技術(shù)創(chuàng)業(yè)者的隊(duì)伍中之所以少有女性的身影，深層次的原因有很多，不是教會(huì)女性學(xué)會(huì)編程就能解決的。它需要個(gè)人、社會(huì)和全世界在各個(gè)層面通過(guò)長(zhǎng)期的共同努力，消除阻礙女性發(fā)展的壁壘，同時(shí)給予她們必要的支持。
作為一種假說(shuō)，摩爾定律提出，集成電路上的晶體管的數(shù)量每?jī)赡昃蜁?huì)翻倍。這樣我們就完全可以認(rèn)為，這個(gè)翻倍的效果也會(huì)讓處理器的速度加倍，因?yàn)樾酒暇w管多了，處理器也必須更快才行。
不過(guò)，要想無(wú)限提高芯片的速度，不是說(shuō)拼命往芯片上塞晶體管就行了。計(jì)算速度還離不開(kāi)內(nèi)存容量等因素，同時(shí)也受到磁盤(pán)速度等要素的限制。
正如我們不能為了無(wú)限提高處理器速度而往芯片上多堆晶體管一樣，也不能僅僅通過(guò)讓更多女性進(jìn)入工程學(xué)院和編程學(xué)院就指望下一個(gè)馬克•扎克伯格能夠應(yīng)運(yùn)而生。扎克伯格只用了大約七年的時(shí)間就打造了一個(gè)價(jià)值10億美元以上的公司。就算是選拔那些從青少年時(shí)期就開(kāi)始黑客生涯的女性也是不夠的（這樣的女性確實(shí)存在，本人就是其中之一，而我這代人中這樣的人還不少）。
如果真的打算造就一位女版馬克（或者女版的斯蒂夫•喬布斯、杰夫•貝佐斯、埃隆•穆斯克等科技英才），同時(shí)出于討論的目的讓我假設(shè)這確實(shí)是個(gè)很有價(jià)值的事業(yè)，那就需要在很多方面有所改變。光教會(huì)女性如何編程是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠的。
改變心態(tài)
請(qǐng)包涵一下我愛(ài)用歷史掌故打比方的習(xí)慣。1865年，美國(guó)政府正式廢除了奴隸制。盡管這確實(shí)是一個(gè)巨大的成就，但對(duì)非裔美國(guó)人來(lái)說(shuō)，它所提供的只是一定程度的經(jīng)濟(jì)自由。85年后他們?nèi)匀灰驗(yàn)榉N族隔離制度被視為二等公民。直到20世紀(jì)50年代種族隔離制度才宣告終止，又直到2008年才有了第一位民選的非裔美國(guó)總統(tǒng)。掐指一算，非裔美國(guó)人獲得平等的政治地位用了整整143年！
遺憾的是，女性直到1920年才獲得投票權(quán)。在這之后，一直到20世紀(jì)50年代和60年代，社會(huì)才開(kāi)始重視培養(yǎng)女性上大學(xué)。不過(guò)就算是這樣，當(dāng)時(shí)女性進(jìn)入職場(chǎng)、婚育后繼續(xù)留在工作崗位上還是被人們看成是怪事；而這恰恰表明女性要么經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況不佳，要么缺乏社會(huì)支持。
因此，盡管女性和少數(shù)民族享有自由的口號(hào)一直喊得震天響，但實(shí)際狀況的改變卻始終步履遲緩。
實(shí)實(shí)在在的改變意味著必須積極推出能讓人們獲得自由的舉措，而這既需要教育，也離不開(kāi)社會(huì)實(shí)踐，只有這樣才能破除陳規(guī)陋習(xí)。
我得措辭謹(jǐn)慎地指出，西方社會(huì)好不容易懂得了讓女性接受教育的價(jià)值，但現(xiàn)在是時(shí)候向一些社會(huì)陋習(xí)宣戰(zhàn)了。
| |
| Moore's law, which is really a conjecture, states that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every two years. It is safe to presume that this doubling effect also doubles processor speeds, because having more transistors on a chip means faster processors.
However, you cannot just cram more transistors onto a chip in order to double its speed indefinitely. Computing speed is also based on things such as memory capacity and it is limited by factors such disk speed.
Just as you cannot cram more transistors onto a chip in order to double processor speeds indefinitely, you cannot expect that simply adding more women to engineering colleges and code academies will produce a Mark Zuckerberg, who will go on to build a billion-dollar company in roughly seven years. Even having women who have been hacking since they were teenagers isn't enough (and mind you these women do exist, I am one of them, and there are more than a handful of others in my generation).
Now if the goal is to produce a female version of Mark (or Steve, Jeff, Elon, etc.), and for the sake of argument I'll assume that this is a worthy cause, it's going to take change on many levels. Teaching women how to code isn't enough.
Change in Mindset
Please bear with me as I draw an analogy using history. In 1865 the U.S. government abolished slavery. While this was an achievement, it only afforded some level of economic freedom to African Americans. Nearly 85 years later they were still being treated as second-class citizens via segregation. It wasn't until the 1950s that segregation ended, and it wasn't until 2008 that we elected our first African American president. Doing the math it took 143 years before African American were supposedly on equal political footing!
Unfortunately, women weren't afforded the right to vote until 1920. Even after that, it wasn't until the late 1950s and 1960s that society valued educating women at the university level but, even then, entering the workforce and actually staying in it after marriage and having children was considered an anomaly; it was a sign of having limited financial means or social support.
Hence while freedom for women and minorities was proclaimed, the status quo was slow to change.
Actual change means having to vigilantly put forth practices to enable people to exercise their freedoms, and that requires a combination of education and social practices, which will eradicate social norms.
I'll be careful in stating that in Western societies, we finally believe in valuing education for women, but we now have to turn to social practices.
|
我們可以鼓勵(lì)女性積極投身社會(huì)并張開(kāi)雙臂歡迎她們，但這并不會(huì)消除各種文化中一些已經(jīng)傳承千年的、對(duì)待女性的做法，它們一直強(qiáng)化著女性主要作為撫育者的角色（我指的并不只是養(yǎng)育孩子）。要克服這一點(diǎn)，就需要全世界有意識(shí)地持續(xù)努力。它在實(shí)踐中意味著什么呢？主要是以下幾點(diǎn)：
• 男性支持這種觀點(diǎn)，即他們的女性另一半有能力作為平等的合伙人作出經(jīng)濟(jì)上的貢獻(xiàn)，有能力養(yǎng)家糊口。
• 把要不要孩子的選擇權(quán)真正還給女性。這就要求消除對(duì)那些選擇不要孩子的女性的非議，讓她們真正獲得生育的選擇權(quán)。
• 把是否照顧年邁雙親的選擇權(quán)還給女性。女性相對(duì)長(zhǎng)壽，經(jīng)濟(jì)壓力也較大，這意味著她們往往不得不照顧年邁的雙親和公婆。
• 對(duì)那些選擇要孩子及照顧家里老人的女性提供社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)支持，這需要各類(lèi)企業(yè)和政府幫一把。
從理論上來(lái)說(shuō)，上述情況現(xiàn)在都存在。我之所以說(shuō)是理論上，是因?yàn)槿绻鼈兇_實(shí)存在，我們?yōu)槭裁催�要對(duì)女性中沒(méi)能涌現(xiàn)出馬克、斯蒂夫、杰夫和埃隆這樣充滿(mǎn)創(chuàng)意的財(cái)富創(chuàng)造者大惑不解呢？請(qǐng)告訴我，如果整個(gè)社會(huì)對(duì)待女性的心態(tài)一直沒(méi)有改變，這怎么可能呢？！
不過(guò)，盡管現(xiàn)實(shí)中女孩和婦女聽(tīng)到的說(shuō)法各有不同，但我還是要不揣冒昧地說(shuō)，只有女孩和婦女才會(huì)真正明白下面這番話(huà)的深意，因?yàn)樗齻儚那嗌倌觊_(kāi)始直到長(zhǎng)大成人，每天都會(huì)聽(tīng)到這話(huà)：“到了年紀(jì)就找個(gè)合適的伴侶，因?yàn)槲覀償[脫不了生理規(guī)律，給家庭賺錢(qián)的同時(shí)，也要養(yǎng)好孩子。”而根據(jù)所處文化背景的不同還會(huì)加上這么一句：“同時(shí)也別忘了對(duì)老爸老媽和公婆的責(zé)任啊。”
我還要不揣冒昧地說(shuō)，有些人（不是所有人）會(huì)一直把這類(lèi)說(shuō)法掛在嘴邊，四處嘮叨。她們往往是些上了點(diǎn)年紀(jì)的婦女，可悲的是，其中還包括我們自己的母親！我說(shuō)這話(huà)不是想要指責(zé)誰(shuí)，只是要指明我們這一生所要面對(duì)的到底是什么樣的人和事。
這就是讓女性在養(yǎng)大成人和投身社會(huì)過(guò)程中總是尋求穩(wěn)定而不是風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的諸多因素之一。一開(kāi)始就選擇工程學(xué)（這是大學(xué)里的小眾學(xué)科）然后開(kāi)始創(chuàng)業(yè)（這意味著收入不穩(wěn)定），這本身就是有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的。選擇這條充滿(mǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的道路說(shuō)明我們是異類(lèi)（這不算什么壞事）。其他人則在一邊待著，看著我們會(huì)如何克服各種艱難險(xiǎn)阻。如果沒(méi)能打造一個(gè)價(jià)值十億美元的公司，也沒(méi)研發(fā)出什么創(chuàng)新技術(shù)，會(huì)不會(huì)有人對(duì)我們指指點(diǎn)點(diǎn)？我們會(huì)不會(huì)覺(jué)得自己痛失了做個(gè)好媽媽的機(jī)會(huì)？又或者我們有能耐做到家庭事業(yè)兩不誤嗎？
而與此同時(shí)，男人全力以赴地干事業(yè)卻仍是這個(gè)社會(huì)可以接受的做法。
| |
| We can encourage women to participate and welcome them with open arms, but that won't undo the thousands of years of ongoing cross-cultural practices that reinforce a woman's primary role as a nurturer (and I am not just talking about nurturing children). To overcome this requires a constant and vigilant effort globally. What does this mean in practice? It means the following:
• Men supporting the notion that their female significant other can contribute as an equal partner financially or be the bread-winner of the household.
• Really leaving the choice of having children up to women. This requires eradicating the unspoken judgment passed on women who choose not to have children and truly having the right to choice.
• Really leaving the choice of taking care of elderly parents up to women. Longevity coupled with financial strain often mean that women are left to care for elderly parents and in-laws.
• Having supportive social and economic practices for those who do chose to have children and take care of aging family members, which will need to be reinforced by somebody such as companies or governments.
In theory, all of this exists today. I say in theory, because if they actually existed, why would we be still left wondering why women aren't more innovative wealth-creators a la Mark, Steve, Jeff, and Elon? Please tell me how this is possible without a sustained change in society's mindset towards women?!
However, as status quo goes there is a mixed message being sent to girls and women, and I will take liberty in saying that only girls and women will truly understand this because they experience it daily from young through adolescence and into adulthood: "Find the right partner by a certain age, because we are still controlled by biology, and nurture your children while still contributing to the family financially." Depending on your cultural background add, "Please don't forget about your obligations to your aging parents and in-laws."
I will also take liberty in saying that some, not all, but some people, who continue to reinforce and propagate this mixed message are an older generation of women, which sadly, often include our own mothers! I'm not saying it to place blame, but to merely point out who and what we face throughout our lives.
This is one of the factors that has led females to being bred and socially conditioned to seek stability, not risk. There is an inherent risk involved in first choosing to pursue engineering (being the minority in college) and then entrepreneurship (being financially unstable). Those of us who have chosen a risky path are merely anomalies (not a bad thing). The rest are waiting and watching to see how we will overcome the personal risk we've taken. Will we be castigated if we fail to build a billion-dollar company and innovative technology? Or will we feel like we missed out on motherhood? Or will we be able to balance both?
Meanwhile, it is still socially acceptable for men to focus wholeheartedly on their career.
|
|
