Hi Matthew,



Thanks for your response. And that's a really interesting to read what your perspective is!



Consider those moments where you are switching between tasks - where there is a brief period where you need to mentally load up what you are about to work on, and what needs to be addressed when doing so. For me, I was mentally switching from my programming problem (**** global variables!) to a) remembering what I was multi-tasking on (installing something), and b) what I was installing (Fusion). It was in that brief (split-second) period that I first saw the screenshot (before I had mentally reached (b)) and had my initial reaction. Again, keep in mind that it was exclusively this image that I saw - devoid of logos, with minimalistic text and without the prior marketing context.



To be brutally honest my initial reaction was that the installation had been hacked by a modern, ultra pro-American, white supremacist organization. Full stop.



In that split second while I was still mentally context switching, I honestly expected some joker-face pop-up to show up indicating "click here to find out more and install more malware!" And then I finally saw the small, marginally camouflaged Autodesk text, and honestly thought W. T. F. ?







Let me unpack that initial reaction a little bit: the "modern" comes from the computer and hipster look. The "ultra pro-American" harkens back to Hollywood days of old with large American flags flying, cars or motorcycles, and butch men - while our hipster here doesn't convey overly butch, the work bench, tools, no natural light, etc. all do. The "white supremacist" comes from the ultra butch imagery, the Caucasian male, and most significantly - the old-looking, non-standard American flag, which to me - a non-American - means it might be a confederate flag, and in turn be supportive of anti-white hostility and all that entails.



Now it could be argued that my initial, knee-jerk reaction could be just that - knee jerk (which is still not a great knee jerk reaction for a company). However, during my longer "W. T. F." phase, (ie. stewing on it while busily back at work, and then reflecting on it after work before emailing this forum), I reflected on some of the larger issues at play, and as I alluded to earlier:



Attitudes toward demographics (age, race, gender) in STEM:



I could honestly write a PhD thesis on this topic.



Context: I am a software developer, working with computers since my early teens in the 90s.



From the early days of computers through to the 1980s, women were 30-40% of the workforce in computing. Since typing was considered "women's work", they were on the frontlines for involvement in sophisticated algorithms and hardware development. (eg. See the movie "Hidden Figures"). Sometime in the 1980s, computers - especially video games - were advertised as boy's toys, and along with the "math is hard" philosophy (which is unintentionally used to discourage women in North America, who are told to avoid difficult things, else they be seen as "keeners"), started to see the number of women in computers (the T in STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) decline. These days there are 11% of us in the workforce.



Somehow - perhaps it came along with the 80s computer advertising - there was an introduction of butch, machismo attitudes in software development (look up stereotypes of frat boy start ups thriving on jolt/dr. pepper and techno music in dark basements surrounded by LED lights). On a daily basis, a programmer needs to play "devil's advocate" both with themselves and with others in order to create the best solution. That is part of the job. However, without empathy or considerate social attitudes towards your colleagues (see: "EQ"), this can be expressed by aggressive, arrogant, or "I'm right, you're wrong" attitudes (which come with butch, machismo attitudes). It is tiresome to be told time and time again that you're "wrong", even when you're not and even when you have put in extra work to research and justify your point/position/approach. There is a term "mansplaining" which refers colloquially to a person (often male) who speaks and is listened to as if their speech is correct - no questions asked; no challenges made. There are studies illustrating that the exact same resumes, interview answers and requests for raises are better received simply because the person is a guy than a girl (eg. the guy may be seen as "eager to take on new challenges" while the gal is perceived as "inexperienced"). Orchestras around the world discovered they hired more women when they switched to blind auditions. The GamerGate discussions illustrated variations of this in the world of non-casual video games and MMOs. In the programming world, with the need for "devil's advocacy", those who have this "mansplaining" quality (men by default; and if lucky (?), very confident, strong-minded women) risks demoralizing or perceiving weakness in those who do not have this quality, even when they are actually excellently suited for problem solving within software development. Note: This is all technically separate from #metoo issues which also need to be addressed to ensure safe, creative spaces for employees to work in.



Many major, socially aware software companies - ideally those that support empathy and respect for an employee's well being - are actively hiring women, when possible, into the field and encourage women's participation across STEM fields in general. This aims to facilitate long-term success both for their companies and for our species, so that smart men AND women of the world are able to safely participate in the areas that they are clearly capable and interested in (again, prior to the 1980s, the field was better proportioned; and TODAY in India, east Asia and parts of the middle east, women in tech is MUCH closer to 50/50). Individuals like Google's ex-employee James Damore may struggle with seeing the bigger picture sometimes. To help facilitate encouraging women in tech - just as we see more diversity on TV and Hollywood screens - software companies, modern firms, and really any modern industry (government, education, healthcare) aims to at least help normalize that any skilled person can enter the field.



It is this aspect that really surprises me about the Fusion image. There was no montage or diversity of individuals. It is just the one guy in the ultra butch environment filled with oh so many male stereotypes ("toys for boys"). This is the equivalent of the 1980s push for computers for boys, and not 2018 equality, even if he's dressed as a hipster - he even looks like a hacker living in his parents' basement - notice the lack of natural light. Another alternative non-gendered approach would instead be to focus on the software, the 3D modelling and the resulting real-world construction. To exclusively portray one individual as the "poster boy" for your product is to implicitly exclude others that don't relate.







Note 1: I've commented on the gendered case. However there are huge issues with non-white (and in part, non-oriental) individuals with equally qualified skillsets that are not actively engaged in STEM (communities such as black, latin, indigenous, etc.). They have similarly large social and employment-acceptance issues here in North America as women do. Furthermore, age discrimination is rampant in tech (try to find a job when you're 50). I may not be overly familiar with this, but I suspect those who've been too busy working for a company that mightn't provide training end up being fired when they can't compete with out-of-uni grads trained on the latest tech. I encourage you to research more on the histories of where these groups have come from, what they're experiencing daily in standard day-to-day injustices, which in turn inhibits their ability to strongly participate in STEM and other domains. Look up "privilege" and some of the more recent writings on it. (I'm really hoping you've already looked into any of this, but you did say "assume ignorance").



Note 2: There are truly great strides being made at encouraging women to enter STEM fields, including software development. It seems that the bottleneck is now retention, which likely means workplace environments - ie. preventing talented individuals from being deterred or dropping out once they've started. From my experience, I suspect the workplace environment issues also surround how we work day-to-day. For example, I recognize that often software development and engineering work is done in isolation, often by more introverted individuals. This means that when team-building (informal or formal) takes place its best if its concentrated and builds familial-like bonds. Going for drinks at the pub, having a LAN party after work, playing foosball in the lunchroom all build rapport. More mature companies however recognize that parents (dads AND moms) can't stay late for LAN parties, or other such approaches. In this recognition that not all employees have the same interests, but can still be excellent employees - and still want the familial-like bonds at work - the "corporate environment" (team building/social interaction) may need to adapt. This can be particularly difficult for companies to adjust if they thrive on a frat-boy feel. It is important to have employees feel engaged and have a good company vibe, however if its done to the detriment of excluding skilled individuals, it may be necessary to change corporate (frat boy) culture.





Nationalism - historical and modern day:



Context: I am not American.



In the 1930s, with the poverty and starvation during the Great Depression, many cultures turned towards nationalistic and protectionistic tendencies to increase work productivity. The aim was to say "we are great", "we are right, they [other countries] are wrong". They waved their country's and political flags high and wide across the land. They turned away and expelled refuges, immigrants and even long-term citizens who were of different cultural background, as they were considered "impure" or were "giving away" their nation's resources to those who didn't "belong"; they killed and sterilized their infirm and disabled (see: "eugenics"): ultimately, this led to the Holocaust (eradicating not only an unimaginably large numbers Jews, but also immigrants, and even their own citizens, especially the disabled or mentally ill). Nationalism, or pro-nationalistic tendencies across a society has led to some unbelievably disgusting acts.



Now, America has this really interesting relationship with flag-flying. In that so, so many Americans fly their flag on a daily basis. All the time. I feel I can say with a large amount of confidence that no other country on the entire planet is as pro-flag as the USA. This leads to topics such as the current president Trump, who was voted in on a platform of "Make America Great Again" harkening back to the nationalistic slogans of the 1930s. Yes, there are some unbelievably awful situations - and large amounts of poverty and socio-economic diversity (with a more rigid class system than the UK's apparently, which says something!) - taking place in the USA. This means there is a large percent of the population that is actively looking for something, someone to change these awful situations and make it better for those living in the country. I fully appreciate that sentiment. However flag-flying or nationalism is not the way to address it. Much of Trump's pro-America statements harkens back to the 1930s, and sliding towards a disrespect of your fellow man (woman, person, etc.) honestly makes me sick to my stomach because I've read where that can lead.



Furthermore - and remember I am not an American - the image, which is essentially the "poster child" for Fusion 360, displays an old, non-standard American flag. Since I am not an American, it takes time to recognize what the flag is (I still don't know) but the most common old, non-standard American flag that is flown these days is the Confederate flag which is what my knee-jerk reaction saw it as. Whatever its historical intentions, these days the Confederate flag is now associated with being pro-"good old days", pro-slavery, anti-black. I still feel sick whenever I think about people going about their boring, legal, non-threatening everyday business and being killed because of a trigger happy cop, who risks walking free. More than once. Honestly, it makes me nauseous - that should not be happening in North America. Also, the Confederate flag is commonly associated with strong nationalistic tendencies (see above). (And those who are pro-Confederate also seem to have inherited a lot of "mansplaining" qualities...).



Lastly, over and over again it has been shown that teams work better than separate individuals. Collectively as a species we have built great things, and we should be very proud of what we have accomplished to date (though there is always room for improvement, like keeping our environment healthy for the long term). Anarchy, in contrast, seeks to promote pro-individualism - not caring for your neighbours, and by extension those who might be mutually profitable from shared exchanges of goods and services (sorry, NAFTA talks are really interesting/dumb to read about these days). We are strong together than apart. If there is hope to fix the poverty and socio-economic discrepancies in the USA, it is by working together: funding teachers to work better with their classes, funding police forces to work better with their community, and encouraging companies to give back (pay their **** taxes) to the local community to ensure financial disparity is reduced.



Within the Fusion image, aside from the lone individual in the picture, it is the motorcycle that while also nationalistic for being very American, is also very pro-anarchy. Between Hollywood, biker gangs, and the anti-helmet (anti-public safety) campaigns in the USA, the motorcycle represents freedom - which is both an attractant for those who love them, but also represents a tough, anti-human image. I do not fault anyone that has or loves motorcycles. I think they're great in many ways, but in the context shown, with all the other machismo and masculine stereotyping, to me it came across as its rougher, anarchistic interpretation. This pro-individual approach is not something that speaks (positively) to me, and I am sorry for the places it exists.



It are these reasons that really surprise me about the Fusion image. Autodesk is an international company, reaching into what I imagine are dozens of countries across the globe. Their 3D software is defacto industry standard and well constructed. I understand its an American country. But again, if this were a montage, or the focus were on the 3D software and resulting construction, this nationalistic perception would be a non-issue, averaged out by the other representatives showcased. Instead, it illicits political consideration. Flying an American flag is very pro-Trump these days, which means anti-immigrant, anti-black (see news articles surrounding issues relating to athletes taking a knee during the anthem), and really anti- so many inclusive, supportive causes (like improving funding education so the up-coming generation can fight to bury fake news). Flying an old non-standard American flag is very pro-Confederate (and therefore anti-black) - or it assumes that the audience knows America SO WELL that we should know the difference. And the anarchistic feel of the motorcycle given its surrounding - single individual, dark workshop/basement, ultra butch workspace, etc. - is not really pro-team that I would've expected from something like Autodesk.





Cultural awareness and stereotyping both of the audience and from the audience:



Context: I'm in tech, but I love staying on top of current events and understanding the historical context in which a person or group might be coming from to inspire whatever it is they do. It can help me understand better where they're coming from, what they might not have experienced, and what their objectives may be going forward. This is who I am by default. I want to understand why the James Damores of the world are so anti-women in tech. I'd love to understand why individuals voted for Trump (it sounds like they desperately want(ed) change in the hopes that the disparity would decrease; which is rather unfortunate since such improvement takes time (decades) - Obama laid a great foundation, its too bad he was only allowed 8 years as it'll take at least another generation of keeping on with that work before its benefits have fully reverberated across the country).



To that end, I am always hopeful (assuming?) that everyone, or particularly the representatives of good companies like Autodesk have already done more than I could for due-diligence. This assumption of mine means that I stereotype people to assume/expect more from them. And similarly, that is what this image has done as well.



The image lacks cultural awareness because it appears to have missed all the points made in the previous two sections. In presenting the image that it did, exclusively and in the way it did, it comes across as oblivious of the attitudes towards demographics in STEM and political ramifications of what is showcased in this single image. It therefore either caters to a group that is equally unaware of these topics, or unintentionally disrespects those of us who are cogniscent of them and hopeful for improvement, which can only take place by leading by example - every day, all day, to the best of our ability. It sounds like it was unintentioned (is ignorance really an excuse? especially in this day when knowledge about anything is at our fingertips? I know I'm expected to know my stuff when I go to work - see the top section re: proving ones work) and I really hope that Autodesk continues to lead in the 3D field and to lead responsibly.



As I'm now at hour 5, I'll write my last few points in brief: The image assumes its audience knows about the marketing campaign (no). It assumes the audience knows the flag in the background isn't Confederate (no). It assumes the audience sees (yet another) young, individual white male as representative of the human population in general (every demographic works hard...). It assumes the audience see a lone white male in a dark room as being inspiring (rather than the next high school shooter... which of course is me stereotyping...). It assumes the audience is inspired by seeing the American flag (ehh... my concern is less on anti-Americanism, and more on pro-Trump, pro-Confederate flag attitudes). But ultimately its up to marketing and Autodesk what they want to showcase. And if this is what they want... well... it sounds from Kevin like they just didn't see what might've been seen with the image. I know they keep on being a great company, and hope they continue to consider inclusivity in their work.







Anyway Matthew, hopefully this has helped add some perspective.



Having now spent most of my Saturday compiling this diatribe, I would appreciate moving on from this topic, especially after Kevin's helpful response. I encourage you to read (credible) news and literature - especially seeking out domains that you're unfamiliar with, including international news sources. (Did you know in the coming weeks Capetown risks becoming the first modern, large city to have no water? Dear goodness. I hope it doesn't come to that, and hope the smart cookies there can make it work out as best they can.) Also consider reading the comments sections as often they provide supporting voices or additional viewpoints. Perhaps you know all this already. Best of luck to you!



