Josh: Hey everyone, welcome back! Let me kick things off with something that might surprise you: the very first computer programmer? A woman, Ada Lovelace. Back in the 1840s! And during World War II, women were absolutely crucial to computing, doing the calculations that “really” helped turn the tide. Fast forward to today though and… women hold a surprisingly small percentage of tech jobs. What exactly happened along the way? Drew: Hold on a second. So, if I’m hearing you right, women were the original architects of modern computing, and now… they're largely absent from the very boardrooms of companies that have made billions off their work? Josh, that raises some seriously important questions, doesn't it? Josh: Absolutely, Drew, it does! And we’re going to dig into them. The book we're discussing today “really” gets into this weird contradiction. It examines the systemic gender inequality in tech—how it started, the obstacles women still face, and the real solutions needed to dismantle them. It's filled with personal stories, important case studies, and, yeah, some truly awful moments, like the blatant sexism in tech culture and the whole Gamergate mess. Drew: Okay, so here’s the plan for today: first, we explore how women initially shaped the field of computing before being pushed aside. Second, we dissect the sexist imbalances that are still unfortunately rampant throughout the industry—everything from harassment to funding disparities. And finally, we’ll talk about the fixes. Who's actively working to drive change, and what will it “really” take to make tech truly inclusive? I suspect it's going to take more than just hiring a single female engineer for appearances’ sake, isn't it?

Josh: Okay, so let's really get into how women shaped the very beginnings of computing. To understand where we are now, we've got to go way back. Remember Ada Lovelace? She wasn't just playing around with numbers in the 1840s. She was basically inventing the idea that computers could do way more than just calculations. She imagined them working with music, art, everything! Sounds like the sort of vision we associate with tech geniuses like Steve Jobs, right? Drew: Yeah, but instead of hailing her as this original tech visionary, history kind of... relegated her to Babbage's sidekick. Is that fair? Josh: Not at all. For so long, she was just seen as Babbage's helper. Her notes on the Analytical Engine prove she was leading the charge intellectually. And we keep seeing that same dynamic in tech history, over and over. Women do groundbreaking work, and their contributions just get written off or minimized. Drew: So, Ada had the brains but not the branding, huh? Okay, at least she's getting some credit now. What about the women who came after her? Surely it wasn't all downhill from there? Josh: Not at all. Jump to World War II. Think about the ENIAC programmers, women like Betty Holberton, Jean Bartik, and their whole team. These were coding pioneers, physically rewiring circuits to debug the first general-purpose electronic computer! And get this: coding wasn’t even called “programming” yet. It was just "clerical work and meticulous stuff" and men worked on the hardware. Drew: Wait, so they pioneered coding, because it wasn’t considered important enough for men? Incredible! Josh: Exactly. Programming back then was tedious, almost secretarial. These women made it a real science, paving the way for modern coding practices. Drew: Of course, they didn't get much credit for it, did they? Josh: Of course not. Textbooks and history books were all like “brilliant male engineers built the ENIAC!” Completely ignoring the women who ran it. It wasn’t until the 1980s we started to dig into their contributions. Drew: So, these women broke ground, got written out of history, and were barely rediscovered in time for their Wikipedia pages. Josh: Frustrating, right? Then you've got Grace Hopper, the "mother of computing." She invented the first compiler, which made programming way more accessible using words instead of machine code. Her work practically paved the way for COBOL, one of the first high-level programming languages. Drew: She made coding easy for everyone, and people still thought women couldn't code? Josh: The contradiction is what defines it. Women didn’t just participate—they built it. And yet, in the 1980s, their representation just plummeted. Drew: Right, let’s talk about that “plummeting." Women thrived in tech for a while; what caused the freefall? Josh: The cultural shift in the 1980s. Computers started being marketed as toys – specifically, for boys. Ads showed boys playing games and learning to code, while girls brushed Barbie's hair. This early exposure gave boys a head start in college with coding experience, while girls felt they didn’t belong. Drew: So tech turned into a boys’ club because of... advertising? Josh: Advertising was a big part, but there were systemic issues, too. Universities valued applicants with prior coding experience, which favored boys. Then there’s the culture itself – images of "computer nerds" from movies like Revenge of the Nerds or WarGames. Not great role models for young women. Drew: Instead of building on progress from World War II, the industry doubled down on stereotypes? Next-level gatekeeping. Josh: It gets worse. Many computer science programs leaned into that, focusing on enrollment policies and environments that actively shut out women. One student in a study described walking into labs plastered with Star Trek posters and thinking, “This isn’t for me.” Drew: Star Trek posters are great... but not as a “keep out” sign. Josh: Exactly. And it didn't stop there. Other fields, like medicine, worked to fix biases and encourage diverse candidates. But computer science? Not so much. Drew: Medicine fixed some things, though. Not a feminist utopia, but they got rid of some barriers. Why didn’t tech follow suit? Josh: That's the million-dollar question. Other professions were implementing reforms, tech dove deeper into its exclusionary culture. And then you have cultural symbols, like the Lena Söderberg image, a Playboy centerfold used in coding research for decades. Maybe it started as a practical choice, but it reinforced the idea that tech is a “man’s world.” Drew: Ah, yes, the Playboy programming era. “Cutting-edge innovation” with objectifying women. Josh: It's infuriating because the choices, an ad here, a classroom decoration there—have huge implications. They sent a wrong message. The exclusion wasn’t just bad for women—it held back the entire industry. Drew: Tech thrives on diverse thoughts and idea. By sidelining women, it sabotages progress and innovation.

Josh: So all this history really is key to understanding the challenges women still face in tech today. We can talk about the past all we want, but we have to see how these issues and cultural norms have just kept on going, still pushing women to the sidelines, right? Drew: Okay, so our mission—should we choose to accept it—is to pinpoint these problems, from the “bro” culture to funding disparities. Then we'll see how these issues manifest in today's tech scene, right? Josh: Exactly. And let's start with something that's almost become a cliché: the “brogrammer” culture. Now, it might sound like a harmless nickname, but it actually points to a very real and toxic dynamic in tech workplaces. Drew: Ah, the legendary “brogrammer”. Mix some coding with the testosterone levels of a college frat party and what do you get? My guess is…not inclusion. Josh: You pretty much nailed it. Think about Trilogy Software back in the 90s. They got known for their frat-house atmosphere, where employees talked about a cycle of “money, recruiters, beer”. Fitting into this hyper-masculine, work-hard, party-harder vibe was almost more important than actual tech skills. And women there? They often felt uncomfortable or just plain excluded. Drew: Look, if your hiring pitch sounds like it belongs on a fraternity T-shirt, maybe you should rethink your life choices, you know? Josh: And it wasn't just Trilogy. Fast forward to Uber in the 2010s. Remember Susan Fowler's blog post back in 2017? It painted this really disturbing picture of managers hitting on female employees, HR doing nothing, and a corporate culture that rewarded being cutthroat over being accountable and respectful. Drew: Because nothing says, “We value innovation” like telling your engineer to just "deal with" harassment so everyone can keep playing the startup hustle game. Josh: Exactly, and Uber's response? Public backlash forced some changes—but only after so much damage had already been done. This “brogrammer” culture created environments where women weren't just unwelcomed, they were being systematically pushed out. It's like, for some companies, success was used as an excuse for bad behavior, right? Drew: All right, so toxic workplaces are definitely part of the problem. But what about the money? Because let's face it, the tech world runs on venture capital, and that's another area where women run into a brick wall. Josh: Absolutely. I mean, the numbers don't lie. Back in 2016, for example, startups led by men got over $58 billion in VC funding. And women-led startups? Just $1.46 billion. It's a tiny fraction—almost nothing compared to what their male counterparts got. Drew: How does that even happen? This is 2016—not some black-and-white film. You would think investors would be more interested in potential, not gender. Josh: Well, unfortunately, bias plays a huge part. Investors will often see men as “visionary,” whereas women get labeled as “inexperienced”—even when they're pitching the exact same idea. And since venture capital is mostly run by these elite male networks, there's this echo chamber effect that just keeps the imbalance going, you know? Drew: So, a dude could pitch an app for finding your lost socks using blockchain and get called a genius. But a woman pitching, say, a life-saving medical device gets a, “Hmm, maybe next time”? Josh: It's seriously frustrating, but yeah, that's basically it. Take Katrina Lake, for example. She founded Stitch Fix, which was one of the first really successful online personal styling services. But male investors? They kept turning her down because, apparently, women's fashion wasn't scalable in their eyes. Then she took the company public in 2017 with a billion-dollar valuation, just proving them completely wrong. Drew: And I bet even then, plenty of those VCs called it a “fluke” instead of owning up to their own biases. Classic. Josh: Honestly, the toughest part isn't even just getting through that funding gap, it's the overall psychological toll. Female entrepreneurs constantly have to work harder just to be seen as credible, you know? Drew: Right. Like, imagine if men in tech had to work twice as hard just to not be underestimated. Oh wait, they don't. Lucky them. Josh: But it's not just about bias in funding or these weird office dynamics. There's another layer to all of this: workplace harassment and abuses of power. Think about Justin Caldbeck at Binary Capital. He used his position as a big-shot VC to harass women entrepreneurs who were pitching him ideas. Drew: Power plus zero accountability—that's just a recipe for disaster, right? Josh: Exactly. Women reported being subjected to inappropriate advances during meetings that were supposed to be completely professional. And when these stories came out, Caldbeck resigned, and Binary Capital basically imploded. But the thing is, getting rid of one person doesn't fix the whole problem. Power imbalances in VC are still a huge, systemic issue, you know? Drew: It's all connected, isn't it? Workplace discrimination, funding biases, these cultural power dynamics—they're not separate issues. They all feed into each other. Josh: And it goes online, too. I mean, look at Gamergate back in 2014. It started as a smear campaign aimed at game developer Zoe Quinn but turned into a full-blown harassment movement against women in gaming and tech—including Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. Drew: Oh, I remember that. Twitter just became a cesspool of threats, and the platforms just shrugged it off, like, “Eh, the internet's gonna be the internet.” Josh: Exactly. These platforms hid behind “free speech” while women were getting doxxed, receiving death threats, basically being bombarded for daring to exist in these male-dominated spaces. And Gamergate wasn't just a one-off thing, it showed how a lack of online protections could amplify abuse and just push women out entirely. Drew: So whether it's in the boardroom, venture funding, or online spaces, one thing is clear: these aren't just isolated incidents or some unfortunate accidents. They're symptoms of deeply ingrained cultural and systemic barriers. Josh: And until these barriers come down, tech and gaming will keep falling short—not just morally, but in their ability to grow and innovate. Women bring fresh ideas, perspectives, and skills that make the field better for everyone. But systemic exclusion? It is holding everything back. Drew: Let’s be real—it sounds less like an industry problem and more like an ongoing act of self-sabotage.

Josh: Understanding the problems is key, but what about solutions? What does a real plan for reform look like? Drew: Exactly! It's easy to point out the issues—and there are a ton—but where's the road map? Josh: Right. So, let's shift gears and talk about practical steps we can take toward inclusivity. We need to focus on real solutions. Think structural changes, leaders being held responsible, and strategies for creating spaces where everyone feels safe and included. It’s time to move beyond just talking and start doing. Drew: Okay, so let's start with leadership. They set the tone, right? If the people in charge don't care or don't act, does anything else really matter? Josh: Absolutely. Leaders need to not only acknowledge gender disparities, but they need to be proactive in fixing them. Look at Larry Page at Google, for instance. Early on, he saw how few women were in engineering and stepped in directly. He basically told recruiters to stop hiring male engineers until they brought on a certain number of women. Drew: Wow, that's pretty hardcore. Shutting down the pipeline for men until the imbalance is fixed. Recruiters must have loved that. Josh: Oh, I'm sure there was resistance. But that's the kind of bold leadership it takes to “really” shake things up. Page wasn't just pointing out the problem; he was forcing a structural change. And it wasn’t just about hiring. Google also created committees to double-check hiring decisions if bias was suspected. Leaders like Susan Wojcicki pushed for diverse perspectives in decision-making, having candidates evaluated by multiple people to minimize individual biases. Drew: That's a good reminder that bias isn't always obvious, is it? Sometimes people don't even realize they're favoring one person over another for reasons that aren't related to skills. Josh: Exactly. Companies can catch and fix these issues by building safeguards into the hiring process. But leadership accountability goes beyond just hiring. It also extends to external influence, like venture capital firms. Drew: Ah, venture capital. So, are we talking about those firms that are finally realizing diverse startups are actually good for business? Josh: Precisely. Some of the Limited Partners, the ones who actually fund these firms, are starting to prioritize gender diversity. Joelle Kayden at Accolade Partners is a great example. Profitability is still key, but she's been very clear about how inclusive teams lead to better innovation and better investment results. This growing connection between profitability and inclusivity is a good sign—but it’s not a complete solution on its own. Drew: Yeah, because there's still pushback, right? You've got the critics who cry "quota hiring" or say diversity initiatives lower standards. Josh: And that's just not true. Inclusion isn't about lowering the bar—it's about removing the biases that keep qualified candidates from even being seen in the first place. Leaders need to put these measures in place and actively defend their value against people who disagree. Otherwise, the changes risk being seen as a symbolic effort rather than a real commitment. Drew: So, we've covered leadership. What about the digital communities tech companies create? A lot of those toxic situations you mentioned earlier—Gamergate, workplace harassment—happen online. Is anything being done to fix that? Josh: That's where building safer online communities comes in. A great example is Riot Games, the company behind League of Legends. They had huge problems with toxic player behavior that was driving people away. Instead of ignoring it, they created a "player behavior" team of psychologists and neuroscientists to tackle it. Drew: Neuroscience for gaming? That sounds intense. Josh: It was! And it worked. They found out that most of the bad behavior wasn't coming from repeat offenders, but from regular players just lashing out when they were frustrated. So, Riot added features like turning off chat by default and an instant feedback system for banning offensive users. They also created "The Tribunal," a platform where the community could evaluate toxic incidents together. Drew: And the results? Did people actually calm down, or did they just find sneakier ways to be awful? Josh: Remarkably, toxic comments dropped by 30%, and positive interactions increased by 35%. It showed that even difficult online spaces can be transformed with the right tools. It highlighted the importance of investing in inclusive digital spaces. Drew: I see why this is important. If more companies did that, it could make a huge difference, especially for women who face so much harassment online. Josh: Exactly. A safer online environment means keeping a diverse group of users, which benefits everyone in the long run. And speaking of retention, we can't forget about education—it's one of the best ways to build diversity from the ground up. Drew: Ah, you're talking about the pipeline issue. You can't fix inequality in the workforce if there's a massive imbalance in who's even entering the field. Josh: Exactly! Programs like Girls Who Code are a game-changer. They don't just teach coding; they break down stereotypes by creating spaces where girls feel comfortable pursuing tech careers. Drew: And it's working, right? What's the proof? Josh: Girls Who Code participants say they feel inspired and ready to deal with systemic biases. And we're seeing broader trends too. The percentage of girls taking AP Computer Science went from 18% in 2007 to 27% by 2017. Young women are leading this charge, running coding clubs and mentoring others. Drew: And they're already asking the important questions, like how to make coding more accessible for other girls. It sounds like the next generation is ready to push for change—but will the industry actually meet them halfway? Josh: That's the big question. Education alone isn't enough. Companies need to support it with mentorship, clear career paths, and real representation in leadership roles. Drew: So, that's where metrics and accountability come back in, right? It's not enough to just say "we're trying"—you have to back it up with real data. Josh: Exactly. Pay equity audits, diversity reports, harassment policies—all of those things need to be measurable and transparent. When companies share their progress, it creates standards for best practices and encourages change across the industry. Drew: And male allies have a role here too, don't they? Women can't be expected to fight this battle alone; they need support from people in power. Josh: Definitely. Male allies can amplify women's voices, advocate for their ideas, and push for inclusion at all levels of an organization. When it's clear that gender equity is everyone’s responsibility, it becomes a collective effort rather than a burden placed solely on women. Drew: Okay, so the road map is clear. Leadership accountability, safer online spaces, education and mentorship, and measurable metrics. It's like building a program—each step has to work together, or the whole thing crashes. Josh: And when the system works, it's not just about fairness; it's about building an industry that thrives on diverse perspectives and ideas, driving innovation in ways we haven't even imagined yet.

Josh: Okay, so to recap everything we've discussed, we've really traced the journey of women in tech, right? From their crucial, yet often overlooked, contributions way back when, to the systemic hurdles they're still battling today. We unpacked that whole toxic “brogrammer” culture, the funding gaps, the harassment issues, and how it's all connected. And, crucially, we looked at real solutions: holding leadership accountable, building inclusive environments, educational programs like Girls Who Code, and fostering male allyship that actually delivers results. Drew: Yeah, and the thing that really hits me is this isn't just about fairness, you know? It's about potential, pure and simple. When the diversity of an industry drops, so does its ability to innovate. Women weren't just critical to tech's past; they hold the key to a ton of unrealized ingenuity that could define its future. It's like... crippling half the processing power of your computer and then wondering why it's running slow. Josh: Precisely! And the key takeaway here is that gender equity in tech isn't some optional add-on or a PR stunt. It's absolutely essential, both ethically and strategically. We know the path forward, but it demands action—repairing broken systems, amplifying diverse voices, and dismantling those deeply ingrained biases. Drew: So, to everyone listening, where do you fit into this picture? Whether you're working in tech, investing in startups, or just using the apps and software this industry creates, ask yourself: is the system you're interacting with truly inclusive? And, more importantly, what specific steps can you take to improve it? Josh: Because when we actually fix the system, we're not just empowering women, we’re unlocking progress for absolutely everyone. And that's a future that's definitely worth working towards.