Someone writes to digipundit Joel Spolsky about how to teach non-programmers how to program. He replies that you can’t, saying in part:
Different people have different mental skills. For example, I don’t know or care about women’s shoes. I have no ability whatsoever to comprehend women’s shoes. I’m probably never going to understand women’s shoes. Teach me about women’s shoes and I will feign interest and then promptly forget everything you told me. (What’s a pump? What’s a blahnik? Why do straight guys enjoy porn featuring high heels? DON’T KNOW DON’T CARE!)
Over at Misbehaving.net, Gina Trapani apparently disapproved of Mr. Spolsky’s metaphor. She replied in Spolsky’s comments that:
Your women’s shoes analogy was an unfortunate for 2 reasons:
1. It caused several comments to wander off topic. (Must we discuss porn here?)
2. It came dangerously close to reading: “Men are interested in programming” and “Women are interested in shoes.” I know you didn’t mean that, but suddenly the whole thing became unecessarily gendered.
I’m troubled by her response for a few reasons. One, while he might have avoided mentioning porn, I think Spolsky’s metaphor is apt. I, too, feel unable to make judgements about women’s shoes. In fact, I always reply “yes” to the question “aren’t these shoes cute?” While he has
Two, conversations on the Internet, unless heavily-moderated, tend to meander. This is the nature of the medium–and particular to unthreaded conversations like this one. It’s an age-old Internet pattern. I often put this question to those who wield the off-topic=bad equation: are off-topic posts really that troublesome?
Three, there’s absolutely no hint that Spolsky was implying that “Men are interested in programming” and “Women are interested in shoes.” In fact, he specifically only refers to his own opinions on the subject. Should we never use a gender-specific object in our metaphors? Have we become that hyper-sensitive?
Lastly, I observe with some irony that while Ms. Trapani had the luxury of commenting on Spolsky’s post, she didn’t extend the same courtesy to her own readers. I wouldn’t have bored everybody with this message if I could have posted it in a comments thread on Misbehaving.net.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
Of course, what’s interesting about the whole argument is that you can teach a non-programmer how to program.
The problem, I find, is that most programmers just don’t have the patience to teach a non-programmer, or don’t have the same mental processes as a non-programmer, and therefore can’t frame things in a way the non-programmer would understand.
1) I thought her criticisms were bang on. There was a gender-bias in Joel’s statement. He compared coding to shoe-shopping. How can there not be a gender bias in there? It was as sexist a comment as they come. What if he compared fixing a car and doing laundry? Would you not have seen gender-bias in that, either?
2) And it was a bad comparison. Anyone can be taught to program like anyone can be taught math. The rules are logical and don’t really change Shoe shopping is the expression of an aesthetic. There aren’t any rules. Joel is rationalizing being an ass towards women’s clothes – stuff he isn’t interested in, unless its in porn.
forgot the attribution. that was from me.
I agree with Ms. Trapani’s point that Joel could have thought up another analogy that wasn’t quite as loaded as speaking about women’s shoes – but I think his sentiment holds true.
Everyone can be taught to program, some – just as everyone can be taught math, to a degree. Ask the people who tried to teach and tutor me in math from grades 9-11.
It’s a left-brain/right-brain kind of thing. I doubt I’d be a very effective programmer, although with a lot of training I could likely be competent. However, my love and understanding of the beauty of a fine pair of shoes (and literature, and visual art, and music) seems to be somewhat ingrained.
Mark, am I drawing the correct conclusion from your first point: Every time one compares something to a gender-specific object (such as a purse or jockey shorts), one is making a sexist comment.
If not, where is the defining line? Is it sexist to say “the sea is like an angry woman tonight” or “this shirt fits snugger than a condom”? Must I eliminate a pantheon of gender-specific nouns from my metaphors?
No, but I’d argue they should be used with care. It’s a judgement call.
“The sea is like an angry woman” – laughably sexist
“this shirt fits snugger than a condom” is just bragging.
I agree with Jen: it’s not a sexist argument, but it still doesn’t make any sense.
I’m a female physicist, and I don’t care to understand/wear high heels shoes either. I do, however, fully appreciate and respect the abilities of others in the art of shoe-selecting. I’m willing to learn, I just don’t think it’s really possible since it involves such personal opinions.
Programming, however, does not involve personal opinions. Well, ok, maybe “to indent or not to indent” might be one. Learning a programming language is very much like learning any other language — it’s all syntax, it makes sense so long as things are done in the right order, and you end up with better style and after you’ve been doing it for a while. It’s my belief that anyone who can (as an adult) become fluent in a second or third language, can easily master *some* programming language … and vice versa.
Oh, and even though I don’t understand high heels, I still don’t like to see them in porn! What was that supposed to mean anyway?
Anyone can be taught to program just as anyone can be taught to pick out shoes. However, not everyone can be a John Fluevog or a Linus Torvalds.