your mom can write this blog post

For those of you who subscribe to IEEE Spectrum email alerts, you may have seen today's snafu where there was an oopsie headline for one of their articles - "With the Arduino, Now Even Your Mom Can Program."

The article and headline were quickly revised post-publication, though I noticed in google's cache that the original article contained the following quote, "'Now, even my mom can program,' Banzi says."

The editor of the journal, who is a female engineer, was Not Amused, nor were the dozens of commenters on the article. I'm glad they fixed it.

But I think this journalistic error raises a larger societal issue when discussing ability and technology. We seem to more quickly ascribe technological inability to female elders, and technological ability to male youths.

For example, I tend to hear, "Even my grandma could use it." far more often than, "Even my grandpa could use it". And I recently saw a comic in a magazine where mother calls technical support and says, "Normally my toddler son would help me fix the computer, but he's in time out." Why wasn't that a female toddler in the cartoon?  Why in movies is the clever geek / scientist who saves the day always a man?

I really would like the media to make greater strides in not playing to tropes, because it tends to reinforce these tired ideas that women are unable to be technologically savvy.

Dangerous by Design

I recently read this article, which describes hundreds of infants (and adults) mistakenly being over-radiated in hospitals.

Like others who were interviewed in the article and those who commented on it, I too am shocked and outraged. But not for the reasons you might think.

The problem is the manufacturers of this machine violated one of the most central tenants of systems design, and that is:

The system should be designed to help the user prevent errors

These CT scanners are clearly not well-designed to help radiology technicians avoid making mistakes. It should be difficult, not easy, to overdose an infant. There should be a scale on the exam table - if the patient is below a certain weight the radiation level will be limited, and only by entering an override code can that the dose be increased.

The system should run through a step-by-step procedure with the technician, requiring them to verbally say, "Yes, I have properly positioned the infant." "Yes, I have shielded them." etc.

Really, very simple stuff - but could help prevent an avalanche of errors.

I agree that increased licensing / re-certification of techs is also a good idea, but they still need to be using  systems designed to help them make fewer errors in the first place.