In response to the Brogramming Scourge, Hunter suggested that a concrete thing to do would be to encourage more women to major in STEM.

My view is that instead of getting more women on the same path of credential-building, that the game will be more meaningfully changed by women founders.

This is somewhat of a false dichotomy in that you can obviously have both. But what is the most concrete meaningful way to build true change.

Caveat: i'm not a woman.

Jason's point about rolemodels and inspiration is true but could be a false solution. Founders are outliers by nature, and yes, more female founders would be a wonderful thing - not just because it's "good" but because i believe it's healthier for the economy. However, if the only perceived path to tech relevancy is being a founder, that would discourage many people (male and female). Women need continued investment in training & community for entry level tech roles.

Movement needs to happen on two predominant fronts to produce meaningful change: 1. Girls interested in STEM-based careers need to be encouraged and given opportunities by role models and peers to apply themselves, and 2. since men currently take up most of the powerful positions in related industries, they need to facilitate an industry culture that allows for women to feel welcome -- and proactively take steps against their potential ostracism, which is a side effect of 'bro' culture.

(Side note: I agree with Hunter that focusing only on efforts to increase female founders (vs. entry-level jobs) is too narrowing.)

@maya - do you see any difference btw SV & NYC in terms of how 'women in tech' is discussed/treated?

Engineering culture - "bro" or not - can be lead by the founders but is ultimately realized by the engineers themselves.

I think individual female engineers can and should do more to influence culture. The culture is not a melting pot.

Encouraging more women to be in STEM is great, but that is so much easier said than done.

@sara - obviously a more complex problem w/o a silver bullet, but if you had a magic wand and could change any *one* thing, what would it be?

Although it is important to have female founders as role models, it is more important (imo) to have female ICs as role models, as most people don't want to be founders (this is just a fact, there are far fewer founders than eng, leaders than ICs, etc. otherwise nothing would ever get built).

I actually hate the pressure to be a founder or a manager (although I'm not saying I'll never do it). But women shouldn't have to feel like they have to go down that route to be in STEM.

Best course of action - create the change you want to see happen. Create more women angel investors and VCs. Highlight women tech role models (founders, engineers, C-level execs, etc). Get these women to be more visible. Most ostracism isn't malicious. Arguably, society is MUCH harder on men when it's the other way around (ex. stay-at-home husbands, nurses, men whose wives have more successful careers) and that isn't good either. Agree w/ Hunter that being a founder isn't the only way.

@Hunter if I could change one thing, it would be to have a better women in eng identity. Some people identify with geeks, neckbeards...going back to high school, we had jocks, rockers, etc. Brogrammers are another subgroup (a weird one, but one nonetheless).

To a girl considering STEM, a variety of subgroups that include more women would demonstrate that there is a place for her too.

The women in eng need to create and nurture a better and more defined culture. The men can join in too :)

@Christine I actually would rather be very careful about deliberately highlighting women angels/vcs/founders, because we run into the risk of tokenism (geekfeminism.org).

I'd rather awesome women do awesome things, and we appreciate what they do because it is awesome, and not because they are women.

Similarly I think it is more inspiring to girls going into STEM to see women's accomplishments acknowledged because of their excellence, and not because they are women.

@sara - great point.

care to call out people who you think are doing a good job of this today (creating a 'women in eng' identity)?

@Sara - not a matter of tokenism. It is a matter of making them more visible, esp the awesome ones. I see it often w/ our own startups who are building for a woman audience. Male investors don't get their businesses. Problem is female angels only make up 12% of all angels. Something's gotta give. Either women investors need to be more visible, or we need more women to become angels, or male investors need to empathize better. However, would NEVER compromise on quality or awesomeness.

Let me ask the women here another question: I see occasions where women in tech trade on their physical appearance - usually in the type of 'look' they employ in press photos. Rarely is it 'inappropriate' in the classic sense of the word, but I do wonder how other women perceive this issue -- is it empowering? is it something they are 'forced' into bec of society's expectations? do women in tech need to be more careful? is that a fair burden?

@hunter Sure. I'll call out Dana Contreras (twitter.com). She's an awesome engineer who has had a profound impact on Twitter culture. She brings a spunk and a realness to the table that I and many other eng at Twitter admire. She tells it like it is, but with grace, tact, and humor. She influences those around her to be rigorous and honest.

Thinking back to grade school, I would have loved to have someone like Dana to look up to...because above all, she makes engineering look cool.

@hunter wrt to your last post...i have no idea what you are talking about :) example?

@sara - oh jeez, i have some examples but don't want to go there. Maybe just imagine? :)

@hunter i seriously don't know what you mean. are you saying that women in tech feel pressured to look more sexy because of societal pressures? or...?

@sara - oh, what i mean is, through the male gaze, women are stereotyped in certain ways - "attractive," "flirty," "pretty" - which I rarely hear applied to men in tech. Given that, when a female engineer or founder is participating in a photoshoot, should they be concerned with how they are representing themselves more than a man might. Is that a fair burden or is it the viewer's issue?

Feel free to take conversation in different direction if this doesn't make sense.

@hunter you rarely hear that applied to men because you aren't talking to women about it. trust me, we describe men that way too.

I think anyone being photographed for a formal shoot should be concerned about how they look, regardless of whether or not they are a man or a women.

I'm not sure I'm answering your question, but appearances matter, in a photoshoot. That is kind of the point of a photoshoot.

@sara "trust me, we describe men that way too."

now i'm really going to be self-conscious :)