Show Hide image

You should march with the left and dine with the right, but beware of statistics

Will Self's "Madness of Crowds" column.

Dinner with the quality: serpentine water carafes coil up from the polished tabletop, pheasant is bitten. I can’t remember who it was who advocated that you should march with the left and dine with the right but I’ve often concurred, taking the view that I personify the great tolerance of Britain by consenting to being regally entertained. Besides, there is a degree of truth in the view that while the left are worthier, the right are wittier.

I’m generalising: within the categories of “left” and “right” there is considerable variation in good humour, dependent in a large part on whether individuals have, or have not. Some 82 per cent of Tories with incomes lower than the national average laugh seldom or not at all; while 74 per cent of Labour voters who pay the highest rate of income tax have seen every episode of Peep Show. Not that I believe Peep Show to be an infallible litmus test for a sense of humour – although being a higher-rate-tax-payer anarchist myself, I strongly identify with the character of Super Hans – but I think we can all agree that the credibility of any statistic rests to a great extent (studies suggest as high as 86 per cent), on the conviction with which it is uttered.

That there are three kinds of lies: the ordinary kind, the damned kind and statistics, is a universal truth. The line was attributed by Mark Twain in his autobiography to Disraeli, but the earliest appearance in print is a transcript of an 1895 speech by the Liberal politician Leonard Courtney. That this same bearded weirdo two years later became president of the Royal Statistical Society tells us all we need to know about High Victorian – and Liberal – hypocrisy. If, say, 40 or 50 per cent of the people who had coined the expression were themselves statisticians, we’d begin to register concern, but for 100 per cent of the people who first said “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics” to be prominent statisticians seems to give the lie, conclusively, to any kind of statistical truth.

Yet we remain prisoners of the bell curve, concentrated inside its bellying walls; which brings me back to the dinner table. My neighbour was a prominent journalist: a maker of current-affairs documentaries and an author of tomes. Of the rightward tendency, certainly (although not notably funny), but with leavening libertarian characteristics. His entire career has been founded on the factual and its political import, which is why, when the pseudo-subject of the Islamisation of Britain came up, it was bizarre to hear him fling this statistic down as if it were a trump card: “10 per cent”.

This, in response to my asking him what he thought the proportion of British Muslims was to the general population. In fact, the Pew Research Centre’s 2010 study puts the figure at 2.4 million or 4.6 per cent. The Daily Mail, in 2011, built on the Pew figures – assuming a continuing higher British Muslim birth rate and substantial immigration – to forecast a 10 per cent Muslim population in 2030.

The Pew Research Center is, by the way, one of those “think tanks” set up as retirement homes for US politicians and funded by plutocrats, but even so, let’s just assume that their figures are right; this still makes my wayward dining companion out by a whopping 50 per cent. I suppose one should pity someone maddened by a purely statistical crowd – but unfortunately my 50 per cent friend exemplifies the way the haut always conceive of the bas, which is as an undifferentiated and faceless mass. I write as someone who has no more time for repressive Islam than he does for repressive Christianity or Judaism but at least look at the face in the hijab – and try to imagine the one beneath the niqab – before you depersonalise its wearer.

Not only is the statistical madness an assault on individuality, it’s also one on temporality too. Statistics – even when accurate – are only an image of the past that can then be Photoshopped before being pasted on to the future. Who’s to say that the vast majority of British Muslims won’t spontaneously recant and convert to being Jedi or wishywashy Anglicans or Dawkinsian atheists by the time 2030 rolls around? Of all people, my interlocutor should have understood the real cultural arithmetic; after all, there he was sitting in his cords and V-neck at table with the quality, and cheerily bigoted. It was an impressive piece of assimilation for the son of someone who arrived here on a Kinder-transport.

Will Self is an author and journalist. His books include Umbrella, Shark, The Book of Dave and The Butt. He writes the Madness of Crowds and Real Meals columns for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Assange Alone

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.