The Edvocate

Top Menu

Main Menu

  • Start Here
    • Our Brands
    • Governance
      • Lynch Education Consulting, LLC.
      • Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
      • Careers
    • Write For Us
    • Books
    • The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
    • Contact Us
    • The Edvocate Podcast
    • Edupedia
    • Pedagogue
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
  • PreK-12
    • Assessment
    • Assistive Technology
    • Best PreK-12 Schools in America
    • Child Development
    • Classroom Management
    • Early Childhood
    • EdTech & Innovation
    • Education Leadership
    • Equity
    • First Year Teachers
    • Gifted and Talented Education
    • Special Education
    • Parental Involvement
    • Policy & Reform
    • Teachers
  • Higher Ed
    • Best Colleges and Universities
    • Best College and University Programs
    • HBCU’s
    • Diversity
    • Higher Education EdTech
    • Higher Education
    • International Education
  • Advertise
  • The Tech Edvocate Awards
    • The Awards Process
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2026 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2025 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2024 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2023 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2021 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2022 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2020 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2019 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2018 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2017 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Award Seals
  • Apps
    • GPA Calculator for College
    • GPA Calculator for High School
    • Cumulative GPA Calculator
    • Grade Calculator
    • Weighted Grade Calculator
    • Final Grade Calculator
  • The Tech Edvocate
  • Post a Job
  • AI Powered Personal Tutor

logo

The Edvocate

  • Start Here
    • Our Brands
    • Governance
      • Lynch Education Consulting, LLC.
      • Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
        • My Speaking Page
      • Careers
    • Write For Us
    • Books
    • The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
    • Contact Us
    • The Edvocate Podcast
    • Edupedia
    • Pedagogue
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
  • PreK-12
    • Assessment
    • Assistive Technology
    • Best PreK-12 Schools in America
    • Child Development
    • Classroom Management
    • Early Childhood
    • EdTech & Innovation
    • Education Leadership
    • Equity
    • First Year Teachers
    • Gifted and Talented Education
    • Special Education
    • Parental Involvement
    • Policy & Reform
    • Teachers
  • Higher Ed
    • Best Colleges and Universities
    • Best College and University Programs
    • HBCU’s
    • Diversity
    • Higher Education EdTech
    • Higher Education
    • International Education
  • Advertise
  • The Tech Edvocate Awards
    • The Awards Process
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2026 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2025 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2024 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2023 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2021 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2022 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2020 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2019 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2018 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Finalists and Winners of The 2017 Tech Edvocate Awards
    • Award Seals
  • Apps
    • GPA Calculator for College
    • GPA Calculator for High School
    • Cumulative GPA Calculator
    • Grade Calculator
    • Weighted Grade Calculator
    • Final Grade Calculator
  • The Tech Edvocate
  • Post a Job
  • AI Powered Personal Tutor
  • The Wild New Alliance: Why Democrats and Republicans Are Uniting on Child Care Support

  • This Viral Fake Ultrasound Video Is a Parental Deception Scandal

  • Bizarre Cat in the Hat AI Trend Ignites School Safety Fears, Arrests Follow

  • The College Student Who Went Viral: His Shocking Journey 11 Years Later

  • Flashcard Game Grades 3-5

  • The Disturbing ‘Cat in the Hat’ Hoax Fueling Panic in Schools — And What Parents MUST Know

  • The Chilling Truth: Why Parents Are Erasing Every Photo of Their Kids Online

  • Baffling: Feds Slash Youth Mental Health Funding Amid Crisis — What It Means For Your Kids

  • Apply to Get a Free Kinsa Smart Thermometer for Every Family at Your School

  • California’s Game-Changing Move: Can New Laws Finally Protect Kids from Big Tech’s Grasp?

DiversityHigher Education
Home›Diversity›The real reason more women don’t code

The real reason more women don’t code

By Matthew Lynch
October 15, 2016
0
Spread the love

Karin Verspoor, University of Melbourne

I menstruate and I code. I share this perhaps shocking personal information in the interest of full disclosure, and in solidarity with a new satirical campaign from Girls Who Code.

The campaign proposes a simple explanation for the low numbers of women in tech: that our hormonal cycles interfere with our ability to code.

Other explanations offered up in the campaign include that women can’t code because their boobs get in the way or their long eyelashes make it hard to see the screen.

These explanations are obviously ridiculous and therein lies the point. For example, if women can’t code because they menstruate, then there isn’t much we can do.

After all, menstruating is part of our basic female biology. If it prevents us from concentrating, or thinking rationally, or coding … what hope do we have?

According to the Australian Computer Society’s recent figures, only 28% of all ICT jobs are held by women in Australia. The proportion is even lower for specifically technical roles in ICT.

So there is certainly a basis for wondering whether there is a fundamental reason that women are so underrepresented in IT and computing roles.

But I’m not convinced that the latest campaign from Girls Who Code is asking the right question. “Why can’t girls code?” is a question that starts from the assumption “girls can’t code”. Is this really the prevailing attitude?

Boys v girls

There is, certainly, evidence that boys favour other boys when estimating the performance of their peers in science class.

There is also evidence specifically from the open-source software community that there is bias against accepting code produced by women, despite the overall high quality of their contributions.

Anecdotally, most technical women can share a story of a situation where their work wasn’t taken seriously.

Dr Maria Milosavljevic, national manager innovation & technology and chief information officer at the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), told me how when she was the only girl in a year 12 computer science class, every boy in the class offered to “help” her with her assignments because they assumed she would need their help.

The implication seems to be that if boys don’t accept that girls can code, then girls can’t code. To me, that’s horribly paternalistic.

Worse yet is the idea that female biology is not suited to coding, an idea that was recently floated (seriously, I fear) citing a 1999 study of 15 people that identified brain differences between men and women.

Surely, there are biological differences between men and women. Periods, brain structure and so on must exclusively determine what women enjoy doing and what we are good at. Right?!

Girls can code

Let’s start from the default assumption that girls can, in fact, code. Nothing in our biology prevents us from being able to learn how to code.

There are plenty of examples that this is the case – after all, the proportion of women in technical roles is not 0%. And there have been some very high-profile female computer scientists. They include: arguably the first computer programmer, Ada Lovelace (1815-1852); the developer of the early COBOL programming language, Grace Hopper; her syster’s keeper Anita Borg; and Google’s first female engineer, now Yahoo’s CEO, Marissa Mayer.

Here in Australia, Kay Thorne was one of the early programmers of the CSIRAC computer nearly 60 years ago.

So, I think a better question is: “Why don’t (most) girls code?”

This is a question that has been explored many times, and even one that I have written about previously.

It is generally seen as a pipeline problem, with the challenge being getting girls interested in coding. The solutions proposed involve developing engaging opportunities for learning and creating with tech, demystifying coding and boosting confidence, and highlighting female role models.

Girls Who Code, Code Like a Girl, Go Girl, Go for IT and Tech Girls are Superheros are all organisations working to create these opportunities.

The truth behind the employment numbers, however, is more complex than that pipeline.

While we know that enrolments of females in ICT courses at tertiary level lag behind males, we also know from research done at Harvard that even if women enter employment in ICT, they don’t always stay there.

Beating the ‘brogrammer’ culture

There have been accusations of a “brogrammer” culture in tech that is hostile to women.

Microsoft got into trouble earlier this year for organising a party at a developer event featuring half-naked dancing women, highlighting that even companies that have worked to support women in tech still lose their way sometimes.

Which brings us full circle back to our biology and the idea that girls can’t code. Yes, women are different from men. Yes, women certainly can code.

On the other hand, women don’t want to face sexism or misogyny in the workplace, behaviour that is driven primarily by their biology. If girls are getting the idea that they can’t code simply because they are girls, then it’s no wonder they don’t see coding as a viable career path.

So maybe they don’t code because someone makes them feel that they can’t.

The Girls Who Code campaign oversimplifies a complex problem, and it delivers a message with nuances that may be lost on the people who need most to understand them.

But it has provoked a question about the connection between biology and cultural attitudes towards women in tech that is worth considering. Period!

The Conversation

Karin Verspoor, Associate Professor, Department of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Tagsntchatreflective teacherteacher qualityteachered
Previous Article

Unleash Australia’s Ideas Boom: Elevate Women in ...

Next Article

We should encourage boys _and_ girls to ...

Matthew Lynch

Related articles More from author

  • Education NewsEquityHBCU'sHigher EducationSecondary Education

    Three Ways Louisiana Is Getting Students Career-Ready

    September 30, 2016
    By Matthew Lynch
  • EquityTeachers

    Boys, Girls and K-12 Classroom Gender Bias

    March 20, 2016
    By Matthew Lynch
  • Uncategorized

    Unlock Your Future: Discover Your Ideal Career Path

    July 14, 2016
    By Matthew Lynch
  • EquityMatthew LynchTeachers

    3 Key American Cultural Themes Shaping Our Schools Today

    September 19, 2016
    By Matthew Lynch
  • Teachers

    Fostering Excellence: Elementary School Environment & Standards

    August 23, 2016
    By Matthew Lynch
  • Matthew LynchTeachers

    3 Unconventional Reasons to Become a Teacher Today

    August 17, 2016
    By Matthew Lynch

Search

Registration and Login

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Newsletter

Signup for The Edvocate Newsletter and have the latest in P-20 education news and opinion delivered to your email address!

RSS feed: Matthew on Education Week Matthew on Education Week

  • Au Revoir from Education Futures November 20, 2018 Matthew Lynch
  • 6 Steps to Data-Driven Literacy Instruction October 17, 2018 Matthew Lynch
  • Four Keys to a Modern IT Approach in K-12 Schools October 2, 2018 Matthew Lynch
  • What's the Difference Between Burnout and Demoralization, and What Can Teachers Do About It? September 27, 2018 Matthew Lynch
  • Revisiting Using Edtech for Bullying and Suicide Prevention September 10, 2018 Matthew Lynch

About Us

The Edvocate was created in 2014 to argue for shifts in education policy and organization in order to enhance the quality of education and the opportunities for learning afforded to P-20 students in America. What we envisage may not be the most straightforward or the most conventional ideas. We call for a relatively radical and certainly quite comprehensive reorganization of America’s P-20 system.

That reorganization, though, and the underlying effort, will have much to do with reviving the American education system, and reviving a national love of learning.  The Edvocate plans to be one of key architects of this revival, as it continues to advocate for education reform, equity, and innovation.

Newsletter

Signup for The Edvocate Newsletter and have the latest in P-20 education news and opinion delivered to your email address!

Contact

The Edvocate
910 Goddin Street
Richmond, VA 23230
(601) 630-5238
[email protected]
  • situs togel online
  • dentoto
  • situs toto 4d
  • situs toto slot
  • toto slot 4d
Copyright (c) 2026 Matthew Lynch. All rights reserved.