Show Hide image

Shake things up this Christmas: go pagan

Here's to a well-fortified Christmas.

Christmas comes but once a year, takes up about a sixth of said year and half the annual budget, makes us fat, cross and compromised and leaves us stranded on the cusp of another January, gasping like beached fish and in dire need of another holiday to recover.

All of which, believe it or not, is positive, since it constitutes a gold and sparkly reason for alcoholic adventuring. Christmas may be the most boring time of the year in culinary terms – turkey being, in my opinion, a mere excuse for interesting additions, like the European equivalent of rice – but when it comes to drink, this truly is the season to be jolly. On Christmas Day, I want a big, luscious red or two, usually from the Rhône: a Châteauneuf-du- Pape, Gigondas or Lirac, full of spice, violets, pepper – and paganism. (This part of France was a stronghold for the Romans before they caught Christianity and, even when it briefly became another Vatican in the 14th century, the seven French popes who presided here “carried on the court of Avignon on principles that have not commended themselves to the esteem of posterity”, as Henry James, cardinal of exquisite condemnation, once put it.)

For the rest of this chilly and fraught season, though, I follow the lead of another set of pagans: the three wise men, who were Jews, Arabs or Zoroastrians or something else entirely (and may or may not have been kings) but were not, for obvious reasons, Christian.

As an unobservant Jew caught up in the whirligig of a western Christmas, I identify with these guys: they may not have been quite sure what all the fuss was about but they were told to turn up with presents and they picked well. Frankincense was a perfumed resin, used in Jewish worship; gold is what we could all do with more of at this time of year; myrrh, when not also being used in Jewish temple ritual, was drunk in wine to relieve pain. Those three men were wise, indeed: they spotted the star of Christmases future, neon-bright on the horizon, and before they moved towards it, armed themselves accordingly.

I do likewise, spending gold on gold: the glorious, warming glow of dessert wine. I love Sauternes but also Coteaux du Layon from the Loire, the rich, amber Tokajis of Hungary, Canada’s ice wines and the powerful “stickies” of Australia.

My frankincense and myrrh are brandy-based cocktails: a Daisy, which can also contain rum (more perfume and more pain relief), or a Sidecar, that magical combination of three wise ingredients – cognac, Cointreau and lemon juice – that is worthy of worship.

Inner strength

Most of the year, I am a very occasional cocktail drinker, not because I am a puritan, entertaining though fearsome gastronomic rule-makers can sometimes be (see Bernard DeVoto: “Let us candidly admit that there are shameful blemishes on the American past, of which by far the worst is rum”), but because the sea of wine is vast and I have a limited number of sailing hours.

At Christmas, however, I resort to stronger stuff precisely because I am a pagan, who can only see this segment of the year in friendly soft focus with a slug of liquid assistance. Yet when I do, I remember that hard liquor, with its fierce purity, is worthy of my attention too, and that – pace DeVoto – a good cocktail is as joyous a combination of different flavours, methods and beliefs as a multicultural Christmas.

So, for tolerance, however you find it, and for mercy that’s anything but mild, let us all give thanks and to you, gentle reader, a full glass and a well-fortified Christmas.


Nina Caplan is the 2014 Fortnum & Mason Drink Writer of the Year and 2014 Louis Roederer International Wine Columnist of the Year for her columns on drink in the New Statesman. She tweets as @NinaCaplan.

This article first appeared in the 24 December 2012 issue of the New Statesman, Brian Cox and Robin Ince guest edit

The Science & Society Picture Library
Show Hide image

This Ada Lovelace Day, let’s celebrate women in tech while confronting its sexist culture

In an industry where men hold most of the jobs and write most of the code, celebrating women's contributions on one day a year isn't enough. 

Ada Lovelace wrote the world’s first computer program. In the 1840s Charles Babbage, now known as the “father of the computer”, designed (though never built) the “Analytical Engine”, a machine which could accurately and reproducibly calculate the answers to maths problems. While translating an article by an Italian mathematician about the machine, Lovelace included a written algorithm for which would allow the engine to calculate a sequence of Bernoulli numbers.

Around 170 years later, Whitney Wolfe, one of the founders of dating app Tinder, was allegedly forced to resign from the company. According to a lawsuit she later filed against the app and its parent company, she had her co-founder title removed because, the male founders argued, it would look “slutty”, and because “Facebook and Snapchat don’t have girl founders. It just makes it look like Tinder was some accident". (They settled out of court.)

Today, 13 October, is Ada Lovelace day – an international celebration of inspirational women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). It’s lucky we have this day of remembrance, because, as Wolfe’s story demonstrates, we also spend a lot of time forgetting and sidelining women in tech. In the wash of pale male founders of the tech giants that rule the industry,we don't often think about the women that shaped its foundations: Judith Estrin, one of the designers of TCP/IP, for example, or Radia Perlman, inventor of the spanning-tree protocol. Both inventions sound complicated, and they are – they’re some of the vital building blocks that allow the internet to function. 

And yet David Streitfield, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, someow felt it accurate to write in 2012: “Men invented the internet. And not just any men. Men with pocket protectors. Men who idolised Mr Spock and cried when Steve Jobs died.”

Perhaps we forget about tech's founding women because the needle has swung so far into the other direction. A huge proportion – perhaps even 90 per cent - of the world’s code is written by men. At Google, women fill 17 per cent of technical roles. At Facebook, 15 per cent. Over 90 per cent of the code respositories on Github, an online service used throughout the industry, are owned by men. Yet it's also hard to believe that this erasure of women's role in tech is completely accidental. As Elissa Shevinsky writes in the introduction to a collection of essays on gender in tech, Lean Out: “This myth of the nerdy male founder has been perpetuated by men who found this story favourable."

Does it matter? It’s hard to believe that it doesn’t. Our society is increasingly defined and delineated by code and the things it builds. Small slip-ups, like the lack of a period tracker on the original Apple Watch, or fitness trackers too big for some women’s wrists, gesture to the fact that these technologies are built by male-dominated teams, for a male audience.

In Lean Out, one essay written by a Twitter-based “start-up dinosaur” (don’t ask) explains how dangerous it is to allow one small segment of society to built the future for the rest of us:

If you let someone else build tomorrow, tomorrow will belong to someone else. They will build a better tomorrow for everyone like them… For tomorrow to be for everyone, everyone needs to be the one [sic] that build it.

So where did all the women go? How did we get from a rash of female inventors to a situation where the major female presence at an Apple iPhone launch is a model’s face projected onto a screen and photoshopped into a smile by a male demonstrator? 

Photo: Apple.

The toxic culture of many tech workplaces could be a cause or an effect of the lack of women in the industry, but it certainly can’t make make it easy to stay. Behaviours range from the ignorant - Martha Lane-Fox, founder of, often asked “what happens if you get pregnant?” at investors' meetings - to the much more sinister. An essay in Lean Out by Katy Levinson details her experiences of sexual harassment while working in tech: 

I have had interviewers attempt to solicit sexual favors from me mid-interview and discuss in significant detail precisely what they would like to do. All of these things have happened either in Silicon Valley working in tech, in an educational institution to get me there, or in a technical internship.

Others featured in the book joined in with the low-level sexism and racism  of their male colleagues in order to "fit in" and deflect negative attention. Erica Joy writes that while working in IT at the University of Alaska as the only woman (and only black person) on her team, she laughed at colleagues' "terribly racist and sexist jokes" and "co-opted their negative attitudes”. 

The casual culture and allegedly meritocratic hierarchies of tech companies may actually be encouraging this discriminatory atmosphere. HR and the strict reporting procedures of large corporates at least give those suffering from discrimination a place to go. A casual office environment can discourage reporting or calling out prejudiced humour or remarks. Brook Shelley, a woman who transitioned while working in tech, notes: "No one wants to be the office mother". So instead, you join in and hope for the best. 

And, of course, there's no reason why people working in tech would have fewer issues with discrimination than those in other industries. A childhood spent as a "nerd" can also spawn its own brand of misogyny - Katherine Cross writes in Lean Out that “to many of these men [working in these fields] is all too easy to subconciously confound women who say ‘this is sexist’ with the young girls who said… ‘You’re gross and a creep and I’ll never date you'". During GamerGate, Anita Sarkeesian was often called a "prom queen" by trolls. 

When I spoke to Alexa Clay, entrepreneur and co-author of the Misfit Economy, she confirmed that there's a strange, low-lurking sexism in the start-up economy: “They have all very open and free, but underneath it there's still something really patriarchal.” Start-ups, after all, are a culture which celebrates risk-taking, something which women are societally discouraged from doing. As Clay says, 

“Men are allowed to fail in tech. You have these young guys who these old guys adopt and mentor. If his app doesn’t work, the mentor just shrugs it off. I would not be able ot get away with that, and I think women and minorities aren't allowed to take the same amount of risks, particularly in these communities. If you fail, no one's saying that's fine.

The conclusion of Lean Out, and of women in tech I have spoken to, isn’t that more women, over time, will enter these industries and seamlessly integrate – it’s that tech culture needs to change, or its lack of diversity will become even more severe. Shevinsky writes:

The reason why we don't have more women in tech is not because of a lack of STEM education. It's because too many high profile and influential individuals and subcultures within the tech industry have ignored or outright mistreated women applicants and employees. To be succinct—the problem isn't women, it's tech culture.

Software engineer Kate Heddleston has a wonderful and chilling metaphor about the way we treat women in STEM. Women are, she writes, the “canary in the coal mine”. If one dies, surely you should take that as a sign that the mine is uninhabitable – that there’s something toxic in the air. “Instead, the industry is looking at the canary, wondering why it can’t breathe, saying ‘Lean in, canary, lean in!’. When one canary dies they get a new one because getting more canaries is how you fix the lack of canaries, right? Except the problem is that there isn't enough oxygen in the coal mine, not that there are too few canaries.” We need more women in STEM, and, I’d argue, in tech in particular, but we need to make sure the air is breatheable first. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.