Targeted Programs and Backlash

The Don't Look Down post explores the message that targeted programs can send to the targets.  In this post, I take on the message that targeted programs send to the non-targeted.  As a reaction to these programs, men can develop resentment and prejudice against women.  Below I discuss this phenomenon, why that belief is a problem for all of us, and what programs I prefer because they don't foster this reaction.


Anonymous and semi-anonymous online forums can be a great window into what many people think but do not say.  On Slashdot - typically a very good source for tech news with active and often well-informed comment threads -  the anger is palpable whenever issues involving female engineers are discussed.  At college, I would constantly hear guys talking about how some woman only got into the program because of her gender - despite the guy having no basis for believing that.  This is a fairly natural reaction to seeing someone else getting special attention or special opportunities because of their gender.

The anger comes not only at preferential admissions or hiring policies, but also at programs like girl-targeted programming camps or incentives (in the form of a charitable donation) to encourage girls to take coding classes.

If the impact of these reactions ended at online discussion forums venting about the programs, it would be one thing, but the outrage at these programs leads many down a logical path that ends with the outraged believing women aren't cut out for tech careers.  The argument goes like this: If these programs are unfair, then it seems logical to assume that those who benefit from these programs are given an unfair advantage.  And if they've been given an unfair advantage, then do they truly deserve to be where they are?  And since these programs benefit women, then all women are presumed undeserving.  It may be possible to overcome these presumptions - indeed, most who hold these views will talk about the one or two women they know who are "truly outstanding" but the rest of them, not so much.

Working in this kind of environment has several downsides:

1. It is exhausting to have to prove yourself every time you meet a new man, even if you are among the "truly outstanding."  It diverts your attention and wastes everyone's time.
2. Not everyone is "truly outstanding" in their field.  There are mediocre men and excellent men.  There are mediocre women and excellent women.  By dividing the world into "truly outstanding" and "undeserving," you lump all of the average, above average (but not outstanding), and somewhat below average (but not wholly unqualified) into the "undeserving" category.
3. Any woman who has not developed a reputation for being outstanding is at risk of being looked over for promotions or important projects due to the default assumption being that she is unqualified.

I should make it clear that I'm not making the argument that targeted programs should not exist.  The benefits may well outweigh the harm.  But I prefer programs that attempt to correct the imbalance with the same subtlety that created it.  Some examples:

• Teaching programming to girls and boys in ways that deliver visual results can help increase the appeal to girls without alienating or excluding boys.  
• Including science activities in groups that are already gender-specific like Girl Scouts can help make up for skill gaps without adding a new layer of gender preferences.  
• Educating women about impostor syndrome and other ways that women stunt their own careers unintentionally, but this education need not (and probably should not) exclude men.
• Programs that remind both men and women about the unconscious biases we often hold against women and the subtle differences in upbringing and encouraging managers to attempt to compensate for these biases in gender-neutral ways.