Female Readership: Why It's So Low, and How Can We Change That?
by Derek Wilson on September 2, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Dell
You know what? We are severely lacking in female perspective here at AnandTech.
Yes we do have some female readers. But we don't have as many as we would like, and no we do not believe the stuff we talk about here is inherently gender biased. While we do provide information that we believe is as accurate and informative as we can, perhaps there is a reason we don't have as many women who are regulars here.
Women are a big part of computing from the ground up. And we aren't just talking about today: look all the way back to the beginning of computational logic and the invention of the transistor and you will find women integral in evolution of all the technology we talk about here. There is no fundamental reason women shouldn't be interested in our articles as both women and men are interested in: getting the most value out of their purchases, living a full and fulfilled life by taking advantage of technology, and understanding why they should care about technology and the issues surrounding it in today's world.
So why is it that our readership is so hugely male?
I utterly reject the idea that women can't understand the material we cover. I happen to know women who are much more intelligent than myself and could either design hardware or code circles around me. While my pride and ego could still probably use a little adjustment, I'm not so diluted as to believe that gender, race or any other broad genetic stoke makes it so that people just can't understand technology or computing.
Again, if it isn't a question of applicability or capability, then why don't more women read our articles?
I think there are a few factors at work: our reliance on a broad knowledge base as a prerequisite to understanding our articles, societal pressures and preconditioning, and the presentation of the material.
Despite the fact that there is no inherent difference that makes women less able to know the math and science behind the hardware we talk about, it is a fact that fewer women currently have the background required to gain any useful information from some of our more technical articles. I'm going to go ahead and point a finger at our failing effort at education in this country and put a good amount of burden there. Partly because I think it's absolutely true and partly because I'm human and tend toward shifting some of the blame away from myself where possible :-)
While we do try to use analogies, metaphors and other tools to relate complicated subject matter in an understandable way, we just can't go back to the beginning for every article and explain everything from the ground up. That would make every article like 2000% longer and would be incredibly boring to our core audience of people who already know many of the basics.
I am looking into trying to write a series of introductions to topics like 3D graphics, CPU architecture, etc. so that we have references we can point people back to and to provide more people with easy access to the information that will help keep their eyes from glazing over when they read our latest GPU architecture article. I'm not sure how much interest there is in this right now, so let me know if you think this is a good or bad idea. It takes a lot of work to put together primers like this, especially if I want to do them well and in as accessible a manner as possible.
Beyond education, we have to look at our culture and society. I'm not a big fan of group identity in any form, but whether we like it or not our culture does play a role in who we are. I'd say that culture has a much larger impact than many genetic properties because it is our society that takes these properties and starts turning them into things they are not.
That doesn't mean that we aren't different and that genetics don't play a role in how we think, how we behave, and who we are. Genetics and environment both have parts to play, but misunderstanding things and then amplifying those misunderstandings causes huge problems.
Some of the reason more women may not be involved in our field is cultural. Like it or not, some places in our country still push men and women in to different roles regardless of the individual's talents and desires. But it goes beyond that. It is a self feeding cycle. Fewer women than men are in technology, and because of this fewer women than might other wise try aren't interested in exploring the field.
Additionally, when we combine this issue with education, it gets even worse. While there is no difference in the potential mental capability of men and women, genetics does seem to play a role in the way people best learn things (even if we don't completely understand that role). Our educational system does not do a good job at all of offering different teaching styles to people who learn in different ways. For whatever reason, math and sciences tend to be taught in ways that are more accessible to men than women. When this causes women to perform less well in general or be less interested in pursuing certain subjects, it tends to be taken out of context in our culture to mean that women aren't as able as men in this area. Which is ridiculous.
It all comes down to our last point: presentation. We need to do a better job of reaching women by refining our approach to presenting the material. Just like in schools, we need to recognize that our audience should not be people who already sort of get what we are talking about but everyone who could potentially want to understand the point of what we are saying. We need to start exploring alternate structures for our articles and alternate types of tests and demonstrations to show the things that we already know both men and women want.
We need to do a better job of showing where the value is in technology and not just that something is a better value than something else, but whether that increase in value is worth the money. We must demonstrate the impact technology can have on people of all interests (rather than just a highly framerate sensitive gamer audience). We have got to help everyone understand why they should care about technology and all the societal and political issues that surround it, because cultivating a desire for knowledge by showing a personal impact is a huge part of what motivates people to learn more about any given subject.
That last bit is key: we need to reach out and show people how much better their lives can be when computers and technology are properly used in order to get them interested in better understanding the current and future capabilities of hardware and technology.
Luckily this is also a sort of differential equation: the more people we get interested in technology, the more people will want to understand it. The more people understand technology, the more they'll be able to gain from reading our articles. And this will hopefully be good for everyone.
But ... I'm not a woman, and we don't have any on staff. Of course, we all know women. We need to start reaching out more and trying to figure out what they want to know about and how we can relate technology and hardware architecture back to that. How do they desire technology to impact their lives. How do we integrate that into what we write about at AnandTech.
So we've identified a problem. Sometimes this is the hardest part (and some times it is not). We know that we need to reach out in different ways to present our articles as relevant not only to women, but to all people with varied interest. But we need to know how.
And we would love your feedback. We need input. We need input from everyone, not just women (though I would love to see a lot of women respond). While it is easy to see the statistics with women, we really want to reach everyone. We need to show everyone why computers and technology are more important than just as ego boosters for people who build the biggest baddest and fastest machine.
The current state and the future of technology will have a huge impact on every life on this planet. The lifestyle and activities the hardware we write about enable are universally engaging. Getting people excited about that and making the science behind the technology interesting and accessible to everyone is where we want to go.
And the best place to go for understanding is to the source. Let us know what helps you learn. Should we add more visuals, audio or other media? Do we need to approach things in ways that aren't just top-down? What kinds of analogies and metaphors really help understanding? What does interest you about technology? What needs to be made easier in your life?
Answers to these questions will go a long way to helping us address the issues we know we have in reaching out to people who could and would be interested in computer hardware but haven't yet had the interest or the tools to start learning about it. We're listening, let us know what you think.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
122 Comments
View All Comments
androticus - Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - link
The number of women (or any group) that reads this site is irrelevant. It is a tech site that appeals to techy people. It is just a fact that techy stuff appeals to more men than women, just as, say, Vogue and fashion magazines appeals to more women than men. Men and women probably have somewhat different brains on average, that leads to general average differences in interests. There is nothing wrong with differences in life -- it makes life more interesting. As long as people are respectful of the values and interests of each individual, then group averages are irrelevant. It is actually insulting to women to suggest that "something be done" to get them more interested in X. Such comments these days typically come either from me, or, excuse me, women who look like men. Who the hell appointed these social busybodies as spokesmen for all these allegedly underprivileged helpless women who seem to be so pathetic and clueless that they don't even know what they should be liking?DanD85 - Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - link
You don't have to try that hard to show everyone how pro-women you are. Just let things flow naturally.I do not deny that there're women that are smart, nice and cool. But you have to admit the majority of women is not that much into geek's stuff like men do. Besides, Anandtech is not some newly-established tech news that you have to cry out loud for readers. Just monitor the hits and if it's OK then it's OK.
If you crave that much for female readers, I suggest you open a shout box labelled "women opinions only" or set up some pinky, girly,flashy button something that's read "Especially for you - girls". :-)
Minotaar - Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - link
Why not invite an article from a guest writer on women's issues? From an exposure perspective Anandtech has a large readership, and would be a good venue for a guest piece on the topic of Women in Computing.Carmen van Kerckhove's work at www.racialicious.com is superb, and she has been featured as a contributor to such outlets as CNN and NPR, and keeps an excellent blog and podcast at www.addictedtorace.com. She blogs equally about both race and gender issues, and would be ideally suited to give some perspective on the problem of involving women in computing, and would probably provide excellent and insightful commentary on the topic to the readership at Anandtech. Considering her use of technology, she is undoubtedly quite computer savvy.
Another individual who is quite interested in involving women in computing is Lydia Kavraki, a professor of computer science at Rice University. Her research in robotics and bioinformatics is cutting edge, and has frequently involved the education and involvement of women in computer science and computer science research. She will also undoubtedly have excellent and insightful comments for the readership at Anandtech.
Anandtech has the unique advantage of being at the cutting edge of trends in much of consumer level computing hardware and software discussions, and is, of course, part of the reason why overclocking and other hardware mods are so mainstream today. Such a venue is an ideal location for input from someone like the individuals mentioned above.
fishbits - Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - link
"Carmen van Kerckhove's work at www.racialicious.com is superb, and she has been featured as a contributor to such outlets as CNN and NPR, and keeps an excellent blog and podcast at www.addictedtorace.com."Don't know the woman or her work, but wow, that's a scary introduction.
"Why not invite an article from a guest writer on women's issues?"
Because this is a technology site? Arguments on what I like and how I like it to be presented aside, I want tech info and analysis. I could not care less about who wrote it, so long as it is accurate and of high quality. Veins in my forehead are pre-emptively throbbing at the thought of articles that go "As a woman, the clock frequency for this Kingston RAM..." or "My afro-phillipino heritage gives me special appreciation of the clock frequency for this Kingston RAM..."
At its mildest it is patronizing, and easily slips into offensive and bigoted to pick tech writers based upon the structure of their crotch and/or the RGB values of their skin color. "Now we have an article written by a (woman/member of a race) for (women/members of a race) so that they will be able to understand and appreciate it." Umm... no.
Give the crew here good enough material, I'm sure they'd be happy to consider publishing it. The moment that material wouldn't be good enough to be published, but is published only because behind the keyboard the author is [insert identity group(s) here], something's terribly wrong.
Seriously though, the editorial decisions that have driven the perceived readership demographic here aren't news. They've been covered again and again and again. Only thinking of it in terms of potential female readers is having an editor actually think about what's been dismissed for ages, and trying to brainstorm rationalizations for how this is a new concern.
"The proofreading is chronically shoddy, especially for a commercial site."
"The readers can get bent. This is a tech website!"
"Not everyone is in the market for a $1200 camera..."
"The readers can get bent. This is a tech website!"
"Not everyone will pay $300 more for RAM for 2 fps better in Crysis"
"The readers can get bent. This is a tech website!"
"Not everyone is concerned with vanity-silencing a PC tasked with pumping out audio to a beefy surround-sound system."
"The readers can get bent. This is a tech website!"
"OK, fine, I give up. Besides, I like some of the tech aspects too."
"Damn skippy! This is a tech website providing detailed info on technical specifics. We're not about to put up with the wants of people with broader, more casual tastes. I do wonder where the girls are though." [begin fumbling around for external causes to blame]
Minotaar - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - link
Fishbits said:"The moment that material wouldn't be good enough to be published, but is published only because behind the keyboard the author is [insert identity group(s) here], something's terribly wrong. "
You have misread my post and are beating an imaginary strawman. Go back under the bridge and ask someone else to answer your three questions. I was not suggesting that these individuals be asked to write a tech review. That is a product of your imagination. My suggestion was far more pragmatic and logical.
I was suggesting that a follow up piece to this one, regarding the problem of women in computing, be invited from an individual who has thought about gender and race issues. Considerable thought and research has been put into this social issue, and, following Anandtech's considerable history of being on the cutting edge, it is best that someone on the cutting edge of this field update us with the most recent thought on issues of gender in computing. We've already had one article about the topic - this one - why not have another from an expert?
The people complaining that "Anandtech is a tech website and I just want tech" are being exclusionist. These complainers are very much like the people who cry "BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT A PHONE?" every time a smartphone comes out. Go back to the stone age. Tech and society are totally intermingled, and to discuss only one and ignore the other is to become irrelevant. If you think that one piece on women in computing, after the years of tech pieces is somehow diluting your "pure tech" needs, you have a problem. Consider running cat 5e intravenously.
The majority of us understand that technology influences women and men, and that the lack of involvement of women at Anandtech may be an indicator for a wider set of gender issues surrounding technology. Those of us who desire a competitive workplace, so that our jobs are not shipped over seas, understand that solving engineering problems requires diversity of thought, and that diversity of thought begins with diversity of participation. Indications that we accidentally disenfranchise 51% of the human race is a problematic indicator. By arguing that you dont want to discuss gender issues at Anandtech, even briefly (I am in no way advocating that Anandtech have a major gender activism component) makes you, fishbits, part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
moozoo - Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - link
On the web site:Change the blue header at the top to pink.
Add a pink tint to the grey.
Of course I can not say what that will do to your male stats.
:)
rvikul - Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - link
What in the world is going on at AT?This website is about hardware and its for geeks and hardware enthusiasts. A geek can be a male, female, an alien from Mars or even someone from outside the United States (as strange as that might seem for AT, its website can be accessed from anywhere in the world with an internet connection). You are not making a Hollywood movie that needs to target a wide audience. If someone wants to ramp up on certain hardware basics, they can search online and find such information. Links to good sites would be a nice idea.
So please stop wasting time and go back to what you do best - hardware.
I second the suggestion where the reviews/articles are split into 2 - basic and advanced.
Aberforth - Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - link
I'd say the editor is in love.DaveLessnau - Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - link
If you want more readers (male, female, or other), how about using facts to generate your positions and then document those facts (with sources)? For instance, what facts do you have to back up the entire premise of this article (i.e., not enough female readers)?- First, how did you even measure that number? Avatars? Names? Gender in registration screens? All of those items are self-selecting and self-generated. There's no way you could even measure the gender of your actual viewership, let alone verify it if you could.
- Second, even if you had some number that said your viewership was x% female, how does that compare to your potential audience? How did you come up with something that would give you a rough size of that potential audience? How about using the percentage of Computer Science degrees as a reasonable stand-in for that number? Going to:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/pdf/tab34.p...">http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/pdf/tab34.p...
you can see that the percent of Computer Science Bachelor's degrees awarded to females has gone from 15% to 25% of the total from 1966 to 2004. Master's degrees went from 7% to 31%. Doctorates from 0% to 21%. So, roughly speaking, the best female readership you could reasonably hope for would be about 25% of the total. The thing is, it's also reasonable to use Electrical Engineering degrees as a reasonable stand in for Anandtech's potential readership. In that case, from:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/pdf/tab51.p...">http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/pdf/tab51.p...
your best possible female readership would only be about 14%.
- Third, what makes you think that (assumed) low female readership of Anandtech is some kind of metric that indicates a bad thing? What did you use to justify the leap from Anandtech's material to something valued by society at large? The stuff you talk about here is not just technical, it's not just regular computer user stuff, it's not just nerd/geek stuff, it's over-clocking, more memory, bigger power supply, more loud fans, cases with fins, nerd/geek, technical, computer, self-selecting stuff. In the grand scheme of things, someone could fire us (your entire readership) off towards another planet and, unless those remaining all died of a disease contracted from a dirty telephone handset, it would hardly make a difference to society at large.
- Fourth, you ask: "if it isn't a question of applicability or capability, then why don't more women read our articles?" Perhaps (again, assuming your unmeasured premise is true) the reason is (and this is one of my favorite sayings) just because men do something stupid, doesn't mean women should, too. IOW, maybe women are smart enough to not want to be geeks.
-Fifth, you say: "I'm going to go ahead and point a finger at our failing effort at education in this country and put a good amount of burden there." Where's any proof of anything in that statement? Take a look at the growth in percentages from those links, above. Did you do any kind of research before writing that kind of tripe?
- Sixth (oh, forget the ordinals). You say: "Fewer women than men are in technology." Maybe "computer technology." But, not all technology. If you look at:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/pdf/tab3.pd...">http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/pdf/tab3.pd...
you'll see that as of 2004, 50.4%/43.6%/37.4% of all the Bachelor's/Master's/Doctoral degrees in the sciences and engineering fields were awarded to women. There's more to technology than computers. And, maybe, just maybe, women might just prefer other areas of technology.
- Then, you say: "Our educational system does not do a good job at all of offering different teaching styles to people who learn in different ways. For whatever reason, math and sciences tend to be taught in ways that are more accessible to men than women." Where's your proof of any of this? There are thousands of higher education institutions around the world. Surely, unless competition is dead, some of those would have come up with some way to better teach over half the population and thus increase their profitability. Of course, once again, maybe women just prefer to learn different subjects. Remember, the random placement of two statistics (well, one statistic and one faulty premise) does not imply causation.
- Finally, I'm going to group all the rest of your article into "we need to do such and such and so and so." You don't NEED to do anything. You might WANT to do something. But, this is the web. Anyone can write anything they want. If there's a market somewhere, someone will fill it. Perhaps you want more readership so you can make more money from your advertisements. Perhaps you think women are some kind of low-hanging fruit that will allow this. Fine. It's your web-site and you can do whatever you want. But, don't delude yourself (or us) that you NEED to do something or the world will end.
0roo0roo - Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - link
bingo, women actually are over represented in areas such as the medical field these days. medical schools are majority women, nursing is obviously dominated by females. and neither is being outsourced!! so obviously the idea of trying to force fit everyone into preconceived ideas of what things are good or where they should be is a load of nonsense. the whole why women aren't in technology question is just a load of bull when they don't look at where women ARE going.