Author: Bri

GHC Reflections: “Why Are We Still Geeks?” Panel – Part 1

Posted on by Bri

One exciting Friday panel was on the topic of “Why Are We Still Geeks?” (we being Computer Scientists – especially women), and more specifically, how we can remedy this perception. The three speakers present were Maria Klawe, Brenda Laurel, and Kim Surkan. Their diversity of backgrounds in computer science, gender studies, and media really brought a depth of discussion to the table.

First to speak was Maria Klawe, and she discussed her personal attempts to remedy this stigma. Much of the discussion came back to media – we don’t see many computer scientists (let alone female ones) in media so we subconsciously disregard that they exist as more than the stereotypes that surround them (geeks, antisocial, etc). Her idea was that a television show following the life of a computer programmer (albeit dramatized in some fashion – not unlike criminal justice in NCIS, anthropology in Bones, behavioral psychology in Criminal Minds, or academia in Big Bang Theory, to list a few) would give public media a more ‘stylish’ concept of the computer programmer. This would allow for a broadening of the stereotype, and through character development in the show, do away with notions of what a computer scientist’s character “must be”. She has poured resources into a nice script, but has so far gotten nowhere – it seems even media is wary to take a chance on something “too fringe” or “too geeky”.

Of course, by this token, there are shows that do showcase computer scientists. Though the lack of media attention may be due to the fact that they either fall into stereotype (Big Bang Theory, the IT Crowd) or the computer scientist is not the main focus. For example, Chuck Bartowski of the NBC series Chuck is the main protagonist and is actually a Computer/Software Engineer – however the caveat is that the show explores his “spy life”, not his life as a computer programmer. Granted, episodes showcase his “hacking” talents, but his real world job beyond the spy life consists of IT service desk help at a Best Buy-like chain store – he is shown as nerdy and over-qualified but stuck until spy work finds him. The depth of character Chuck explores could certainly give a fresh media model for computer scientists – if only they had explored his programming talents more than a backstory and “feature” of his personality.

One of the few “saving graces” to women at least being represented as computer scientists comes from a surprisingly mainstream source: CBS hit series Criminal Minds. For nine seasons, Penelope Garcia has been the “tech goddess” of her BAU unit. Of course, she cracks up to the stereotype of being eccentric and ‘nerdy’ – but she’s loveable and human. She’s incredibly social, she cares deeply for her teammates, and in every regard except for her dress and collection of brightly colored toys she breaks the stereotypical image of a computer scientist on its head. One could even argue her dress, while “different” is still professional – not the ‘typical’ stereotype of hoodie/t-shirt and jeans. And she’s a woman.
Garcia exemplifies why broadcast stations should NOT be afraid to air computer scientists and crack open those stereotypes with a heart melting character.  She makes an amazing role model – but of course the caveat is that on a show with as sensitive of material as Criminal Minds discusses, children can’t be exposed to her and thus their notions remain unchanged. Also, she is part of a show with many characters from many backgrounds, and sometimes her story can be a bit “lost in the shuffle”. However, in my eyes she gives hope that the computer science stereotype – even from the perspective of women in field, can be overcome gracefully.

Klawe makes a strong point that was echoed by the speakers after her – paying attention to media representations is critical to changing interest and stereotypes in our field. We may find media to be poor representations or at times superfluous – but they are what is in the public eye and their perception alters the societal perception as a whole. Hopefully change in TV media will come with efforts like Klawe’s and existing strong character models that already work in hit network shows being able to give an extra push to the initiative.

In the meantime I’ll cheer on Garcia every Wednesday night and relive my DVD series of Chuck – hoping for some new computer programmers to show their face and a depthy character archetype that will make me fall in love with not only their profession – but their personality.

“Well, I figured since I’m gonna have to interact with the mass  populace, I should dress in the traditional costume of a mere mortal.” – Penelope Garcia, Criminal Minds

GHC Reflections: Brenda Chapman Session

Posted on by Bri

This reflection is one of the harder ones for me to write.

One of the highlights of the Grace Hopper Celebration was Friday’s panel with Brenda Chapman. For those who are not familiar, Chapman has worked at Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks. She is most famous for concieving the idea and directing Brave (Pixar’s first female director, it should be noted). She was also Head of Story on the Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, and designed the iconic Little Mermaid scene of Ariel arching over the rocks with the waves crashing as she sings “Part of Your World”. Of course, Chapman has a slew of other credits to her name on projects both big and small – but I thought I might share the ones that were the most iconic to me for a general overview.

Chapman’s session was an overview of the projects she’s worked on in her career, and the skills that helped her to get there. Passion and tenacity were chief in this list. Interspurced clips from her works kept the audience engaged with nostalgia and wonder while highlighting some of her proudest moments.

And yet. And here is where the blogging becomes hard to do.

If I may be so bold, Chapman seemed so sad through the entire session. She spoke of doing what she loves, of passion and dedication, and yet there was a weariness in her that, despite trying to show a smile, it appeared she could not shake.

And honestly, in hearing her panel I would not blame her in the slightest if my perceptions were accurate. She was initially denied entry to Cal-Tech, only to finally get in the next year. When she was hired at Disney, it was only to meet a necessary female quota, not because it was believed she had talent. She was fired from directing the dream movie of her own design.

She embodies so much of the undertone that became apparent at Grace Hopper.

Chapman is a successful woman and her talent is not to be trifled with. She had many great roles, great mentors, and great opportunities because of her skills and her hard work. Yet something always seemed to go awry for her. Despite her obvious qualification she continues to, like so many professional women, not be believed in and to have her amazing accomplishments all too often dismissed. At least, this is how it felt in hearing her.

I hope that in saying these things it does not dismiss the validity of her accolades, or seem to state that no one has ups and downs in their career – far from it. But it seemed as though Chapman was sober to the sad truth that settled over the conference: women still aren’t trusted to do the job well, even when they have proven their worth. For a panel entitled “I Do What I Love to Do…and I’m a Girl” – it seemed as though the title was trying to affirm this as truth in a world that still sees otherwise. And I do hope that these reflections are of course, taken as what they are – reflections. Chapman’s panel was still enjoyable, and she is a lovely woman worth looking up to – I guess I could not help but feel like there was something more she wanted to say, but could not.

I think the hardest pain – and again, hitting the point home, probably lay in Brave. Merida is modeled after Chapman’s own daughter. This was, as she put it, her passion project. The story was her own, and it must have been amazing to have Pixar take interest. But then to be removed from the project and watch another finish your passion work – that must have been awful. I am surprised in all honesty that she has the strength and resolve she does to continue working, continue inspiring, continue telling stories and speaking up. If for some reason you find nothing else worthy of Chapman to look up to, look up to that. I know I do. She stared into the face of something that for a creator must have been heart wrenching and came out on the other side still in love with the creative process and her work. That is magnificent.

Along the same point of Brave, I had the opportunity to pose a question to Chapman regarding Merida’s redesign by Disney. For those unaware, Merida was stylized in marketing to look “more princess-like” – taming her hair, giving her curves, putting her in the dress she so hated in the movie, and removing her signature bow. We could speak again to the assumptions of women in our culture – but that topic seems tangential and bludgeoned to death.

Chapman publicly spoke out against the redesign as Merida was, in essence, an embodiment of being truly yourself – which the redesign stripped her of. For a while it seemed as though the public outcry had been heard, and the issue waned. Of course though, Halloween costumes rolled out – and when Disney princesses hit the shelves, the Merida redraw was back – after the issue seemed to have boiled over. I posed the question to Chapman if she thought all the efforts to get Merida’s design back had made a difference.

However, as I had seen the new product releases already I knew the answer was no before she replied. I was more interested in how she planned to move forward – would she continue to fight? Disney is of course, a force to be reckoned with – and at the end of the day, they are a company and need to be concerned with their marketing and advertisement. The fight may be a losing battle – but it is one Chapman intended to keep fighting. She stated she was planning to continue speaking with MightyGirl and other awareness campaigns for next steps. I applauded that despite being knocked down yet again, she was still hoping to continue on and keep trying.

One of the final somber points Chapman made was that she is going to move forward keeping her passion projects a little closer to herself. I think this point is the saddest part – the world needs people coming alive in their passions. Of course, Chapman can work on them herself, but sometimes the best way to bring passions to life is being able to work with others on them. Someone with such wonderful and inspiring ideas as her should be able to share them and help them grow through the assistance of others into whatever beautiful thing they can become. There is no limit to our capabilities – but sometimes we expand them through work with others. And it is sad that past offenses have caused her to lose some trust in that – like so many other genius, creative minds.

Despite all of the sobering undertones felt in this presentation, Chapman truly inspired me to continue to trudge forward despite falling. To continue to prove to the world what I am worth even when the world doesn’t want to listen. To ignite my passions even if I must do so alone.

Not to be corny, but Chapman truly taught me how to be brave.

For more information on Brenda Chapman, visit http://brenda-chapman.com/
For more information on the original controversy over Merida’s redesign, among other news websites you can visit http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/may/13/brave-director-criticises-sexualised-merida-redesign

“If you had the chance to change your fate, would you?” – Merida, Brave

GHC Reflections: Grace Hopper (Looking Back)

Posted on by Bri

For this reflection I wanted to take a step back and look at the namesake of the Grace Hopper Celebration – Grace Hopper herself. Time and time again she was remembered and commemorated at the event, and rightly so.

Grace Hopper was a United States Navy Rear Admiral, and of course a computer scientist. In addition to her plethora of distinguishments from the United States for her service, she is most known for the creation of the first compiler. In this regard, Grace Hopper is one of the “mothers” of computing. Modern computing simply would not be possible without compilers. In addition to this, she advocated the idea of machine-independent programming, which led to the development of COBOL. She is also known for coining the term “bug” in computing.

It is easy to see why Grace Hopper would be a strong representation for a conference celebrating women in computing. A woman with such great success who helped found modern computing as we know it surely deserves such recognition. However, in my eyes she represents more than just success in the computing field. She was also a strong woman who refused to be shyed away from her aspirations in computing.

Thinking back to Sheryl Sandberg’s keynote, and the strong undertones throughout the entire conference, one key message rang clear: women are underrepresented, undernoticed, and undertrusted in the computing science field. Grace Hopper is a symbol of both this perpetuation and rising above it. No one believed that she had created a running compiler. Her passion for compilers and machine-indepedent programming led her to be believed crazy by some. Those in her field (mostly men) told her the computer was only good for arthimetic, nothing more. That she was wasting her time on silly pipe dreams.

Yet look where we are because of her.

And still, for the amazing amount she has contributed to our technology today, how much is she recognized as an important figure? Not to fall tangent into a “her-story” monologue, but truly, how much do we learn of Grace Hopper in a technology classroom? Men like Hoare and Djikestra are remembered fondly for their algorithms – none of which would even apply to computing had Hopper not developed the compiler. Even in a computer languages and compilers classroom, her name is scarce. The shame of prominent and competent women still remaining unseen in the public eye when it comes to technology seems even to apply to someone as strong and amazing as Hopper.

Regardless of this dysfunction, nothing can dismiss from Hopper her colored career and amazing achievements. And for the fortunate who recognize her achievement and, if I may be bold, general awesomeness, a world of inspiration and stories of potential as well as a network of committed, diverse technologists await. Though Hopper may not be recognized as strongly as she always should be, she is still remembered, still recognized, and still carries a strong legacy that we can learn from and grow in.

One thing that impresses me about Grace Hopper beyond her accolades, is some of the quotes that are attributed to her. She is known for such oft quoted phrases as “A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are for. Sail out to sea and do new things” and “It’s much easier to apologize than it is to get permission”. Again, when these quotes are said they are not often attributed back to Hopper, but a quick search will yield that indeed, she is the one who said them. As a quotes and poetry lover, while looking into Grace Hopper’s life I was amazed that such an accomplished computer scientists had such a way with words. Perhaps an inherent love of languages that helped her develop the compiler in the first place? Either way, I was impressed and excited.

Hopper’s fierce, tell-it-like-it-is attitude, eccentric and quirky manner, and overall, for lack of a more efficient word – epicness – add up to one wonderous firecracker of a woman warranting all the praise and celebration she has recieved over the years. Hopefully in time her and more woman like her will be recognized more highly for their amazing achievements and inspiring success stories – but for now I’ll hold her close to my heart as someone I feel that I can relate to, look up to, and allow to inspire me.

For more information about Grace Hopper, and about the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, please visit: http://gracehopper.org/2013/

“The most dangerous phrase in the language is, “We’ve always done it this way.”” – Grace Hopper

GHC Reflections: Megan Smith Keynote

Posted on by Bri

The second day of the Grace Hopper Celebration was kicked off by Megan Smith, vice-president of Google[x] at Google. For those unaware, Google[x] is a branch of Google devoted to more physical applications – Google Maps, Google Earth, and engineering for space innovations and methods of providing internet worldwide.

I was fascinated to find out about Google[x] – as searches for information on it yield rather sparse results. Granted, Google[x] is not in my specific field of interest – but hearing about seemingly “left-field” initiatives a company like Google is taking to expand themselves and make a difference was intriguing.

What stuck with me the most of Megan Smith’s keynote was her discussion on moonshots – which is what they see the Google[x] initiative as promoting. “Moonshots” are thinking beyond the purported limits of what can be done and aiming a little higher. One such statement was in the line of: “let’s throw away the thinking of how this product can change a million people’s lives – if we can make it change a billion people’s lives, well, then we’re talking”.

In this vein, moonshot seems to be an adage to the old inspirational saying (commonly plastered on grade school walls) stating “shoot for the moon – even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars”. The idea is that if you raise your bar higher, you will likely exceed your original expectation, even if you miss the new mark. I for one, welcome someone taking that phrase and coining it into a relevant term for innovative fields.

I think the concept behind moonshots bears repeating, and while simple is often forgotten. If you’re going to create a system or technology that works on such massive scales, you’re going to have to start from the bottom up. Fixing a car so that it gets not 60mpg but 600, or even 6000 – that line of thinking requires we reconsider how the car itself works and recreate it. To some it seems like reinventing the wheel – why not just optimize what exists and save time? But “reinventing” the wheel in this complete strip-down style can yield a nonwheel – that is, something that can take the place of the wheel but isn’t, and removes many of the prior issues the wheel had. We like to think by marginally increasing the bar we will save time and money – but why not set entirely new bars that, while intensive, could put us far and away from the competition?

Overall Megan’s keynote reminded me to dig a little deeper, and not to settle for making something “better” but to shoot beyond for perfect and enjoy my landing (albeit a bit short) among the stars of outstanding when I succeed. I look forward to finding more opportunitites for moonshots in my life – and hope she inspired others to as well.

For information on the Google[x] open forum initiative, Solve for [x] which encourages moonshot thinking and collaboration, please visit https://www.solveforx.com

“Solving any problem is more important than being right” — Milton Glaser

GHC Reflections: Sheryl Sandberg Keynote

Posted on by Bri

Last week I had the joy of visiting the Grace Hopper Celebration in Minneapolis, MN as a scholarship recipient. For those unaware, the Grace Hopper Celebration (GHC) is a conference celebrating women in computing through speakers, panels, research presentations, learning sessions, and of course – dancing. The conference was awe-inspiring – to see so many women in a field where women are extremely underrepresented coming together with a common interest and drive. I left the conference with new knowledge and new vigor, and would like to share some of my experiences.

The kickoff keynote Wednesday was by none other than Sheryl Sandberg: COO of Facebook. Anyone unfamiliar with Sheryl Sandberg can do a quick search to find how successful of a business woman she is. Bringing in a powerhouse woman like Sandberg to speak to thousands of young aspiring women in technology definitely kicked the conference off with a bang.

Sandberg discussed women’s under representation in business in general  – one of the topics she is most noted for speaking on – but tied it to technology rather elegantly as the two topics often intertwine. For me, hearing Sandberg speak was a whole new level of amazing; I have been quoting her points on the inverse popularity of women as they rise in power for quite some time now.

What was saddening is how what Sandberg said to all of us on Wednesday morning rang true throughout the entire conference: women in computing truly aren’t recognized as being as capable as their male counterparts. Almost every other keynote and session thereafter had some story come out that reflected the truth she expressed that morning.

It was also rather unsettling to see how even a woman as powerful as Sandberg and who advocates so strongly that any woman can be successful still deals with the conception of women in business and technology. She spoke of a panel she had been on where a man stated “not all women are like Sheryl – she’s competent” and another on the panel stated how having women in the workplace may tempt him. It’s a pity that we still deal with these notions in business but also the technology field – and yet they ring too true. Stories of female developers who weren’t allowed by their bosses to touch any code lest they “break it”, then upon finally doing the code completing it well were told they “must be one of the good ones” – these conceptions are true across the board of females in technology. The fact that even someone as successful as Sandberg who should be the case in point for the absurdness of such statements still having to deal with them proves how misconstrued our views of women in technology and business truly are.

There are many reasons for the gender gap and gender conceptions in technology fields (some of which I will discuss in reflections from other GHC panels and keynotes), but one thing is clear: it must be eliminated. Every developer approaches their project from a different mindset – why would we ever want to suggest that just because that mindset is female it is not valid?

Female developers have done amazing things – just look at the GHC namesake. Without a marvelously smart and driven woman like Grace Hopper, modern computing would not have been possible. Why is her achievement of the compiler shoved under the rug, much like Sandberg’s success?

Being a woman is considered this fault that must be overcome for success – but it is not a fault at all. It means our success may come in different forms, and with a different background than many of our current counterparts (read: male). Variety is the spice of life, and allowing women’s successes to be celebrated and revered could breed wondrous possibilities and diversity.

And maybe, just maybe – if young girls see women who succeeded being regarded highly for their skill and achievements rather than called “lucky” for overcoming their gender barrier…well, maybe those young girls will know just how possible it is for them to be successful in the future as well.

See Sheryl Sandberg’s Keynote Here:
http://mashable.com/2013/10/02/sheryl-sandberg-grace-hopper

Sheryl Sandberg’s acclaimed book, Lean In, has started a foundation to support women and drive their ambition.
Learn more about Lean In circles, the Lean In foundation, or order the book here: http://leanin.org/

“I want to tell any young girl out there who’s a geek, I was a really serious geek in high school. It works out. Study harder.” -Sheryl Sandberg