My life as a woman in tech, told in three beverages(medium.datadriveninvestor.com)
medium.datadriveninvestor.com
My life as a woman in tech, told in three beverages
https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/my-life-as-a-woman-in-tech-told-in-three-beverages-abba35cbf3df
97 comments
The reason she's pissed isn't because they think she's a secretary, it's because they apparently didn't consider it a possibility that she was anything else. The fact that she's a woman is likely the cause of that. I can't imagine that they considered that she might be the hiring manager or potential team member and then decided to go straight to asking them to do stuff instead of asking what their role is first. They also then go on to presume that she might not even be able to explain what the company does (which seems like it would be insulting to someone who is an actual receptionist).
I'm shocked people assume anyone's roles. It's not like it's uncommon to send down the hiring manager, first interviewer, potential teammate, etc to pick up interviewees.
I'm shocked people assume anyone's roles. It's not like it's uncommon to send down the hiring manager, first interviewer, potential teammate, etc to pick up interviewees.
Huh? These are stories about specific men doing specifically shitty things. The generalization is yours.
I figured as much, and just skimmed to catch the title beverages, but it didn't sit well with somebody.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27024130
Also, sibling poster with "Huh?": how can you be that clueless?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27024130
Also, sibling poster with "Huh?": how can you be that clueless?
All 3 beverages caffeinated, of course... Wonder how that affects interpersonal transactions. Anybody on edge and slightly ahead of themselves? Everybody?
Just want to recommend L-Theanine to smooth the jagged edges. Men and women both ought to notch it back as far as I can tell.
EDIT: I thought it might be pertinent, but clearly the battle of the sexes is more interesting to all of you. Grow up.
Just want to recommend L-Theanine to smooth the jagged edges. Men and women both ought to notch it back as far as I can tell.
EDIT: I thought it might be pertinent, but clearly the battle of the sexes is more interesting to all of you. Grow up.
OK, ok, I read the article, it was actually fun and witty and couched in a happy-hour tone with "adult beverages" mentioned both in the introduction and conclusion.
She seems smart and righteous and tougher than she probably looks. I would rather work with her than be one of those guys trying to explain why he isn't pressing charges for assault and/or battery.
If only I could use those tactics when facing up with challenging coworkers, I would have a different set of battle stories.
She seems smart and righteous and tougher than she probably looks. I would rather work with her than be one of those guys trying to explain why he isn't pressing charges for assault and/or battery.
If only I could use those tactics when facing up with challenging coworkers, I would have a different set of battle stories.
Be brave. What's your actual problem with the above? Have I tacitly condoned a false equivalency? You're appalled at rude words, but cheering for physical violence? Is it the unscientific supplement recommendation? Gender war stories have a fixed plot?
There might be a better way.
There might be a better way.
How did Dick not get fired long before if everyone thought he was terrible?
Oh right, that company did not learn the lesson of the first one, coding is not as important as being a decent person when it comes to building a team.
Oh right, that company did not learn the lesson of the first one, coding is not as important as being a decent person when it comes to building a team.
I will never understand this logic. It doesn't matter how friendly someone is if they can't code, but even if someone is difficult to work with (as many smart computer programmers are) they can still be hugely important to a team's success. Obviously there are limits to both of these, but technical ability is the requirement and "being fun to work with" is the nice-to-have. I think highly socialized people tend to complain about non-social people much more than the reverse.
A highly technically skilled but anti-social team member can easily have negative productivity as they bring down (or drive out) everyone else in the team. This doesn't even require them to be an asshole: just being bad at communicating can do it (I have had such a coworker: nice, very technically skilled, completely useless as part of a team).
>drive out) everyone else in the team [by] just being bad at communicating
Wow. What exactly did he do that literally made everyone else quit? Surely there was a lot more than just "being bad at communicating".
Wow. What exactly did he do that literally made everyone else quit? Surely there was a lot more than just "being bad at communicating".
Sure, not having any hard skills at all disqualifies, but at some point you are good enough to do work and the social ability becomes the bottleneck.
It is not about being fun to work with (this is a nice bonus, sure), but having the ability to communicate with and enable, mentor, help others or accept help and critique if necessary.
It is not about being fun to work with (this is a nice bonus, sure), but having the ability to communicate with and enable, mentor, help others or accept help and critique if necessary.
That's a good way of putting it. A lot of really smart people are held back by their inability to be pleasant enough to work with that people want to work with them, which is needed for teamwork, which is needed for large-scale projects to succeed.
I have had some colleagues who were so-so developers yet were the social and institutional glue that made the team productive.
I didn't play team sports as a kid so it took me a decade or so as a working adult to appreciate the difference between a high-function team and a collection of super smart individuals.
I didn't play team sports as a kid so it took me a decade or so as a working adult to appreciate the difference between a high-function team and a collection of super smart individuals.
I'm always disappointed when I read stories like this. It saddens me that people are like this.
My team of 15 has a whopping 2 female engineers and they're amazing. Thankfully I've never witnessed a single instance of sexism here. There's a fair amount of ignorance and some awkward terminology though. (they often use "Hey guys" or "Hey lads").
I do remember in college we did have a female student. Of course the reaction was "Wow! A girl in the class!". She didn't last long before transferring courses...
I hope our future female engineers persist and we can get a better split between men and women. I hate being in this men's world
Please! Respect your fellow engineers, no matter what they look like or where they come from.
My team of 15 has a whopping 2 female engineers and they're amazing. Thankfully I've never witnessed a single instance of sexism here. There's a fair amount of ignorance and some awkward terminology though. (they often use "Hey guys" or "Hey lads").
I do remember in college we did have a female student. Of course the reaction was "Wow! A girl in the class!". She didn't last long before transferring courses...
I hope our future female engineers persist and we can get a better split between men and women. I hate being in this men's world
Please! Respect your fellow engineers, no matter what they look like or where they come from.
I was often the only girl in my comp sci classes, though not always. I always thought it was interesting to see how my fellow female peers handled the extra attention. Some of them leaned into it and were always surrounded by mediocre male peers eager to "help" them. They would pretty much always defer to their posse of helpers and get praise for being a team player.
My strategy was pretty much the polar opposite though. I found that if I could one-up my male peers early in the course, most of the annoying ones would be too intimidated to bother me. It worked out pretty well too. The ones who weren't intimidated tended to be better at the coursework anyhow. So when I needed to partner up, I would pick one of them - and I wouldn't have to worry about them not respecting me or anything. If it was a random pairing with one of the ones who was uncomfortable around me, that actually worked fine too. They usually let me take the leadership role, and I didn't mind that either. I didn't get points for being agreeable, but nobody doubted my competency - and that was all I really wanted.
I can definitely see how women who aren't comfortable doing either of the things described above would transfer away.
My strategy was pretty much the polar opposite though. I found that if I could one-up my male peers early in the course, most of the annoying ones would be too intimidated to bother me. It worked out pretty well too. The ones who weren't intimidated tended to be better at the coursework anyhow. So when I needed to partner up, I would pick one of them - and I wouldn't have to worry about them not respecting me or anything. If it was a random pairing with one of the ones who was uncomfortable around me, that actually worked fine too. They usually let me take the leadership role, and I didn't mind that either. I didn't get points for being agreeable, but nobody doubted my competency - and that was all I really wanted.
I can definitely see how women who aren't comfortable doing either of the things described above would transfer away.
[deleted]
Nice story. It takes some experience and self knowledge to identify what is a joke and what is bullying. Most men just want to be liked, seem witty and funny, and sometimes are just going a too far to show off. But there's a group of people who will belittle you to humiliate and assert their higher position in the hierarchy and this is a part of an ugly campaign to destroy any competition (which also means you're perceived as dangerous). And misunderstandings happen, with victims on both sides, but it's valuable to know some people have hidden motives.
I have a different issue, I think it has something to do with male/female relations at workplace. I'm the lead dev in a mixed team. And one of devs, who happens to be a girl, has some special attitude. Whenever I report a problem with the code, or a bug, she jumps in and exclaims it's not her code or she didn't do anything related to the problem, basically not her fault [without any suggestions that it might be her fault]. Sometimes tries to blame someone else. If anything points to her responsibility, she downplays it (oh you know I don't even remember). All while I try to avoid blaming or pointing code ownership. But the most difficult part was when I pointed out some parts were missing in her work and function wasn't completed - then I was accused of being mean and attacking her without any reason. Never had such situation, I am rather a considerate, polite person, try to remain professional and never touch personal side - but this just perplexed me. With a male dev it would not be possible, but when a woman accuses a man of harassment or bullying at work the man is considered guilty by default. I perceived this as a threat - never ever criticize my work or you will be accused. Unfortunately she's not doing that great job sometimes and so cooperation gets quite difficult - and I'm afraid it's not going to be good in future.
I have a different issue, I think it has something to do with male/female relations at workplace. I'm the lead dev in a mixed team. And one of devs, who happens to be a girl, has some special attitude. Whenever I report a problem with the code, or a bug, she jumps in and exclaims it's not her code or she didn't do anything related to the problem, basically not her fault [without any suggestions that it might be her fault]. Sometimes tries to blame someone else. If anything points to her responsibility, she downplays it (oh you know I don't even remember). All while I try to avoid blaming or pointing code ownership. But the most difficult part was when I pointed out some parts were missing in her work and function wasn't completed - then I was accused of being mean and attacking her without any reason. Never had such situation, I am rather a considerate, polite person, try to remain professional and never touch personal side - but this just perplexed me. With a male dev it would not be possible, but when a woman accuses a man of harassment or bullying at work the man is considered guilty by default. I perceived this as a threat - never ever criticize my work or you will be accused. Unfortunately she's not doing that great job sometimes and so cooperation gets quite difficult - and I'm afraid it's not going to be good in future.
It's important to keep things fact based and be very specific about the behavior you want corrected. I would get things in writing as well so that you have email to back you up in case things go south.
The situation you are describing is, unfortunately, not a male/female issue. It is a pattern for a certain type of low performer.
p.s., You might think about why you use the word "girl" as opposed to "woman" BTW. That's a touchy point for a lot of women, as it diminishes their seniority. It may or may not be relevant to the conversations you describe. This is not intended as criticism; I know nothing of the situation beyond what you wrote.
The situation you are describing is, unfortunately, not a male/female issue. It is a pattern for a certain type of low performer.
p.s., You might think about why you use the word "girl" as opposed to "woman" BTW. That's a touchy point for a lot of women, as it diminishes their seniority. It may or may not be relevant to the conversations you describe. This is not intended as criticism; I know nothing of the situation beyond what you wrote.
Probably because of age difference, she's much younger than me. And also because of the way she behaves - i perceive it as a bit childish/immature
But yes, i'm afraid i might be wrongly accused and would have a hard time defending myself, and this also affects the rest of the team (as i dont think they're blind - they see and feel what's going on - but on the other side i'd rather not talk about this with anyone else from the team so it's ok we dont mention that)
PS (edit): "low performer" - this is probably the key, i have worked with some developers doing a poor job but it's first time when i'm served some manipulative crap to prevent any honest discussion of the work done.
But yes, i'm afraid i might be wrongly accused and would have a hard time defending myself, and this also affects the rest of the team (as i dont think they're blind - they see and feel what's going on - but on the other side i'd rather not talk about this with anyone else from the team so it's ok we dont mention that)
PS (edit): "low performer" - this is probably the key, i have worked with some developers doing a poor job but it's first time when i'm served some manipulative crap to prevent any honest discussion of the work done.
I must highlight a false assumption in your story:
> With a male dev it would not be possible, but when a woman accuses a man of harassment or bullying at work the man is considered guilty by default
I guarantee you that it is absolutely possible for men to be emotionally manipulative to cover for professional lapses in an employment setting. Typically they go for "dude, we're bros, why can't you let it slide" rather than "dude, why are you being mean to me", but at the end of the day, the reaction is exactly the same. You report the claim of harassment or bullying to HR, you recuse yourself from its handling, and you openly participate in the process and present your case that you believe manipulation is occurring.
So, since I've seen male devs do this and I've seen male devs get fired for doing this, how would I handle this if she were a he, behaving in this same manner?
I would, presumably, by the guidance of my HR department and manager training, have already been collecting written proof of failure to deliver, with independent assessments by others affirming the failure to deliver. I would have sought review and affirmation that the instructions were clear and that they agreed and affirmed to those instructions, and that they then failed to deliver what was promised.
So, then, you need to: Compile concrete (written, recorded, anything but verbal-off-the-record) evidence demonstrating failure to perform to the stated expectations. Have the expectations vetted to ensure that they're reasonable and appropriate. Have the work output vetted to ensure that it's deficient and lacking. Validate the evidence you've collected as sufficient with your manager and HR team. Then, fire them.
ps. It seems like you're assuming that a male dev would not claim harassment by a male manager, but that's actually a much more effective inflammatory technique for someone who's trying to manipulate their way out of failure to deliver, especially in conservative regions where being accused of being gay can be a career-ending experience. I encourage you to reconsider this potential blind spot in your expectations before someone takes advantage of it someday.
> With a male dev it would not be possible, but when a woman accuses a man of harassment or bullying at work the man is considered guilty by default
I guarantee you that it is absolutely possible for men to be emotionally manipulative to cover for professional lapses in an employment setting. Typically they go for "dude, we're bros, why can't you let it slide" rather than "dude, why are you being mean to me", but at the end of the day, the reaction is exactly the same. You report the claim of harassment or bullying to HR, you recuse yourself from its handling, and you openly participate in the process and present your case that you believe manipulation is occurring.
So, since I've seen male devs do this and I've seen male devs get fired for doing this, how would I handle this if she were a he, behaving in this same manner?
I would, presumably, by the guidance of my HR department and manager training, have already been collecting written proof of failure to deliver, with independent assessments by others affirming the failure to deliver. I would have sought review and affirmation that the instructions were clear and that they agreed and affirmed to those instructions, and that they then failed to deliver what was promised.
So, then, you need to: Compile concrete (written, recorded, anything but verbal-off-the-record) evidence demonstrating failure to perform to the stated expectations. Have the expectations vetted to ensure that they're reasonable and appropriate. Have the work output vetted to ensure that it's deficient and lacking. Validate the evidence you've collected as sufficient with your manager and HR team. Then, fire them.
ps. It seems like you're assuming that a male dev would not claim harassment by a male manager, but that's actually a much more effective inflammatory technique for someone who's trying to manipulate their way out of failure to deliver, especially in conservative regions where being accused of being gay can be a career-ending experience. I encourage you to reconsider this potential blind spot in your expectations before someone takes advantage of it someday.
Ok, it really doesnt matter if it's a woman or a man, and some parts of your advice make sense. But i'm not yet into firing anyone, it's just first hints of potential problems.
You know, nothing really happened, some technical discussion is being derailed and moved into personal ground, where they can call my behavior wrong or accuse of being mean. Ok, i got the message, and we're good for now, but next time i will avoid any discussion with them knowing that we will go again into blaming. And so such person gets special treatment from the team.
It's human nature to use whatever leverage you have, this kind of thing is going to happen. In my experience one of the best balancing forces for this overshoot is to ensure that you're putting as much effort into developing diverse leads as you are hiring diverse ICs.
I mean... this sounds like the exact job that "git blame" is made for. Does your company not have some kind of version control?
Git blame is not for blaming others
I don't get how the dev's gender factors into the story. Everyone of us have dealt with colleagues that don't handle criticism well and/or are poor performers. That your conclusion is that it is because she is a woman (don't call them girls) may indicate that you have some learning to do.
I don't think GP concludes that her performance is due to her gender, but that the retaliatory threat he perceived was distinctly so.
Are you sure your conclusions aren't because of his gender?
Are you sure your conclusions aren't because of his gender?
Calling a woman a girl, while calling a man a man, might be why you find it hard to form positive rapport with her.
i dont think this is relevant, she's not the only female developer in the team and i have rather a positive rapport with everyne else. It's just how the normal work situation becomes twisted into personal, full of self-defense and finger pointing, with potential to develop into crazy if i dont back off.
PS after giving this one more thought, i dont think i ever patronized someone because of gender, but must honestly admit i assume the mentor tone when dealing with unexperienced/less skilled developers. Shoot me, but it's not about maintaining my feeling of superiority, i know my skills. It's about building a rapport - if the other person reacts properly then there's hope for cooperation, if it's just games then sorry, i dont want that.
PS after giving this one more thought, i dont think i ever patronized someone because of gender, but must honestly admit i assume the mentor tone when dealing with unexperienced/less skilled developers. Shoot me, but it's not about maintaining my feeling of superiority, i know my skills. It's about building a rapport - if the other person reacts properly then there's hope for cooperation, if it's just games then sorry, i dont want that.
> i dont think i ever patronized someone because of gender
Do you habitually call any of the men you work with "boy"?
Do you habitually call any of the men you work with "boy"?
i can call my coworkers boys and girls here, it's not relevant - as long as i dont do that when interacting with them. If you feel offended by use of 'girl' or 'boy' in such context then it's your choice, i cant do much about it.
You can call them that, sure. Do you habitually call any specific man "boy"? Because, whether or not you intend it to be, many women find this specific pattern that you're exhibiting to be patronizing.
Well, if i called my coworker 'girl' in a conversation with her then it would be patronizing and belittling.
But when i use 'girl' to refer to a female coworker in an internet discussion, without identifying any person, then how this can be patronizing and to whom?
Maybe we should stop using the word 'girlfriend' and say 'womanfriend' instead?
And btw what about 'girls in tech' organization? Is it patronizing?
Maybe we should stop using the word 'girlfriend' and say 'womanfriend' instead?
And btw what about 'girls in tech' organization? Is it patronizing?
If nothing else, it highlights, an (at least) unconscious bias on your part. Language matters, and you can work on it.
Boyfriend/girlfriend labels are equitable, and that relationship implies a familiarity for which a diminutive is typical and appropriate. Notably, this is not a professional relationship.
Girls in tech is about recruiting and supporting female children interested in tech. That's okay, because they're children. Your coworker is an adult, and it behooves you to treat them like one. For example, if she isn't acting like an adult, that's an issue to address in a professional manner, rather than call her a girl behind her back.
Boyfriend/girlfriend labels are equitable, and that relationship implies a familiarity for which a diminutive is typical and appropriate. Notably, this is not a professional relationship.
Girls in tech is about recruiting and supporting female children interested in tech. That's okay, because they're children. Your coworker is an adult, and it behooves you to treat them like one. For example, if she isn't acting like an adult, that's an issue to address in a professional manner, rather than call her a girl behind her back.
[quote]Girls in tech is about recruiting and supporting female children interested in tech. That's okay, because they're children[/quote]
Ok i can swallow being accused of thoughtcrime (at least!), and will punish myself for it, but are you implying 'Girls in tech' is engaging in illegal employment of minors? That's a bold statement.
Ok i can swallow being accused of thoughtcrime (at least!), and will punish myself for it, but are you implying 'Girls in tech' is engaging in illegal employment of minors? That's a bold statement.
[deleted]
if i want to play devil's advocate here, i'd say you can't both
- remark that throughout your carrer you've been pretty much the only female in your team,
- note that you've been naturally assigned the role of greeting newcomers,
then
- be upset that a new candidate won't assume you're an assistant instead of a developer he'll work with.
He's just noticed pretty much the same things as you, and concluded the most likely job for that person that greeted him was an assistant.
- remark that throughout your carrer you've been pretty much the only female in your team,
- note that you've been naturally assigned the role of greeting newcomers,
then
- be upset that a new candidate won't assume you're an assistant instead of a developer he'll work with.
He's just noticed pretty much the same things as you, and concluded the most likely job for that person that greeted him was an assistant.
That's not quite what the author was getting at. She was making an important point that I support wholeheartedly.
Any candidate who is a jerk to the person who shows them to the meeting room and provides coffee pretty much guarantees they will not be joining my company. It's a good sieve for people who won't work out on a team because they lack basic consideration for others.
Any candidate who is a jerk to the person who shows them to the meeting room and provides coffee pretty much guarantees they will not be joining my company. It's a good sieve for people who won't work out on a team because they lack basic consideration for others.
>That's not quite what the author was getting at
Of course not, bsaul was making his own point with the facts presented by the author. The characterization of the candidate's choice of words as "being a jerk" is not a fact. Clearly he was making a joke.
Of course not, bsaul was making his own point with the facts presented by the author. The characterization of the candidate's choice of words as "being a jerk" is not a fact. Clearly he was making a joke.
Thoughts from tale 1:
- I would have guessed that the person who greeted me, showed me where to sit, and asked if I needed anything before leaving was a receptionist regardless of gender. That seems like an unfair strike/test.
- I'm always surprised by how stupid people are. Being nice to the receptionist isn't just good standard human behavior, but it's also obvious that a receptionist will have input on the hiring process.
Unspecific thoughts:
- I'm always bummed when writing about sexism is laden with sexism ("Tech bros" being thrown around like an insult a lot here -- maybe don't use a gender pronoun in your insults?).
- I'm always bummed that sexism exists at all, because I'm so naively un-maliciousness that I forget some people are the exact opposite. When I read stories like this, I have a hard time believing them because they're so out side the realm of how I would act/behave, but I definitely believe it all.
- I would have guessed that the person who greeted me, showed me where to sit, and asked if I needed anything before leaving was a receptionist regardless of gender. That seems like an unfair strike/test.
- I'm always surprised by how stupid people are. Being nice to the receptionist isn't just good standard human behavior, but it's also obvious that a receptionist will have input on the hiring process.
Unspecific thoughts:
- I'm always bummed when writing about sexism is laden with sexism ("Tech bros" being thrown around like an insult a lot here -- maybe don't use a gender pronoun in your insults?).
- I'm always bummed that sexism exists at all, because I'm so naively un-maliciousness that I forget some people are the exact opposite. When I read stories like this, I have a hard time believing them because they're so out side the realm of how I would act/behave, but I definitely believe it all.
> I would have guessed that the person who greeted me, showed me where to sit, and asked if I needed anything before leaving was a receptionist regardless of gender. That seems like an unfair strike/test.
I had the exact same thought and then immediately realized it was bullshit. If it was a man I think I would question their role and I think that’s true of most people. It’s hard to say after the fact.
Some people don’t have these biases but most people who think they don’t are just full of shit.
I had the exact same thought and then immediately realized it was bullshit. If it was a man I think I would question their role and I think that’s true of most people. It’s hard to say after the fact.
Some people don’t have these biases but most people who think they don’t are just full of shit.
It doesn’t matter. Orgs should not play stupid games with candidates like this. Might as well have someone pretend they are having a seizure and see how they react and base hiring on their reaction.
What is the stupid game, exactly? Filtering if the candidate is an asshat towards women?
Not having a schedule with the people candidates are supposed to speak with which includes their titles/roles and not introducing yourself to the candidate. Then complain if a candidates makes the wrong assumptions about people’s roles and ignore the right assumptions candidates make when meeting and greeting strangers.
When cops do this it’s entrapment but when a hiring manager does it... it’s good. I guess the police should go out and entrap as many people as they can I’m sure they’ll find a few criminals among the population.
Why not have the CEO role play a custodian with a mop and flip out when candidates make assumptions?
When cops do this it’s entrapment but when a hiring manager does it... it’s good. I guess the police should go out and entrap as many people as they can I’m sure they’ll find a few criminals among the population.
Why not have the CEO role play a custodian with a mop and flip out when candidates make assumptions?
In 15 years of interviewing (both sides of the table) at FAANGs, universities, startups, hedge funds, and the us federal government, I can think of exactly one time I was given an itinerary outlining who I'd speak with, and zero when one of my candidates was provided with one.
No, when cops do what's described, it's called an undercover assignment. Entrapment is when the police encourage the forbidden behavior. In no way shape nor form is having a woman greet you coming near entrapment.
As for having a CEO play custodian, sure, it's a poor use of my time in leadership, but at the end of the day, I don't care who is carrying a mop around the office. I do care about keeping out the shitheads who feel they're entitled to disrespect someone because they're carrying a mop.
No, when cops do what's described, it's called an undercover assignment. Entrapment is when the police encourage the forbidden behavior. In no way shape nor form is having a woman greet you coming near entrapment.
As for having a CEO play custodian, sure, it's a poor use of my time in leadership, but at the end of the day, I don't care who is carrying a mop around the office. I do care about keeping out the shitheads who feel they're entitled to disrespect someone because they're carrying a mop.
I am reminded of an old story from back in the day when banking did not involve the internet. Some guy in paint-spattered work clothes went to the bank and some new hire bank teller was terribly rude to him so he threatened to close his account.
She was all "Feel free" and didn't budge an inch on her awful behavior so he did, in fact, close his account. For which I believe she was fired because he was the owner of a construction company and his accounts were worth millions.
She was all "Feel free" and didn't budge an inch on her awful behavior so he did, in fact, close his account. For which I believe she was fired because he was the owner of a construction company and his accounts were worth millions.
These kinds of tropes are in old movies. The 49er whos struck gold and looks like a vagrant. Tuco in the Good the Bad and the Ugly who mistakes a union soldier for a confederate soldier, etc.
And if you read Hacker News enough you've probably heard the one about the homeless woman that everyone kept mistaking for a tourist.
I said make assumptions I didn’t say be a shithead. If they saw you and alerted you to a spill over by the elevator don’t flip out when they made the presumption given you role played a custodian/janitor. If she asked you to go clean her car, sure by all means she’s stupid to do that but not for going for your ruse.
There literally is no ruse.
The "test" is "are you shitty toward women".
Making assumptions and then acting on those assumptions (particularly in a hiring scenario) is, indeed, shitty shithead behavior.
The "test" is "are you shitty toward women".
Making assumptions and then acting on those assumptions (particularly in a hiring scenario) is, indeed, shitty shithead behavior.
You're not going to filter out people well, the "cons", that way. They are not going to give you tells. You'll get a nice gotcha to brag about from a tired idiot who wasn't on their game that day. Cool, bravo, you win.
Just for your information: indenting a comment like this renders the indented text as block of code. It might look formatted or more readable on desktop but on mobile it looks broken and requires horizontal scrolling. Maybe there is a different way of structuring the comment that you might like as well?
Thanks! Updated.
Its quite a world we live in isn't it? The things that people accuse me of sometimes baffle me. And then I have to remember, oh yeah that's the kind of world that they live in, filled with malicious intent , backstabbing, jealousy etc.
Likewise, with an attitude like this:
> Before I begin the infamous “cola punching” story, I should point out that I am quite short, and sport curly ringlets atop my short head. It’s been a constant battle to be taken seriously in the workplace; I detest the word “cute,” and woe betide anyone who perceives me as such.
...she's just setting herself up for disappointment- repeatedly. I'm also rather short and baby-faced and clients and coworkers are often surprised when I tell them I'm nearing 30 when I could just as easily be the fresh intern not a day older than 18. People aren't necessarily going to be malicious with behaviors like those. Could it be internalized misogyny/ageism or something along those lines and that no matter what it'd be out of the line? Maybe, but it wouldn't come from a place of genuine malice.
> Before I begin the infamous “cola punching” story, I should point out that I am quite short, and sport curly ringlets atop my short head. It’s been a constant battle to be taken seriously in the workplace; I detest the word “cute,” and woe betide anyone who perceives me as such.
...she's just setting herself up for disappointment- repeatedly. I'm also rather short and baby-faced and clients and coworkers are often surprised when I tell them I'm nearing 30 when I could just as easily be the fresh intern not a day older than 18. People aren't necessarily going to be malicious with behaviors like those. Could it be internalized misogyny/ageism or something along those lines and that no matter what it'd be out of the line? Maybe, but it wouldn't come from a place of genuine malice.
> it's also obvious that a receptionist will have input on the hiring process.
That's a stretch.
That's a stretch.
[deleted]
The greeter/receptionist in the lobby can be a source of information for both parties.
But, as always, once to step into an office treat it like the police. Anything you say or do is taken note of and observed. If you have two equally qualified candidates (from either POV) most will opt for the more favorable one.
But, as always, once to step into an office treat it like the police. Anything you say or do is taken note of and observed. If you have two equally qualified candidates (from either POV) most will opt for the more favorable one.
The author has legit gripes but the one about the greeter is just playing gotcha and it’s immature not of the woman as much as the org.
A more professional organization will send the candidate a schedule with the people they’ll speak with and their titles to avoid stupid guessing games.
If you aren't provided with a schedule, ask for one.
A more professional organization will send the candidate a schedule with the people they’ll speak with and their titles to avoid stupid guessing games.
If you aren't provided with a schedule, ask for one.
I'm disappointed the best she could do summing up her 20-year experience as a woman in tech is high baseline agression, cynicism, two examples of violence on her part, one genuinely off-colour remark and one piece of unacceptable behaviour by a colleague.
I would have preferred to see some analysis of how she has had to and did adjust to the way men think, some tips for colleagues welcoming women, something she appreciated in working with men, some area she uniquely shone because she was a woman in a male environment, etc.
What we got was a thinly veiled foregone conclusion of "anything I don't like is discrimination because I'm a woman" and "the problem is men". As usual, she is merely the victim, has no agency and no interest in a non-gynocentric perspective. As it stands, there is little to be gained from her post besides discouraging women from joining up and demonising men.
I would have preferred to see some analysis of how she has had to and did adjust to the way men think, some tips for colleagues welcoming women, something she appreciated in working with men, some area she uniquely shone because she was a woman in a male environment, etc.
What we got was a thinly veiled foregone conclusion of "anything I don't like is discrimination because I'm a woman" and "the problem is men". As usual, she is merely the victim, has no agency and no interest in a non-gynocentric perspective. As it stands, there is little to be gained from her post besides discouraging women from joining up and demonising men.
You really might want to reflect on your own biases as your last paragraph is entirely your editorial and is not present in the article at all. To the contrary she had mutual respect with her team, and was found to be justified in punching someone by higher ups, which would definitely not be the case if she was the one with an unreasonable chip on her shoulder.
Also, your suggestion about presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic. The insidious thing about experiencing prejudice is that it can be very difficult for a reasonable person to be sure whether it's real or whether it's in their head—by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on.
Also, your suggestion about presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic. The insidious thing about experiencing prejudice is that it can be very difficult for a reasonable person to be sure whether it's real or whether it's in their head—by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on.
> not present in the article at all
Did you find any evidence of sexism in her first example? Is it unreasonable to say she jumped to her own conclusions there?
Do you think there might have been more going on in her second example than "sexism" when she got seated in a supply closet? Is it reasonable to assume no one went to lunch with her just because she was a woman?
> presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic
As opposed to her one-sided anecdotal "evidence" of a sector structurally ill-adapted to women that she somehow stuck with for 20 years anyway? The fact she stuck with it so long is indicative that there must be upsides, none of which she mentions because she wasn't interested in providing a measured or constructive account - she wanted to write about sexism.
> by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on.
That's precisely it: her account isn't factual, it's anecdotal with all the inherent biases and one-sided interpretation that go along with that.
What nutritional value are you deriving? What did you find actionable or insightful? What are reasonable men to take away from her post? What are women, aside from "don't join up"?
Did you find any evidence of sexism in her first example? Is it unreasonable to say she jumped to her own conclusions there?
Do you think there might have been more going on in her second example than "sexism" when she got seated in a supply closet? Is it reasonable to assume no one went to lunch with her just because she was a woman?
> presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic
As opposed to her one-sided anecdotal "evidence" of a sector structurally ill-adapted to women that she somehow stuck with for 20 years anyway? The fact she stuck with it so long is indicative that there must be upsides, none of which she mentions because she wasn't interested in providing a measured or constructive account - she wanted to write about sexism.
> by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on.
That's precisely it: her account isn't factual, it's anecdotal with all the inherent biases and one-sided interpretation that go along with that.
What nutritional value are you deriving? What did you find actionable or insightful? What are reasonable men to take away from her post? What are women, aside from "don't join up"?
Punching a bully in the chest seems like agency to me. I liked the way that worked out.
That punch, that was tech-bro language. Good on her. And it worked.
yep. worked. Good for her. In the symmetrical situation (man punching a woman in workplace) i cant imagine it would ever work. The guy would have been fired on the spot, and then have his ass beaten some more by lawyers. Bye bye career.
The author of the article paints herelf here as a poor victim and i really consider this wrong.
[deleted]
When we had someone in for an interview, I'd often circle back and ask the office admin (that also covered reception) what she thought of them. It was pretty informative and eliminated a few candidates.
I've seen someone give the advice of responding to crude sexist "jokes" by asking them to explain it then explain the explanation. Just keep insisting that you don't get it and don't understand why it's funny and see how deep you can get them to dig before they get it.
I've seen someone give the advice of responding to crude sexist "jokes" by asking them to explain it then explain the explanation. Just keep insisting that you don't get it and don't understand why it's funny and see how deep you can get them to dig before they get it.
This article reads like a first draft of Disney's Purl, with a bit of /r/thathappened embellishment (coke pouring back into the can?). Someone who calls their (her word) kind coworker "babe" and "tech bro" also raises an eyebrow.
Men, if you want to know how to help prevent this kind of nonsense, pro tip:
> he went on to say that Dick is a bully, and he’s personally wanted to punch Dick for years
This executive leader tolerated Dick for years, and then instead of getting Dick fired for gross and inappropriate touching, he celebrated a harassed woman on having to physically defend her person inside the workplace.
So, men, your mission, should you choose to accept it: Stop tolerating bad men in your professional and personal lives. Call them out. Report them to HR. Tell them their behavior makes you uncomfortable. Stop hanging out with them. Accept the penalty to networking and move on to better people.
Otherwise you’re just the enabler that makes it possible for bad men to hurt others without consequences.
(Obviously, don’t tolerate bad women either, but from a statistical standpoint, focusing on the men-enabling-men problem will have the widest societal impact for women.)
> he went on to say that Dick is a bully, and he’s personally wanted to punch Dick for years
This executive leader tolerated Dick for years, and then instead of getting Dick fired for gross and inappropriate touching, he celebrated a harassed woman on having to physically defend her person inside the workplace.
So, men, your mission, should you choose to accept it: Stop tolerating bad men in your professional and personal lives. Call them out. Report them to HR. Tell them their behavior makes you uncomfortable. Stop hanging out with them. Accept the penalty to networking and move on to better people.
Otherwise you’re just the enabler that makes it possible for bad men to hurt others without consequences.
(Obviously, don’t tolerate bad women either, but from a statistical standpoint, focusing on the men-enabling-men problem will have the widest societal impact for women.)
> focusing on the men-enabling-men problem will have the widest societal impact for women
Eh, are you sure? I’ve never read an exposition of a dysfunctional abusive company that wasn’t full of women in powerful positions also enabling terrible behavior.
Eh, are you sure? I’ve never read an exposition of a dysfunctional abusive company that wasn’t full of women in powerful positions also enabling terrible behavior.
“It’s snowing, clearly global warming isn’t real.”
California recently passed a law requiring a minimum diversity threshold for corporate boards, due to how few incorporated more than a single token non-man.
I look forward to arriving at a society where men and women are, as you suggest, equally present in and complicit in executive leadership and failures thereof, but we certainly aren’t there yet.
It’s also worth noting that my request is directed to all men, rather than not-all men. You can take steps to stop bad men without being an executive.
California recently passed a law requiring a minimum diversity threshold for corporate boards, due to how few incorporated more than a single token non-man.
I look forward to arriving at a society where men and women are, as you suggest, equally present in and complicit in executive leadership and failures thereof, but we certainly aren’t there yet.
It’s also worth noting that my request is directed to all men, rather than not-all men. You can take steps to stop bad men without being an executive.
> You can take steps to stop bad men without being an executive.
You just spent the previous sentences explaining how women couldn’t possibly be complicit because they’re not on boards. But now anyone can be complicit?
You just spent the previous sentences explaining how women couldn’t possibly be complicit because they’re not on boards. But now anyone can be complicit?
Women can absolutely be complicit, so I clearly misspoke. I apologize for my error.
Fair enough. Otherwise I think we're on the same page.
But those aholes are sooo useful.
A company has a interior and a endoplasmatic reticulum, and while the interior can be a nice place, the parts closer to the skin get continuously more ahole. Which makes it a intersting question if Dick was a ahole to everyone equally.
Some people in there have to be the mean guys, stopping cash from hemorrhaging outwards, be the grave digger for eternal projects, who everybody wants to "save" since the founding of the company. Being a Machiavellian brute when it comes to negotiation, with other Machiavellian brutes.
A company is like a spaceship in a hostile environment, and you need ass-tronauts to climb out and weld the holes shut, that the universe punches into it. And if you life dangerously, you will want to "measure" up with all other guys, who of course claim "to life dangerously too", but might run on first sign of trouble. Dick might actually regard her much higher for hitting him, than a lot of his colleagues. Very neanderthal, but that is how it is.
And then there are sexist aholes, who should be beaten to death with a baseball bat. Like that Thuna guy. Makes me ashamed to be part of the species. Seriously, should be fired, with a public declaration of why, so he never will ever be hired by anyone again.
A company has a interior and a endoplasmatic reticulum, and while the interior can be a nice place, the parts closer to the skin get continuously more ahole. Which makes it a intersting question if Dick was a ahole to everyone equally.
Some people in there have to be the mean guys, stopping cash from hemorrhaging outwards, be the grave digger for eternal projects, who everybody wants to "save" since the founding of the company. Being a Machiavellian brute when it comes to negotiation, with other Machiavellian brutes.
A company is like a spaceship in a hostile environment, and you need ass-tronauts to climb out and weld the holes shut, that the universe punches into it. And if you life dangerously, you will want to "measure" up with all other guys, who of course claim "to life dangerously too", but might run on first sign of trouble. Dick might actually regard her much higher for hitting him, than a lot of his colleagues. Very neanderthal, but that is how it is.
And then there are sexist aholes, who should be beaten to death with a baseball bat. Like that Thuna guy. Makes me ashamed to be part of the species. Seriously, should be fired, with a public declaration of why, so he never will ever be hired by anyone again.
Too little we know about Dick. Apart from the fact that he touched the hair of his coworker and made some personal remarks. Then when the woman asked him to stop he couldn't, he couldn't just apologize and stop because this would mean he did something wrong. So he did it again pretending it's just a fun joke.
I dont know, i'm not a woman. I dont even know how to handle some strange situations at work. But what Dick did reminds me of kids behavior -they do something annoying, for example kick the chair, and when asked to stop they will pretend they dont understand, kick one or two more times and laugh - just to check if the situation can be transformed into harmless/no consequence and they can get out without having to admit wrongdoing.
Sometimes it's a sociopath targeting a victim while pretending it's a harmless friendly joke, but quite often its just a big child..
I dont know, i'm not a woman. I dont even know how to handle some strange situations at work. But what Dick did reminds me of kids behavior -they do something annoying, for example kick the chair, and when asked to stop they will pretend they dont understand, kick one or two more times and laugh - just to check if the situation can be transformed into harmless/no consequence and they can get out without having to admit wrongdoing.
Sometimes it's a sociopath targeting a victim while pretending it's a harmless friendly joke, but quite often its just a big child..
> when the women asked him to stop he couldn't
As a functioning human adult, "wouldn't" is the correct word here. It may seem like a small matter, but it's not: saying "couldn't" is a very popular way to represent the idea that men aren't responsible for behavior that others find unacceptable, especially when it's towards women. Please take more care around your phrasing in the future.
> apart from the fact that he touched the hair of his coworker
"apart from" trivializes and sets aside the most important thing we know about Dick: that he touches women without their consent and refuses to honor their requests to stop. There is no "apart from" that weakens, mitigates, or excuses this.
> just to check if the situation can be transformed into harmless/no consequence and they can get out without having to admit wrongdoing
Men who behave in this way are fully expecting other men to let them get away with it. They are right, statistically speaking.
Men, don't silently let them get away with it. It may feel uncomfortable to try to hold a man accountable for their actions. Bad men thrive on how reliably that discomfort makes other men stay silent. They're depending on you being too socially weak and inept to overcome that. I know it can be difficult, and you won't succeed every time, but it's important that you try every time all the same. Best of luck.
As a functioning human adult, "wouldn't" is the correct word here. It may seem like a small matter, but it's not: saying "couldn't" is a very popular way to represent the idea that men aren't responsible for behavior that others find unacceptable, especially when it's towards women. Please take more care around your phrasing in the future.
> apart from the fact that he touched the hair of his coworker
"apart from" trivializes and sets aside the most important thing we know about Dick: that he touches women without their consent and refuses to honor their requests to stop. There is no "apart from" that weakens, mitigates, or excuses this.
> just to check if the situation can be transformed into harmless/no consequence and they can get out without having to admit wrongdoing
Men who behave in this way are fully expecting other men to let them get away with it. They are right, statistically speaking.
Men, don't silently let them get away with it. It may feel uncomfortable to try to hold a man accountable for their actions. Bad men thrive on how reliably that discomfort makes other men stay silent. They're depending on you being too socially weak and inept to overcome that. I know it can be difficult, and you won't succeed every time, but it's important that you try every time all the same. Best of luck.
Yes, basically agree, i'm just saying that men are trying to avoid responsibility for their actions by behaving like a child. Im not saying this is right, it's just how people behave. Boys just do stupid things to avoid admitting defeat or losing face in front of the group, and these stupid things include disobedience, provocation or bullying.
The other direction is - if you can't go this path and have your way by forcing, then play a victim, accuse others of harming you, being bad abusers or bullies while maintaining you're innocent. This also removes your responsibility from the situation so why not.
And my perception is that women will more often go with strategy #2 while men would first try #1. Is it sexism? I dont know, i dont have the knowledge necessary to tell. Maybe ask divorce lawyers, they have many real world cases. My point is that thesse kinds of behaviors are wired in humans and cannot be elliminated. You should identify bullying and harrasment at work but not by single incidents that always happen. If the negative behavior is repetitive, comes from the same person all the time then it's justified to call it abuse.
The other direction is - if you can't go this path and have your way by forcing, then play a victim, accuse others of harming you, being bad abusers or bullies while maintaining you're innocent. This also removes your responsibility from the situation so why not.
And my perception is that women will more often go with strategy #2 while men would first try #1. Is it sexism? I dont know, i dont have the knowledge necessary to tell. Maybe ask divorce lawyers, they have many real world cases. My point is that thesse kinds of behaviors are wired in humans and cannot be elliminated. You should identify bullying and harrasment at work but not by single incidents that always happen. If the negative behavior is repetitive, comes from the same person all the time then it's justified to call it abuse.
While I respect that you’re facing a situation involving women, my advice above is directed to men dealing with other men, and my guidance does not vary based on the strategy used by bad men, so I don’t see any way to contribute productively to your line of reasoning.
I'm not trying to invalidate this woman's experiences, because if they are genuinely true as written down, then that is some seriously toxic misogynistic shit, but some of the quotes from the male interviewees sound like they could be lifted straight out of an episode of mad men and an office in the 1960s.
“Hey, hon, before you go… can you get me some more coffee? And put some sugar in it."
I mean... really?? It's hard for me to even imagine those words coming out of a white-collar software engineer applicant. Did they hoot and wolf whistle as she walked by too?
I can only speak anecdotally but as a software engineer for the last two decades I've never seen anything even remotely like this in any of the software companies that I worked at, while bearing in mind that of course as a male I would likely be less likely to notice.
There is likely some truth in this article but it feels like it might be mixed up with some exaggerations which to me hurt the message as a whole.
“Hey, hon, before you go… can you get me some more coffee? And put some sugar in it."
I mean... really?? It's hard for me to even imagine those words coming out of a white-collar software engineer applicant. Did they hoot and wolf whistle as she walked by too?
I can only speak anecdotally but as a software engineer for the last two decades I've never seen anything even remotely like this in any of the software companies that I worked at, while bearing in mind that of course as a male I would likely be less likely to notice.
There is likely some truth in this article but it feels like it might be mixed up with some exaggerations which to me hurt the message as a whole.
Most women actually downplay a lot of crap just to try to survive. It's often far worse than what gets reported or the stories that get told.
One time me and a female colleague needed to have one of the salespeople sign a form and he blurted out to her: "Maybe you want my digits too, wink, wink!" So yeah, I do believe her.
"I'm not trying to invalidate this woman's experiences, but <attempts to invalidate this woman's experiences>"
Sigh... really? This is reddit-level "Yakov Smirnoff" of rebuttals. But I'm going to break it down for you anyway and operate on the shared assumption of good faith since you may have genuinely misconstrued my intent.
I couched my words - stating that I only found one particular piece of content unbelievable - once again now, FOR ME PERSONALLY. Irrespective of whether the "1950s women in the workforce" quote actually transpired, her overall experiences still cast a powerful light on the continuing toxic nature of the work environment for women.
I couched my words - stating that I only found one particular piece of content unbelievable - once again now, FOR ME PERSONALLY. Irrespective of whether the "1950s women in the workforce" quote actually transpired, her overall experiences still cast a powerful light on the continuing toxic nature of the work environment for women.
It happens, given enough time. Even today.
This will sound pretty weird, but this person reminds me of a interesting character in the anime "Great Teacher Onizuka." The chairwoman (Ryoko Sakurai) of the prestigious academy (where the show takes place) would work in disguise at the school canteen in order get a real feeling for how people really were. If they new her true power they might treat her with insincere deference.
I thought the idea was ingenious, and I am glad to see that people are actually employing that strategy in real life.
https://great-teacher-onizuka-gto.fandom.com/wiki/Ryoko_Saku...
I thought the idea was ingenious, and I am glad to see that people are actually employing that strategy in real life.
https://great-teacher-onizuka-gto.fandom.com/wiki/Ryoko_Saku...
I really like the part where they decided to just have her greet everyone and see how that went. That's a brilliant hack.
I don't know... I feel like putting her into that position exposed her to a lot of negative energy that she may not have necessarily received in the first place.
If I personally was the brunt of all that crap, it would definitely get to me personally - so while I appreciate the company's approach ideologically I think emotionally it might've done more psychological damage to her in the long run.
If I personally was the brunt of all that crap, it would definitely get to me personally - so while I appreciate the company's approach ideologically I think emotionally it might've done more psychological damage to her in the long run.
I have a great deal of trouble imagining that weeding out blatant sexist pigs in five minutes flat is somehow worse than working alongside one for months while he tries to pretend he's not but still cannot manage to actually have one iota of respect for her.
Yeah I see your point, it's unfortunate there is not an automated pre-interview system (like GPT meets Eliza) that could flag these people such that actual women aren't exposed to their toxicity.
As a woman who has endured a standard helping of sexist toxicity in the workplace, I'd much rather front-load it like this rather than be surprised that my department hired yet another jerk.
She also seems to think a receptionist or assistant is beneath her for some reason.
I'm tired of pandering to the idea of all men bad all women good.