A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism(fortune.com)
fortune.com
A female computer science major at Stanford: “Floored” by the sexism
http://fortune.com/2015/02/17/a-female-computer-science-major-at-stanford-floored-by-the-sexism/
171 comments
gavinpunk(1)
It was difficult to have any clue what she was going on about, except that she expects other people to solve her problems for her and do things for her. I wonder what gave her that idea.
Perhaps the difficulty is in you and you should reflect on that?
Well she writes like a junior because she is. But the main points she makes - subtle sexism regarding capability in the face of equivalent effort - are certainly observable and do ring true.
When I see articles like this (and the issue of sexism in computing does pop up quite often) I usually agree. It is there. But what can be done? I myself have been a disgusting example of a male engineer at times. And as much as I would love to permanently erase any male/female alteration of my behavior in a professional context, the reality is I do not become asexual when I go to work. I'm still a man. What to do?
When I see articles like this (and the issue of sexism in computing does pop up quite often) I usually agree. It is there. But what can be done? I myself have been a disgusting example of a male engineer at times. And as much as I would love to permanently erase any male/female alteration of my behavior in a professional context, the reality is I do not become asexual when I go to work. I'm still a man. What to do?
You've successfully completed steps 1 and 2:
1. Acknowledge there is a real problem.
2. Acknowledge you are part of the problem.
Now, on to steps 3-n!
3. Don't be discouraged, accept that there are things you can do to help! This is good, you're about to become a more valuable member of society.
4. Accept that you need to put in some effort. Not much, don't worry. Most of it is shutting up.
5. Read what women write about this problem. They're all experts because they've been studying it literally their entire lives.
6. Learn (from step 5 and some self-reflection) how to recognize in real time when you're being a jerk. Then stop.
Now it gets a little harder. But remember, not nearly as hard as being a woman in tech, so buck up, kid!
7. Learn (from step 5) how to recognize in real time when other people are being jerks, and good techniques for how to advocate on behalf of women. This takes practice and courage, keep at it.
8. You'll be tempted to brag about how helpful you are to women (hi @wadhwa). Resist this temptation. Whenever you feel yourself about to tell someone how great and helpful you are, instead, show them something an actual woman has said about their problems, and try to point them in the right direction.
Note that you can replace "woman/women" in the above with any minority/disenfranchised/disadvantaged group you want to help, and the same formula pretty much works verbatim.
1. Acknowledge there is a real problem.
2. Acknowledge you are part of the problem.
Now, on to steps 3-n!
3. Don't be discouraged, accept that there are things you can do to help! This is good, you're about to become a more valuable member of society.
4. Accept that you need to put in some effort. Not much, don't worry. Most of it is shutting up.
5. Read what women write about this problem. They're all experts because they've been studying it literally their entire lives.
6. Learn (from step 5 and some self-reflection) how to recognize in real time when you're being a jerk. Then stop.
Now it gets a little harder. But remember, not nearly as hard as being a woman in tech, so buck up, kid!
7. Learn (from step 5) how to recognize in real time when other people are being jerks, and good techniques for how to advocate on behalf of women. This takes practice and courage, keep at it.
8. You'll be tempted to brag about how helpful you are to women (hi @wadhwa). Resist this temptation. Whenever you feel yourself about to tell someone how great and helpful you are, instead, show them something an actual woman has said about their problems, and try to point them in the right direction.
Note that you can replace "woman/women" in the above with any minority/disenfranchised/disadvantaged group you want to help, and the same formula pretty much works verbatim.
Not that you can replace "Note that you can replace "woman/women" in the above with any minority/disenfranchised/disadvantaged group"" with "Note that you can replace woman/women with any person of any group who faces hurdles or has disadvantages"
When you can do that, you have successfully transcended the "gotta get mine!" and "shut up and give me your stuff!" subtext of most of today's egalitarian rhetoric.
When you can do that, you have successfully transcended the "gotta get mine!" and "shut up and give me your stuff!" subtext of most of today's egalitarian rhetoric.
Jimmy(3)
You've successfully completed steps A and B:
A. Notice that someone could improve their behaviour.
B. Notice that you could give them useful advice to improve their behaviour.
Now, on to step C!
C. Don't be a condescending dick when dispensing said advice.
A. Notice that someone could improve their behaviour.
B. Notice that you could give them useful advice to improve their behaviour.
Now, on to step C!
C. Don't be a condescending dick when dispensing said advice.
You seem certain that that you know exactly what the problem is, and exactly how to solve it, down to a list of steps. You even seem certain that a stranger on the Internet is part of the problem. Well, give me a break -- that's really presumptuous and condescending. Listening to the aggrieved seems like a good idea, but there's no guarantee that they have the answers.
>You even seem certain that a stranger on the Internet is part of the problem
The stranger on the internet said they felt like part of the problem, so I don't really know what to tell you.
If you read between the lines a bit, I never said I had any of the answers. All I said was listen to the people that are affected, try to learn about their problems, and be empathetic, and maybe you'll find the answers.
I'm not trying to be revolutionary here, I just think one of the nice features of these types of issues is that the people being affected are actual people that you can listen to and have conversations with, and I think that's a good place to start.
The stranger on the internet said they felt like part of the problem, so I don't really know what to tell you.
If you read between the lines a bit, I never said I had any of the answers. All I said was listen to the people that are affected, try to learn about their problems, and be empathetic, and maybe you'll find the answers.
I'm not trying to be revolutionary here, I just think one of the nice features of these types of issues is that the people being affected are actual people that you can listen to and have conversations with, and I think that's a good place to start.
> All I said was listen to the people that are affected, try to learn about their problems, and be empathetic, and maybe you'll find the answers.
Are you aware that one female will have entirely different experiences and suggestions on how to solve tech's sexism problem than the next? E.g., you implicate Vivek Wadwa as being a problem (probably due to Amelia Greenhall's accusations), and yet there are an overwhelming amount of women who take Vivek's side, not Amelia's. Amelia Greenhall herself, for example, is highly critical of Sheryl Sandberg. But is highly supportive of females whose blogs are banned by hacker news (Nitasha Tiku, for example). So, with all due respect, your suggestions are pretty impractical and will result in a lot of confusion for the person following the advice, not much good results.
Are you aware that one female will have entirely different experiences and suggestions on how to solve tech's sexism problem than the next? E.g., you implicate Vivek Wadwa as being a problem (probably due to Amelia Greenhall's accusations), and yet there are an overwhelming amount of women who take Vivek's side, not Amelia's. Amelia Greenhall herself, for example, is highly critical of Sheryl Sandberg. But is highly supportive of females whose blogs are banned by hacker news (Nitasha Tiku, for example). So, with all due respect, your suggestions are pretty impractical and will result in a lot of confusion for the person following the advice, not much good results.
More people accepting the problem, reading up on the experiences of those facing discrimination, and thinking about what they can do to change themselves and those around them.
That seems like a pretty good starting point, no?
Whatever you read about, you're going to come up with conflicting opinions and suggestions, so that is hardly new, and is certainly not an excuse for doing nothing.
That seems like a pretty good starting point, no?
Whatever you read about, you're going to come up with conflicting opinions and suggestions, so that is hardly new, and is certainly not an excuse for doing nothing.
> That seems like a pretty good starting point, no?
Honestly, not at all. I really think the exact opposite is true. The debate in this arena is hellishly toxic. You read into it a little and you quickly find out how disturbing ideas flying around really are -- especially from the prominent voices. Staying away from these debates is probably the best option for now. I really hope in time something happens and the toxicity goes away.
Honestly, not at all. I really think the exact opposite is true. The debate in this arena is hellishly toxic. You read into it a little and you quickly find out how disturbing ideas flying around really are -- especially from the prominent voices. Staying away from these debates is probably the best option for now. I really hope in time something happens and the toxicity goes away.
>You even seem certain that a stranger on the Internet is part of the problem.
> I myself have been a disgusting example of a male engineer at times.
> I myself have been a disgusting example of a male engineer at times.
Some things I do*
I try to be aware of my own biases when I'm in the office. Sometimes I schedule a little time to think specifically about them and try to identify potential moments I made assumptions I shouldn't have. When I feel that a male colleague is exhibiting concerning behavior I discuss it with them. I ask my female colleagues what we need to do to support their success and I listen to what they have to say. I do 1-on-1s with all of my colleagues to ask them whether they feel their perspectives are adequately heard and acted upon. When I see something that isn't right, I say "that's not right." When I hear a joke or comment that sounds "off", I say "hey man, that's off key -- keep it professional". I discuss equality with my wife and I listen to her perspective. I encourage and support her career ambitions even when they force me to make trade offs against my own.
Now that I think about it, I ascribe many of these behaviors (perhaps not all) to my ideals of professionalism and effective management practices.
* n of one. I'm not an expert. I'm male.
I try to be aware of my own biases when I'm in the office. Sometimes I schedule a little time to think specifically about them and try to identify potential moments I made assumptions I shouldn't have. When I feel that a male colleague is exhibiting concerning behavior I discuss it with them. I ask my female colleagues what we need to do to support their success and I listen to what they have to say. I do 1-on-1s with all of my colleagues to ask them whether they feel their perspectives are adequately heard and acted upon. When I see something that isn't right, I say "that's not right." When I hear a joke or comment that sounds "off", I say "hey man, that's off key -- keep it professional". I discuss equality with my wife and I listen to her perspective. I encourage and support her career ambitions even when they force me to make trade offs against my own.
Now that I think about it, I ascribe many of these behaviors (perhaps not all) to my ideals of professionalism and effective management practices.
* n of one. I'm not an expert. I'm male.
[deleted](2)
Be the change you want.
Well, you could try anti-androgens like finasteride or spironolactone. They would lower your libido.
I do sympathize because people shouldn't have to put up with discrimination for any reason, especially at work, but her message gets eroded through poorly chosen arguments.
There's a difference between discrimination and assumption. If I wear scrubs while visiting a friend at a hospital because I like walking around in scrubs, people will assume that I'm medical personnel working there. If you're a woman in a dress at a company where all other women in dresses are recruiters, people will assume you're probably a recruiter, until they find out otherwise. They are not discriminating against you, it's just the prior probability. It's not okay to take this personally and lash out and call them a sausagefest.
An extroverted man wearing more fashion-conscious clothing in an introverted company-shirt crowd will stand out, and might face less sympathetic reviews in interview situations. That's discrimination, and it's not okay, but it happens. Having to look the part or not when it matters is a compromise we all face. This is not a good argument for her case.
And look here: > And if that wasn’t enough, my achievement was questioned by male colleagues. I’d occasionally hear, “Oh you’re a woman, you’ll get a job at Google or Facebook just fine!” Which was the most discouraging encouragement. If I did get the internship, it was because I was a woman and if I didn’t, I’d just failed to leverage my upper edge.
They said it because there is truth to it -- she won't get the job because she's a woman, but she will have higher chances because she's a woman. In the very least, it will muddle the reasons behind the decision. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're in support of gender diversity awareness in hiring, you've given up the license to complain about it. Saying "Let's hire more women!" when selecting from a decidedly male-dominated pool fully implies that women at large are given higher chances solely for being women. Sad, but true.
At that point I'm starting to doubt the interpretation of other examples like the older guy who called her dresses "fun." Was it a creepy guy making underhanded passes, or mere a fatherly figure lending his support for her unique choices? I personally don't doubt her judgment that it was the former, but it's hard to be convinced given the way the rest of the article reads.
There's a difference between discrimination and assumption. If I wear scrubs while visiting a friend at a hospital because I like walking around in scrubs, people will assume that I'm medical personnel working there. If you're a woman in a dress at a company where all other women in dresses are recruiters, people will assume you're probably a recruiter, until they find out otherwise. They are not discriminating against you, it's just the prior probability. It's not okay to take this personally and lash out and call them a sausagefest.
An extroverted man wearing more fashion-conscious clothing in an introverted company-shirt crowd will stand out, and might face less sympathetic reviews in interview situations. That's discrimination, and it's not okay, but it happens. Having to look the part or not when it matters is a compromise we all face. This is not a good argument for her case.
And look here: > And if that wasn’t enough, my achievement was questioned by male colleagues. I’d occasionally hear, “Oh you’re a woman, you’ll get a job at Google or Facebook just fine!” Which was the most discouraging encouragement. If I did get the internship, it was because I was a woman and if I didn’t, I’d just failed to leverage my upper edge.
They said it because there is truth to it -- she won't get the job because she's a woman, but she will have higher chances because she's a woman. In the very least, it will muddle the reasons behind the decision. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're in support of gender diversity awareness in hiring, you've given up the license to complain about it. Saying "Let's hire more women!" when selecting from a decidedly male-dominated pool fully implies that women at large are given higher chances solely for being women. Sad, but true.
At that point I'm starting to doubt the interpretation of other examples like the older guy who called her dresses "fun." Was it a creepy guy making underhanded passes, or mere a fatherly figure lending his support for her unique choices? I personally don't doubt her judgment that it was the former, but it's hard to be convinced given the way the rest of the article reads.
I have heard most of these things, and it sucks. This is hella real.
It's not easy for anyone though... Firstly, there are some people that are just assholes. Second, men in general (not all men/women), tend to be more aggressive than women. This can be intimidating or plain off-putting at times. Excessive arrogance has always bugged me a lot. The third is that some people are socially awkward in general, which can lean towards other issues.
Lastly, an all-male or all-female group will be much more crude or open about thoughts, jokes or concepts than in evenly mixed company. Groups that are very one-sided tend towards this as well. When I was younger, I worked in a few offices where I was the only man that worked there... What I overheard in those years of my life is far worse than what I've heard from any all-male or mostly-male offices I've ever worked in.
With time, as the numbers tend to even out, the feel of a space that is more equally mixed (genuine assholes aside) will be more even... Personally, I prefer to work with all men day to day. I do have to interact with women in another office, and have worked with them fine. I am just less distracted without women around, and that is on me.
Lastly, an all-male or all-female group will be much more crude or open about thoughts, jokes or concepts than in evenly mixed company. Groups that are very one-sided tend towards this as well. When I was younger, I worked in a few offices where I was the only man that worked there... What I overheard in those years of my life is far worse than what I've heard from any all-male or mostly-male offices I've ever worked in.
With time, as the numbers tend to even out, the feel of a space that is more equally mixed (genuine assholes aside) will be more even... Personally, I prefer to work with all men day to day. I do have to interact with women in another office, and have worked with them fine. I am just less distracted without women around, and that is on me.
Yup, it makes me a teeny bit more angry every time I read an article like this. Angry and disappointed.
I'm happy that she decided to share. It's easy to forget how real this issue can be. The shit show in the comments here when an article like this is new further demonstrates the fact that there's still more work to be done. I will say though I do like HN because it seems to pretty quickly approach reasonableness with the voting system.
I do sometimes wonder what's added by focusing on sexism in tech, in particular, and suggesting it's uniquely a problem with tech. I can believe it's worse here on average than some other comfortable professional jobs, but seriously, sexism is everywhere and if we want to reduce it, it makes more sense to me to focus on the problem itself in full generality rather than an environment it's found in.
Unless you want to invoke an explanation that involves some combination of classism and good old-fashioned picking on (relatively) low-status nerds because it's easier and feels more natural. Then there wouldn't be much left to wonder.
(Edit: NOT saying we shouldn't point out sexism in tech, but expressing skepticism at the broader cultural narrative around how software people are uniquely ignorant and sexist relative to other professions. Ask ten women who've worked somewhere besides tech for a few years for some stories of sexism, you'll hear plenty.)
Unless you want to invoke an explanation that involves some combination of classism and good old-fashioned picking on (relatively) low-status nerds because it's easier and feels more natural. Then there wouldn't be much left to wonder.
(Edit: NOT saying we shouldn't point out sexism in tech, but expressing skepticism at the broader cultural narrative around how software people are uniquely ignorant and sexist relative to other professions. Ask ten women who've worked somewhere besides tech for a few years for some stories of sexism, you'll hear plenty.)
You said yourself that you can believe that sexism is worse in tech than in other professions. That is already a problem worth discussing. Why is it worse? What can we do to correct that discrepancy?
I will go so far as to say your suggestion to "focus on the problem in full generality" -- which is to say, to completely encompass an impossibly complicated issue -- is just a way of trying to pass responsibility and to avoid admitting that there is a problem. Of course, trying to resolve sexism everywhere is admirable. But to use the existence of sexism in other fields as a reason to avoid addressing it in our own is little better than rejecting its existence altogether.
edit for your edit: I think there are specific reasons that sexism is more prevalent in tech, which are not necessarily related to "software people are ignorant". In our culture there appears to be a general bias against women in pretty much all STEM fields, perhaps for historical reasons. I suspect (although this is just my opinion) that this is largely responsible for any greater bias that exists in tech as well. There is a mistaken perception that women are less capable in highly rational pursuits, which affects how women in tech are viewed by their colleagues. I think this is a big reason that women have a hard time in tech.
I will go so far as to say your suggestion to "focus on the problem in full generality" -- which is to say, to completely encompass an impossibly complicated issue -- is just a way of trying to pass responsibility and to avoid admitting that there is a problem. Of course, trying to resolve sexism everywhere is admirable. But to use the existence of sexism in other fields as a reason to avoid addressing it in our own is little better than rejecting its existence altogether.
edit for your edit: I think there are specific reasons that sexism is more prevalent in tech, which are not necessarily related to "software people are ignorant". In our culture there appears to be a general bias against women in pretty much all STEM fields, perhaps for historical reasons. I suspect (although this is just my opinion) that this is largely responsible for any greater bias that exists in tech as well. There is a mistaken perception that women are less capable in highly rational pursuits, which affects how women in tech are viewed by their colleagues. I think this is a big reason that women have a hard time in tech.
I'd expect it's worse in tech than some other professions on average because tech is mostly male, which I think is mostly due to gendered expectations originating from parenting and early education.
I think "just don't be sexist please" makes more sense than "don't be sexist at work if you belong to this profession". Like I desperately clarified in my edit which you may not have seen, I'm not saying it shouldn't be pointed out in tech, I'm saying it's suspicious that the cultural narrative focuses so much on tech in particular.
I think "just don't be sexist please" makes more sense than "don't be sexist at work if you belong to this profession". Like I desperately clarified in my edit which you may not have seen, I'm not saying it shouldn't be pointed out in tech, I'm saying it's suspicious that the cultural narrative focuses so much on tech in particular.
Bias against women? Seriously?
It's useful to point it out in tech because in tech, we believe that we operate with the purity of egalitarianism.
But real life is more complicated and messy.
But real life is more complicated and messy.
I know far more developers that think the egalitarianism myth is wrong and silly than that buy into it unexamined (I'm not sure I know anyone in the second category personally), though I suppose I might've lucked out.
> I do sometimes wonder what's added by focusing on sexism in tech, in particular, and suggesting it's uniquely a problem with tech.
Same here, especially when I think back on _years_ of solving computer problems where it was just me and some computer that was _incapable_ of caring about my gender or ethnicity. I would say that tech should be more insulated from sexism and racism than most professions, because the compiler simply does not care. Somehow there's _more_ sexism in tech than in jobs that involve talking all day?
Same here, especially when I think back on _years_ of solving computer problems where it was just me and some computer that was _incapable_ of caring about my gender or ethnicity. I would say that tech should be more insulated from sexism and racism than most professions, because the compiler simply does not care. Somehow there's _more_ sexism in tech than in jobs that involve talking all day?
I could come up with a story that explains why technical work would more readily admit of sexism, e.g. less opportunity to learn to see coworkers and customers as people rather than gender-based caricatures. I don't think this is a big factor either way, though...
First of all, calling a group of guys a sausage fest is reverse sexism. If I called a classroom full of girls a barbie play-date, or a tea party, or a "fashion" class - regardless of the real reason for their gathering, people would be outraged - and rightfully so. None of those things are true and it's disrespectful to say something like that.
Second, the guy who said "well I should have applied for that" might have said it because two people in a row standing right in front of him just said they had awesome internships at Facebook. Sure, he could have been a total prick and said it because she was a girl, but the fact that the 2 people he asked both said they interned at Facebook completely changes the context of the conversation. If he only asked the girl and responded that way, then that would be different - and that seems to be how she's thinking about it. She's not taking into account the actual context of the conversation.
Wearing colorful, comfortable dresses sounds awesome. Yeah, I like tech T-shirts, and the latter was definitely the more common form of attire at the startup I interned at this past summer, but if someone wore a dress one day, I don't think it would be unusual for that person's manager to say "you look nice today" or "your outfit looks fun."
And regarding the interview, it makes sense that you'll get "better results" by dressing like a techie. There are tons of girls who dress like techies. Wearing a T-shirt with a tech logo on it just sends the message that you love technology. It shouldn't be an important factor in an interview, but of course the way you dress sends a particular message. Wearing a dress doesn't send a negative message in any way, but a girl wearing a tech T-shirt comes across as someone who is super into tech - for the same reason a guy wearing a tech T-shirt looks more into tech than someone who wears a business suit to an interview. The T-shirt could be completely misrepresenting that person's interest in tech, but the point is it sends a particular message during an interview.
I hate to conclude on such a sour note, but the girl the article is speaking about seems to think everyone is against her. It is absolutely possible that this girl experiences discrimination in the tech industry due to her gender, but the examples she talked about simply don't demonstrate that in a definitive way.
Second, the guy who said "well I should have applied for that" might have said it because two people in a row standing right in front of him just said they had awesome internships at Facebook. Sure, he could have been a total prick and said it because she was a girl, but the fact that the 2 people he asked both said they interned at Facebook completely changes the context of the conversation. If he only asked the girl and responded that way, then that would be different - and that seems to be how she's thinking about it. She's not taking into account the actual context of the conversation.
Wearing colorful, comfortable dresses sounds awesome. Yeah, I like tech T-shirts, and the latter was definitely the more common form of attire at the startup I interned at this past summer, but if someone wore a dress one day, I don't think it would be unusual for that person's manager to say "you look nice today" or "your outfit looks fun."
And regarding the interview, it makes sense that you'll get "better results" by dressing like a techie. There are tons of girls who dress like techies. Wearing a T-shirt with a tech logo on it just sends the message that you love technology. It shouldn't be an important factor in an interview, but of course the way you dress sends a particular message. Wearing a dress doesn't send a negative message in any way, but a girl wearing a tech T-shirt comes across as someone who is super into tech - for the same reason a guy wearing a tech T-shirt looks more into tech than someone who wears a business suit to an interview. The T-shirt could be completely misrepresenting that person's interest in tech, but the point is it sends a particular message during an interview.
I hate to conclude on such a sour note, but the girl the article is speaking about seems to think everyone is against her. It is absolutely possible that this girl experiences discrimination in the tech industry due to her gender, but the examples she talked about simply don't demonstrate that in a definitive way.
Side note: My relative who works in HR has told me time and again, the appropriate way to say "you look nice" to a co-worker in a professional setting is to not say it. In that setting, beyond grossly inappropriate work attire (at which point all comments should go directly to HR and not the employee), there is no need to make a subjective-comment on someone's appearance, you're there to work.
(edit) grammar
(edit) grammar
Or perhaps compliment someone as Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation would:
"I find your work product to be of consistently adequate quality. I also appreciate that your personal standards for hygiene and attire do not detract in any way from the efficient operation of this office."
It sounds very odd, doesn't it? The HR employee is not the gold standard for advice on how to interact with your co-workers. That person is employed to minimize potential legal liabilities to the company.
The appropriate way to say "you look nice" to a co-worker in a professional setting is to say, "you look nice". You say it in the same way that you would say it to your mother, or to anyone else for which you have both some respect and zero potential for romantic entanglement. If you can reasonably say something to your own mother, you can say it to a female co-worker.
Refusing to acknowledge someone else's positive qualities creates a completely different sort of hostile workplace, especially if that person is at all extroverted. But that sort of hostile workplace does not invite lawsuits.
That said, "good job on fixing that DR so fast" would be a far better compliment.
"I find your work product to be of consistently adequate quality. I also appreciate that your personal standards for hygiene and attire do not detract in any way from the efficient operation of this office."
It sounds very odd, doesn't it? The HR employee is not the gold standard for advice on how to interact with your co-workers. That person is employed to minimize potential legal liabilities to the company.
The appropriate way to say "you look nice" to a co-worker in a professional setting is to say, "you look nice". You say it in the same way that you would say it to your mother, or to anyone else for which you have both some respect and zero potential for romantic entanglement. If you can reasonably say something to your own mother, you can say it to a female co-worker.
Refusing to acknowledge someone else's positive qualities creates a completely different sort of hostile workplace, especially if that person is at all extroverted. But that sort of hostile workplace does not invite lawsuits.
That said, "good job on fixing that DR so fast" would be a far better compliment.
That's just sad. How far will political correctness go when we can't even compliment others.
"you're there to work" is perhaps the most overlooked aspect of jobs in tech. Startups are promoting this sick group dynamic where everyone is expected to become best buddies slash drinking acquaintances slash family with their coworkers, to try to hang on to talent just a little longer.
I agree with this. Nobody should be judged based on how they look. If you compliment someone and don't compliment others, it could be interpreted the wrong way. If you compliment someone and it's misinterpreted, then it could also cause issues. Just don't judge people based on superficial things.
Knowing this I am going to start wearing sweatpants and slip-ons to work. Perhaps I'll stop bathing too. I would certainly hate to have to call my company out on tumblr for judging me on superficial things.
I do see the issue with it. Perhaps nobody complimenting anyone is the lesser of 2 evils? Or maybe the trick is to keep comments about attire left up to HR. Managers and coworkers should not comment on an outfit, but HR can if a manager or coworker complains to them. Surely not bathing would get you a talking to from HR =)
What about things like "Wow that's a really cool dress! May I ask where you got it?"
Yes, generally it is better to comment on the clothes than the person. "I like your dress" is safer than "you look great."
The reason for this is that clothes are the result of decisions and choices that people make. So, complimenting a piece of clothing is sort of complimenting something a person did.
Whereas, complimenting their overall look (and especially their body) is sort of complimenting something a person is--which most people feel a lot less control over. And, it runs the risk of creating a sense that their body is itself an object to be considered and critiqued.
The reason for this is that clothes are the result of decisions and choices that people make. So, complimenting a piece of clothing is sort of complimenting something a person did.
Whereas, complimenting their overall look (and especially their body) is sort of complimenting something a person is--which most people feel a lot less control over. And, it runs the risk of creating a sense that their body is itself an object to be considered and critiqued.
I guess it wouldn't be a discussion about sexism on HN without someone popping up to invalidate the woman's experiences.
I don't really read it as "invalidating" so much as pointing out the possibility of misattribution.
A concrete example: my car broke down. It's a Ford, that's blue, and is a two door, and is rear wheel drive. Is the right conclusion that it broke because it's a Ford and all Fords are pieces of crap?
Are there possible causes? Missed maintenance, a lemon, driving it too hard, etc. I realize that it's crazy to suggest that it broke down because it's blue or because it's a two-door because we happen to know the underlying mechanics here. But if the car was a black-box, those could potentially be causes too.
Just because a woman thinks that she's been discriminated against for being a woman doesn't make it so. That doesn't mean that her experiences are wrong, nor does it make whatever she endured somehow pleasant. And I'm sure that there's plenty of sexism out there too, I'm not trying to suggest that everything is great and there are no problems.
Sexism is an easy explanation in many cases, but that doesn't NECESSARILY mean it's the correct one. It's kind-of like the old XKCD comic: http://xkcd.com/552/
A concrete example: my car broke down. It's a Ford, that's blue, and is a two door, and is rear wheel drive. Is the right conclusion that it broke because it's a Ford and all Fords are pieces of crap?
Are there possible causes? Missed maintenance, a lemon, driving it too hard, etc. I realize that it's crazy to suggest that it broke down because it's blue or because it's a two-door because we happen to know the underlying mechanics here. But if the car was a black-box, those could potentially be causes too.
Just because a woman thinks that she's been discriminated against for being a woman doesn't make it so. That doesn't mean that her experiences are wrong, nor does it make whatever she endured somehow pleasant. And I'm sure that there's plenty of sexism out there too, I'm not trying to suggest that everything is great and there are no problems.
Sexism is an easy explanation in many cases, but that doesn't NECESSARILY mean it's the correct one. It's kind-of like the old XKCD comic: http://xkcd.com/552/
Well, duh, but the whole thing about "invalidation" is there is a subtext here: that she wouldn't know that she had been misattributing sexism to someone.
If all your friends with Fords of various colors and models had problems -- you would rightfully have cause to focus in on Ford as the problem.
Do not pretend to be objective by discounting context, or acting like everyone else is an imbecile. I'm not saying that everything everyone says has to be taken as truth. But think about the context for a moment -- like why is she writing the article in the first place? It's no small thing to put your name out there on the internet WRT to this issue.
Think about how analytically you are viewing what she wrote about her experience vs. how uncritically you might view articles from PG (especially the earlier ones unassociated with YC).
If all your friends with Fords of various colors and models had problems -- you would rightfully have cause to focus in on Ford as the problem.
Do not pretend to be objective by discounting context, or acting like everyone else is an imbecile. I'm not saying that everything everyone says has to be taken as truth. But think about the context for a moment -- like why is she writing the article in the first place? It's no small thing to put your name out there on the internet WRT to this issue.
Think about how analytically you are viewing what she wrote about her experience vs. how uncritically you might view articles from PG (especially the earlier ones unassociated with YC).
> Think about how analytically you are viewing what she wrote about her experience vs. how uncritically you might view articles from PG (especially the earlier ones unassociated with YC).
Wow, way to go! I read HN so I must be a PG cheerleader and ergo I'm definitely sexist!
PG makes some good points and some of them are a lot less tenable. I don't switch off my brain because I'm reading PG (though I do occasionally read his articles) any more than I turn it up extra high because a woman is saying critical stuff about men.
What I do try and do, though, is look at the kinds of psychological errors that people tend to make and see if that's influenced them at all. And misattribution is a big one. When a person has many attributes visible to anyone they interact with, any one of them could be the cause.
For example she complains that wearing dresses caused her grief. Should anyone be able to wear anything to any job without any consequence? If it should be OK for her to wear a dress, what about a man? If it's OK for girls to wear short-shorts can boys too? Can I ride my bike and continue to wear sweaty, smelly cycling gear and clippity-cloppity shoes instead of taking a shower and changing? Could a dude wear just a speedo? A girl a bikini? In the other direction, a suit? A three piece? A Matrix-style leather full-length leather jacket? Full on ski gear?
Yes these examples quickly go from maybe reasonable to clearly unreasonable. But just where EXACTLY should the line get drawn? It's not clear to me that there are absolute, definite answers that have narrow applicability, nevermind broad applicability.
What's appropriate for one job is terrible for another. Nurses and doctors (of both sexes in both professions) tend to wear scrubs to work, and it's appropriate. If I tried to wear scrubs to a construction site, or to a machine shop, I would rightly get told to go home. Coveralls, steel toes, and a hard hat are just right if I'm out on an oil rig but entirely inappropriate when I'm at the office and that's for a single job description! I have no less than four different kinds of clothing that I might need to wear when I go to work.
The point that I'm trying to make is that if it's possible for men to not get taken seriously (or worse sent home!) based on what they wear at the office then it's POSSIBLE though not necessarily DEFINITE that women might have the same thing happen to them AND that it's not sexism.
TL;DR
Please realize that there's a difference between saying "it might not be sexism" and "it's definitely not sexism" and that I'm trying to very cautiously propose the former, not the latter.
Wow, way to go! I read HN so I must be a PG cheerleader and ergo I'm definitely sexist!
PG makes some good points and some of them are a lot less tenable. I don't switch off my brain because I'm reading PG (though I do occasionally read his articles) any more than I turn it up extra high because a woman is saying critical stuff about men.
What I do try and do, though, is look at the kinds of psychological errors that people tend to make and see if that's influenced them at all. And misattribution is a big one. When a person has many attributes visible to anyone they interact with, any one of them could be the cause.
For example she complains that wearing dresses caused her grief. Should anyone be able to wear anything to any job without any consequence? If it should be OK for her to wear a dress, what about a man? If it's OK for girls to wear short-shorts can boys too? Can I ride my bike and continue to wear sweaty, smelly cycling gear and clippity-cloppity shoes instead of taking a shower and changing? Could a dude wear just a speedo? A girl a bikini? In the other direction, a suit? A three piece? A Matrix-style leather full-length leather jacket? Full on ski gear?
Yes these examples quickly go from maybe reasonable to clearly unreasonable. But just where EXACTLY should the line get drawn? It's not clear to me that there are absolute, definite answers that have narrow applicability, nevermind broad applicability.
What's appropriate for one job is terrible for another. Nurses and doctors (of both sexes in both professions) tend to wear scrubs to work, and it's appropriate. If I tried to wear scrubs to a construction site, or to a machine shop, I would rightly get told to go home. Coveralls, steel toes, and a hard hat are just right if I'm out on an oil rig but entirely inappropriate when I'm at the office and that's for a single job description! I have no less than four different kinds of clothing that I might need to wear when I go to work.
The point that I'm trying to make is that if it's possible for men to not get taken seriously (or worse sent home!) based on what they wear at the office then it's POSSIBLE though not necessarily DEFINITE that women might have the same thing happen to them AND that it's not sexism.
TL;DR
Please realize that there's a difference between saying "it might not be sexism" and "it's definitely not sexism" and that I'm trying to very cautiously propose the former, not the latter.
> Wow, way to go! I read HN so I must be a PG cheerleader and ergo I'm definitely sexist!
For someone who is all about psychological errors, you seem to have constructed quite a narrative. I'm not talking about cheerleading -- just the level of analysis. I'm not trying to make you into some horrible monster or anything -- that is your projection onto my criticism.
Speaking of psychological blinders: I stand by my assertion that, as long as anyone doesn't mess with your ego, you will not apply this level of analysis to what they write. It's human nature. At the risk of repeating myself, I just don't think you're reading PG's articles and thinking that what he says happened to him, didn't happen.
> Should anyone be able to wear anything to any job without any consequence?
Oh come on. Really? RTFA. You're veering away from the misattribution you original claimed as a possibility here.
I just wrote a whole comment about context, and you ignored it because it bruised your ego. Being obstinate about "drawing a line" is not a triumph of reason -- it's ignoring the world. Reductio ad absurdum relies on symmetry, of which you have none here.
She's obviously not wearing hot pants, a bikini top to work, and even if that were the case, she would be notified in an official capacity in short order (e.g. "told to go home") -- not "complimented" repeatedly in a creepy way.
There is no "murky line" because we are talking about a repeated pattern she illustrates in her article which shows it highly likely not to be misinterpretation. If she misinterpreted one of those examples (e.g. the "Facebook" example is the one I'd choose, actually), ok. But how likely is it she misinterpreted all of them, and the misinterpreted the social environment that made her pull together the examples in the first place?
> Please realize that there's a difference between saying "it might not be sexism" and "it's definitely not sexism" and that I'm trying to very cautiously propose the former, not the latter.
If I have a bug, it might be cosmic rays, a compiler bug -- or it could be my shitty code. All of these are possible. It isn't about what's possible, if you want to be analytical about it.. it's the likelihood.
So, when you say "it might be a compiler bug" when code breaks, you should know how ridiculous that sounds, even though you are technically correct[1]. There is a reason people say those kinds of things (without much more evidence) and it has a lot to do with how attached they are to their code.
[1] The Best Kind of Correct.
For someone who is all about psychological errors, you seem to have constructed quite a narrative. I'm not talking about cheerleading -- just the level of analysis. I'm not trying to make you into some horrible monster or anything -- that is your projection onto my criticism.
Speaking of psychological blinders: I stand by my assertion that, as long as anyone doesn't mess with your ego, you will not apply this level of analysis to what they write. It's human nature. At the risk of repeating myself, I just don't think you're reading PG's articles and thinking that what he says happened to him, didn't happen.
> Should anyone be able to wear anything to any job without any consequence?
Oh come on. Really? RTFA. You're veering away from the misattribution you original claimed as a possibility here.
I just wrote a whole comment about context, and you ignored it because it bruised your ego. Being obstinate about "drawing a line" is not a triumph of reason -- it's ignoring the world. Reductio ad absurdum relies on symmetry, of which you have none here.
She's obviously not wearing hot pants, a bikini top to work, and even if that were the case, she would be notified in an official capacity in short order (e.g. "told to go home") -- not "complimented" repeatedly in a creepy way.
There is no "murky line" because we are talking about a repeated pattern she illustrates in her article which shows it highly likely not to be misinterpretation. If she misinterpreted one of those examples (e.g. the "Facebook" example is the one I'd choose, actually), ok. But how likely is it she misinterpreted all of them, and the misinterpreted the social environment that made her pull together the examples in the first place?
> Please realize that there's a difference between saying "it might not be sexism" and "it's definitely not sexism" and that I'm trying to very cautiously propose the former, not the latter.
If I have a bug, it might be cosmic rays, a compiler bug -- or it could be my shitty code. All of these are possible. It isn't about what's possible, if you want to be analytical about it.. it's the likelihood.
So, when you say "it might be a compiler bug" when code breaks, you should know how ridiculous that sounds, even though you are technically correct[1]. There is a reason people say those kinds of things (without much more evidence) and it has a lot to do with how attached they are to their code.
[1] The Best Kind of Correct.
> At the risk of repeating myself, I just don't think you're reading PG's articles and thinking that what he says happened to him, didn't happen.
I never said that what happened to this woman didn't happen, nor did I say I didn't believe her. I fully believe that she was treated differently when she wore dresses versus stereotypical tech clothes, I believe she (to paraphrase) got skeezed on by a bunch of dudes, and I totally believe that people mistook her for a recruiter.
I believe basically all the facts that she wrote in the article and I have no problems with them. That's not what I'm arguing. Her experience is ABSOLUTELY VALID!
What I don't necessarily believe is her assertion that being treated differently because she wore a dress or a kimono is ipso facto sexism. I think it's entirely possible that guys who don't adhere to the "company tee shirt and pants" dress code get treated differently as well. There are a lot of programmers (both male and female) that use "suits" as a derogatory term for business people, often in part because they dress differently, and often because that difference in values is made apparent by their attire.
The point is if PG says "we didn't get the deal" that's a fact and there's no problem with it.
If he says "we didn't get the deal and they said it's because we weren't a big enough company" that's probably a fact and it's easy to swallow.
If he says "we didn't get the deal because we're too young and hip for those old fuddy-duddies" that's moved from the realm of fact to speculation and I would analyze that just the same.
> She's obviously not wearing hot pants, a bikini top to work, and even if that were the case, she would be notified in an official capacity in short order (e.g. "told to go home") -- not "complimented" repeatedly in a creepy way.
I totally believe that all this happened, but it's probably less sexism and more that she's young and attractive. It might be sexual harassment, but unless these guys are skeezing on every woman irrespective of her looks and age, it's not really sexism. That doesn't make it OK! It's still unacceptable behavior and I wouldn't condone it. But calling it sexism isn't really accurate either.
> It isn't about what's possible, if you want to be analytical about it.. it's the likelihood.
Agreed completely! Here's a quote:
"I noticed I got better feedback from interviewers when I “looked the part.”"
That means that people are evaluating her by what she wore (which she has a choice in) not by her biology (which she does not). To me, that's not sexism. It might be somewhere between unfortunate and criminal depending on who you ask, but again not sexist.
I never said that what happened to this woman didn't happen, nor did I say I didn't believe her. I fully believe that she was treated differently when she wore dresses versus stereotypical tech clothes, I believe she (to paraphrase) got skeezed on by a bunch of dudes, and I totally believe that people mistook her for a recruiter.
I believe basically all the facts that she wrote in the article and I have no problems with them. That's not what I'm arguing. Her experience is ABSOLUTELY VALID!
What I don't necessarily believe is her assertion that being treated differently because she wore a dress or a kimono is ipso facto sexism. I think it's entirely possible that guys who don't adhere to the "company tee shirt and pants" dress code get treated differently as well. There are a lot of programmers (both male and female) that use "suits" as a derogatory term for business people, often in part because they dress differently, and often because that difference in values is made apparent by their attire.
The point is if PG says "we didn't get the deal" that's a fact and there's no problem with it.
If he says "we didn't get the deal and they said it's because we weren't a big enough company" that's probably a fact and it's easy to swallow.
If he says "we didn't get the deal because we're too young and hip for those old fuddy-duddies" that's moved from the realm of fact to speculation and I would analyze that just the same.
> She's obviously not wearing hot pants, a bikini top to work, and even if that were the case, she would be notified in an official capacity in short order (e.g. "told to go home") -- not "complimented" repeatedly in a creepy way.
I totally believe that all this happened, but it's probably less sexism and more that she's young and attractive. It might be sexual harassment, but unless these guys are skeezing on every woman irrespective of her looks and age, it's not really sexism. That doesn't make it OK! It's still unacceptable behavior and I wouldn't condone it. But calling it sexism isn't really accurate either.
> It isn't about what's possible, if you want to be analytical about it.. it's the likelihood.
Agreed completely! Here's a quote:
"I noticed I got better feedback from interviewers when I “looked the part.”"
That means that people are evaluating her by what she wore (which she has a choice in) not by her biology (which she does not). To me, that's not sexism. It might be somewhere between unfortunate and criminal depending on who you ask, but again not sexist.
Ok, I think I see where we depart. To me, treating women as sex objects in the workplace is absolutely part of sexism, and that's probably her assumption too. I see how you might make a distinction, but I don't agree with it.
The idea that the harassment wouldn't happen if she were old and ugly doesn't make it not about sexism -- anymore than a guy who only patronizes a certain kind of woman (the kind he is attracted to) is not sexist because he doesn't patronize all women equally.
There is a sense which (I think) you're going for where this could be thought of as people latching onto things that are "out of the norm", rather than specifically sexism -- but that seems tautological to me. All -isms (that I can think of) are based on pre-judging based on things that are non-normative: sex, race, age, orientation -- you name it.
What is the norm that she's violating? Well, it seems (to me) to be existing as a (technical) woman in the workplace and all of the attributes that come along with that -- like a human that speaks in a higher register, or wears dresses or doesn't wear t-shirts as regularly.
This is, again, not uncommon and therefore the most likely explanation for all of the things she's encountered taken in totality. "Culture fit", which you refer to, is about prejudice -- and each time the type of prejudice may differ (between racism, sexism, & agism, let's say[1]) but it's still prejudice, not some magical other thing.
[1] suit-ism, let's not forget suit-ism. :-)[2]
[2] Sharp dressed -ism?
The idea that the harassment wouldn't happen if she were old and ugly doesn't make it not about sexism -- anymore than a guy who only patronizes a certain kind of woman (the kind he is attracted to) is not sexist because he doesn't patronize all women equally.
There is a sense which (I think) you're going for where this could be thought of as people latching onto things that are "out of the norm", rather than specifically sexism -- but that seems tautological to me. All -isms (that I can think of) are based on pre-judging based on things that are non-normative: sex, race, age, orientation -- you name it.
What is the norm that she's violating? Well, it seems (to me) to be existing as a (technical) woman in the workplace and all of the attributes that come along with that -- like a human that speaks in a higher register, or wears dresses or doesn't wear t-shirts as regularly.
This is, again, not uncommon and therefore the most likely explanation for all of the things she's encountered taken in totality. "Culture fit", which you refer to, is about prejudice -- and each time the type of prejudice may differ (between racism, sexism, & agism, let's say[1]) but it's still prejudice, not some magical other thing.
[1] suit-ism, let's not forget suit-ism. :-)[2]
[2] Sharp dressed -ism?
I wholeheartedly agree that she faced a lot of prejudice. But not all prejudice is sexism, just ask any other kind of minority! There are minority men who are on the receiving end of prejudice who will tell you that there's a lot more to it than just sexism.
> The idea that the harassment wouldn't happen if she were old and ugly doesn't make it not about sexism
Yes, yes it does.
From the dictionary:
sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
synonyms: sexual discrimination, chauvinism, gender prejudice, gender bias "your hiring practices have generated numerous complaints about sexism"
According to that definition a man who likes women and hits on some of them isn't sexist, unless he also happens to think that men are better than women.
My point is simply that sexism isn't defined as "all things that happen to a woman that she doesn't like" or else literally everything bad that happens to a woman is sexism and I think it's obvious that her alarm failing to go off isn't sexism or getting in a car accident isn't sexism.
It sounds to me like she experienced sexism, sexual harassment, ageism, dress-ism (is that the right word?) and voice-ism (???) and they're all bad. But they're not all sexism.
> The idea that the harassment wouldn't happen if she were old and ugly doesn't make it not about sexism
Yes, yes it does.
From the dictionary:
sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
synonyms: sexual discrimination, chauvinism, gender prejudice, gender bias "your hiring practices have generated numerous complaints about sexism"
According to that definition a man who likes women and hits on some of them isn't sexist, unless he also happens to think that men are better than women.
My point is simply that sexism isn't defined as "all things that happen to a woman that she doesn't like" or else literally everything bad that happens to a woman is sexism and I think it's obvious that her alarm failing to go off isn't sexism or getting in a car accident isn't sexism.
It sounds to me like she experienced sexism, sexual harassment, ageism, dress-ism (is that the right word?) and voice-ism (???) and they're all bad. But they're not all sexism.
Oh well, we will not agree.
Again, I will say, especially to your concluding remark, this is a distinction without a difference. Because (eg.) if someone is prejudicial against a human with breasts, that does not make them simply "breast-ist" because to boil down to that level is ridiculous and entirely context-free. SImilar to everything youw rote, because all of this is occurring in a particular context.
Again, I will say, especially to your concluding remark, this is a distinction without a difference. Because (eg.) if someone is prejudicial against a human with breasts, that does not make them simply "breast-ist" because to boil down to that level is ridiculous and entirely context-free. SImilar to everything youw rote, because all of this is occurring in a particular context.
The distinction absolutely does matter! It wouldn't matter if ONLY WOMEN dressed differently than stereotypical techies, or ONLY WOMEN had higher-than-average pitch voices, and ONLY WOMEN were young. But they're not! Both women and men might display those attributes. In order to treat people fairly, you have to treat people fairly. It wouldn't be a triumph of justice to reset men's prejudices towards women but not also towards other men.
In other words, discriminating against someone for a particular characteristic like the ones she mentioned is terrible and it shouldn't happen, regardless of the sex of the person being discriminated against.
In other words, discriminating against someone for a particular characteristic like the ones she mentioned is terrible and it shouldn't happen, regardless of the sex of the person being discriminated against.
You are free to advance an alternative hypothesis explaining her observations. If you go with her thinking "everyone is against her", like the parent comment, you should ask yourself what separates you from all the other people who have defended the status quo by dismissing women complaining of sexism.
If you look at it objectively, there simply isn't enough evidence to say that her examples were purposeful sexism. As others have said, people should be mindful of how they word things.
There are plenty of articles that do provide substantial evidence showing sexism. I just fail to see that caliber of evidence in this article. Her tone honestly gives off the vibe that she thinks everyone is against her.
There are plenty of articles that do provide substantial evidence showing sexism. I just fail to see that caliber of evidence in this article. Her tone honestly gives off the vibe that she thinks everyone is against her.
I would caution you against falling into the intellectual trap of believing your interpretation to be objective, especially here. Why must sexism be purposeful? Is it not a more damning implication of the culture for non-purposeful sexism to exist?
Indeed. Lea writes a cogent article about a pervasive problem of sexism and hostility to women in education and industry and her personal experiences with it. From a thousand yards, a few of her individual examples seem that they might be a bit overblown and unfair to the other party, perhaps based on her own assumptions from being on the receiving end of so much blatant sexism. But picking them apart one by one to debunk her experience and narrative is invalidating her experience and condoning blatant sexism and hostile workplaces. It's real and it's wrong, and even those whose intentions are harmless should pay more attention to what they are saying and doing and be fucking professionals. You don't code with your dick, so there's no need to wave it around in the workplace.
I'm not sure I understand how picking apart her experiences one by one in order to be critical of a few of them is condoning blatant sexism. Why am I only allowed to accept her entire article as a whole?
The system and culture is against her, not necessarily the individuals.
I take crap at work for wearing sport coats and pants made of wool. I've given up on ties and suits unless there is a customer visit. A workplace has a culture and though you can exist at the edge of it, you'd better not go outside the lines.
Also, I compliment other men on their outfits when they look especially well put together. No HR complaints yet...
Also, I compliment other men on their outfits when they look especially well put together. No HR complaints yet...
The thing is, bklhp19, we don't need your analasys to tell us whether or not there are sexism and gender issues in tech and tech education. It's a fact and we know it so all you're offering here is a dismissal of this person's concern. Is that how you like to show up in the world, challenging or dismissing people around you when they take the time to communicate their experience of known problem space?
Bad journalism deserves to be pointed out, does it not? I am not dismissing the issue, I am claiming that her points lack substantial evidence. Just because something is a touchy subject doesn't mean the writing is infallible.
It's not journalism, it is an opinion piece. Hence the tag "Commentary". It doesn't need to have the utmost journalistic integrity or writing.
It just happens that, what she experienced and how she interpreted it, resonated with a lot of people.
It just happens that, what she experienced and how she interpreted it, resonated with a lot of people.
Does the HN community not see how dangerous this line of thinking is?
"We don't need your analysis to know that the NSA isn't misusing the data they collect on us. It's a fact and we know it."
Is this really how we want arguments to proceed?
"We don't need your analysis to know that the NSA isn't misusing the data they collect on us. It's a fact and we know it."
Is this really how we want arguments to proceed?
Especially from vocal, influential people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Dotzler
I understand people can have wildly outlandish beliefs, ideas, etc. But to outright dismiss discussion this way is a recipe for group-think and, ironically, discrimination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Dotzler
I understand people can have wildly outlandish beliefs, ideas, etc. But to outright dismiss discussion this way is a recipe for group-think and, ironically, discrimination.
I'm a CS grad at CSUEB in the Bay Area (I was also an undergrad there previously), and this "women are absent" nonsense is very much the opposite of what I see in my classes.
Most of my classes are comprised of roughly 25-30 students. Of those, roughly 20+ students are Indian, and of those 20+, 15+ are females, and I assure you they're really good!
Now, it may not be Stanford or Berkeley or whichever high-horse university some of you would like to use to dismiss this information, but in my experience there are women in CS, lots of them. It seems folks are just looking at the "bigger buzzfeed" schools or where they want for these "ohh.. I'm a girl in CS and I'm not recognized". Take a look outside these prestigious schools and the gender demographics will change. I'm not saying these don't exist, I'm just saying look around a little more.
Now, I can't speak for female presence in IT in the professional world, but with regard to those feeling belittled or taken advantage of, women are unfortunately targeted by unsolicited/creepy advances all the time, everywhere. It's not a tech industry thing, it an unfortunate all-over-the-world problem.
If when asked where one person did an internship the answer is "facebook", then yeah maybe some surprise, I guess it would be nice to intern at facebook. If the following 1,2,3 people also answer "facebook", then I too would probably think to myself "oh, I should have probably applied then". At this point, I'll just have to take Lea's word that the reaction was truly because she was a girl?!
Most of my classes are comprised of roughly 25-30 students. Of those, roughly 20+ students are Indian, and of those 20+, 15+ are females, and I assure you they're really good!
Now, it may not be Stanford or Berkeley or whichever high-horse university some of you would like to use to dismiss this information, but in my experience there are women in CS, lots of them. It seems folks are just looking at the "bigger buzzfeed" schools or where they want for these "ohh.. I'm a girl in CS and I'm not recognized". Take a look outside these prestigious schools and the gender demographics will change. I'm not saying these don't exist, I'm just saying look around a little more.
Now, I can't speak for female presence in IT in the professional world, but with regard to those feeling belittled or taken advantage of, women are unfortunately targeted by unsolicited/creepy advances all the time, everywhere. It's not a tech industry thing, it an unfortunate all-over-the-world problem.
If when asked where one person did an internship the answer is "facebook", then yeah maybe some surprise, I guess it would be nice to intern at facebook. If the following 1,2,3 people also answer "facebook", then I too would probably think to myself "oh, I should have probably applied then". At this point, I'll just have to take Lea's word that the reaction was truly because she was a girl?!
A male developer is going to be flagged as an "imposter" if he shows up to cut code in a suit. That sucks. Unfortunately, it probably also applies to dresses.
> I’ve had middle-aged coworkers (not at Facebook, another internship) literally GChat me pickup lines (that aren’t even clever) to the point I’d avoid certain portions of the office altogether;
Not to be trite, but the only thing worse than being a girl who gets Gchated pick up lines, is one who doesn't.
OK, now. What am I driving at? My view on a primary reason why there doesn't seem to be more progress is because the Liz Lemon and Jenna Maroney archetypes have yet to come up with a common strategy.
This bit of dialogue basically sums up their differences:
Jenna: Oh, I’m not worried because I have something the other actors don’t. A secret weapon.
Liz: Don’t say your sexuality.
Jenna: My sexuality!
Not to be trite, but the only thing worse than being a girl who gets Gchated pick up lines, is one who doesn't.
OK, now. What am I driving at? My view on a primary reason why there doesn't seem to be more progress is because the Liz Lemon and Jenna Maroney archetypes have yet to come up with a common strategy.
This bit of dialogue basically sums up their differences:
Jenna: Oh, I’m not worried because I have something the other actors don’t. A secret weapon.
Liz: Don’t say your sexuality.
Jenna: My sexuality!
If she feels incomfortable about it, she shouldn't avoid them. Did she tell them it makes her unconfortable? Nerds aren't all good with asserting if someone is confortable with something.
One of the best TA's that I ever had, in any discipline, was a female CS instructor at Cal who was also likely a PhD candidate. My operating theory was that she not only had to be smart enough to be admitted into that program, but that she additionally had to overcome some degree of adversity stemming from gender-based perceptions (which I definitely observed in our department). The entire class was disappointed when our regular professor returned from a conference after she had been instructing for a week because she was so much better at teaching than he was.
Rush's brain: "Wow, one of my classmates made it to Facebook? Cool." Rush's brain a moment later, "Wait, TWO of my classmates made it to Facebook?!? Oh... well then I should have applied for that internship." I'm sympathetic to the view that Rush was being sexist. But could it possibly be that Rush was just adding up the numbers and realizing that his odds weren't as bad as he realized?
"and I’ve been cornered by a stranger at night outside Stanford’s Gates Building when leaving office hours." This doesn't strike me as an indictment against Stanford or against Computer Science - just against men in general.
"Worst of all, a 50-year-old married, male coworker at one internship would regularly make it a point in passing to comment on how “fun” my dresses looked." I wasn't there, and again, I'm sympathetic to the idea that this could have been sexism - but I again wonder if this wasn't just a compliment. As a 40-year-old married male, I wonder if I can compliment my female co-workers on how they look. And at what frequency would it become the "worst of all" sexism that female had ever encountered?
"I noticed that management listened more to what my male counterparts had to say even though I was offering insightful feedback." I've seen this first-hand, and it's disgusting. I saw blatant sexism and racism in my college, as well.
I am sympathetic, but some of the examples cited seem questionable to me.
"and I’ve been cornered by a stranger at night outside Stanford’s Gates Building when leaving office hours." This doesn't strike me as an indictment against Stanford or against Computer Science - just against men in general.
"Worst of all, a 50-year-old married, male coworker at one internship would regularly make it a point in passing to comment on how “fun” my dresses looked." I wasn't there, and again, I'm sympathetic to the idea that this could have been sexism - but I again wonder if this wasn't just a compliment. As a 40-year-old married male, I wonder if I can compliment my female co-workers on how they look. And at what frequency would it become the "worst of all" sexism that female had ever encountered?
"I noticed that management listened more to what my male counterparts had to say even though I was offering insightful feedback." I've seen this first-hand, and it's disgusting. I saw blatant sexism and racism in my college, as well.
I am sympathetic, but some of the examples cited seem questionable to me.
One of my female friends has been through broadly similar experiences, and so sadly I'm not particularly surprised by this article. I'm glad that it's been posted, and am somewhat saddened by the defensive nature of a lot of the replies here.
Yes, a few of her examples are a little weak, but I think it paints an overall picture that isn't hugely encouraging for the state of SV, and one that I have no trouble believing.
Yes, a few of her examples are a little weak, but I think it paints an overall picture that isn't hugely encouraging for the state of SV, and one that I have no trouble believing.
For a typical high-achieving man (in other words, a narcissist) to make it through a program where he's even slightly outside the social mode without a persecution complex, he'd have to possess extraordinary emotional poise. And we've seen that fine analytical minds are at least as prone to biases (system 2 reasoning is the rationalizing one, not the automatic system 1).
So, this woman's reaction is not to her discredit. Almost any person would have it. What's maybe a little sad is how much play such "dear diary" reactions get. I guess people really love a good shouting match (see the many flagkilled comments).
Those capable folks who enter a field out of genuine desire and with no obstacle other than a (real) feeling of social friction will stick with it and prevail. Good luck, outsiders. Anyway, ridiculous feelings of persecution (e.g., they think they're better than me with their college degrees - I'll show them all!) can be harnessed for productivity, so if you can't zen away your angst, use it.
So, this woman's reaction is not to her discredit. Almost any person would have it. What's maybe a little sad is how much play such "dear diary" reactions get. I guess people really love a good shouting match (see the many flagkilled comments).
Those capable folks who enter a field out of genuine desire and with no obstacle other than a (real) feeling of social friction will stick with it and prevail. Good luck, outsiders. Anyway, ridiculous feelings of persecution (e.g., they think they're better than me with their college degrees - I'll show them all!) can be harnessed for productivity, so if you can't zen away your angst, use it.
As a PhD student here at Stanford, I find this really distressing.
For what little it may be worth to anyone reading this who is(/was) thinking about coming to Stanford, I have heard professors and grad students talk about ways to be more inclusive in their actions and language. I've heard my advisor stumble over "you guys" only to stop and correct himself with "you all". I can't speak for every lab (there are numerous, each with different cultures and norms), but hopefully I speak for everyone when I say that we grad students and the professors are at least open to learning about how we can make the CS program (and the field as a whole) a safer space for everyone, if not actively working toward that goal. If nothing else, we can promote an inclusive culture in how we speak, behave, and in what behavior we (don't) tolerate.
For Lea (and for countless others), I worry her perception of CS has been irreparably damaged. Hopefully that won't be the case going forward.
For what little it may be worth to anyone reading this who is(/was) thinking about coming to Stanford, I have heard professors and grad students talk about ways to be more inclusive in their actions and language. I've heard my advisor stumble over "you guys" only to stop and correct himself with "you all". I can't speak for every lab (there are numerous, each with different cultures and norms), but hopefully I speak for everyone when I say that we grad students and the professors are at least open to learning about how we can make the CS program (and the field as a whole) a safer space for everyone, if not actively working toward that goal. If nothing else, we can promote an inclusive culture in how we speak, behave, and in what behavior we (don't) tolerate.
For Lea (and for countless others), I worry her perception of CS has been irreparably damaged. Hopefully that won't be the case going forward.
are sexism and sexual harassment the same things? To me it sounded like she listed examples of both. I mean like the stranger in the night isn't exactly "sexism in tech", it is more like industry unrelated harassment bordering on assault. I'd venture to guess that such harassment/assault is even less probable from a college educated tech workers than from other demographic groups.
Sexism is pervasive. Sexual Harassment is generally goaded on by permissive environments, especially those that are largely male.
The "Stranger in the Night" comment is definitely harassment, but it is not hard to see how its occurrence is relevant to the larger issue.
The "Stranger in the Night" comment is definitely harassment, but it is not hard to see how its occurrence is relevant to the larger issue.
>it is not hard to see how its occurrence is relevant to the larger issue.
my point is that it is really hard to see. How thinking that somebody is less capable as a programmer (or auto mechanic, TV announcer, whatever...) relevant to actual stalking/harassment/assault.
my point is that it is really hard to see. How thinking that somebody is less capable as a programmer (or auto mechanic, TV announcer, whatever...) relevant to actual stalking/harassment/assault.
These are getting funnier. Now back to actually trying to better myself instead of blaming "unconscious" biases for all of my problems.
I've worked many jobs in my life, many . . . people will ask you out everywhere you work. Go be a waitress and see how many co-workers, bosses, and customers try and pick you up.
> I’ve had middle-aged coworkers (not at Facebook, another internship) literally GChat me pickup lines (that aren’t even clever) to the point I’d avoid certain portions of the office altogether
> I’ve had middle-aged coworkers (not at Facebook, another internship) literally GChat me pickup lines (that aren’t even clever) to the point I’d avoid certain portions of the office altogether
Having read a lot of the "are you sure she didn't misinterpret that" or "it's not like women can't apply to these jobs" comments, I'd like to help people overcome their knee-jerk reflex and really think about this instead of throwing their hands up.
For those who are questioning her experience, let's consider a piece of satire about bias at Hogwarts (and mentally substituting gender or other demographic of choice for religion here):
"These facts will likely surprise Hogwarts students today, especially those acquainted with the broader history of Judaism at their school... and though Spinoza’s invitation to deliver a series of lectures, in 1652, was met with protests, organizers were careful to note that it was the philosopher’s virulent anti-wizarding stance that they objected to, not his Jewish extraction.
A turning point in the story of anti-Semitism at Hogwarts came in 1920, when Jewish enrollment, buoyed by excellent Wizarding Admissions Test scores, peaked at thirty per cent. Complaints began to circulate that the “character of the place” was changing. These were vague comments, but no one mistook their meaning. The conservative Board of Governors (which, for the record, did not admit a Jew until Robert Rubin joined, in 1995) exerted enormous pressure on Headmaster Phineas Nigellus Black to “do something about it,” and the Class of 1926 was the first to be subject to the notorious Jewish quotas that would stand for almost fifty years. There were no hard numbers, of course—only a directive to the admissions committee to begin placing less weight on test scores and more on certain vaguely defined categories such as “character,” “fitness,” and “spell diction.” But it was enough.
Of course, the situation at Hogwarts had never been anywhere near as bad as at the universities in Eastern and Central Europe, where Jewish wizards as eminent as Freud and Einstein, unable to secure teaching appointments, were forced to use their magic in the service of formulating bizarre Muggle theories. Nor was Hogwarts ever the site of anti-Semitic violence, seen at too many of the Hungarian and Austrian wizarding schools during the tumultuous years after the First World War. There, student “demonstrations” often included the use of the so-called Jewish spells, cruel incantations that caused the peyes (side curls) to become scalding hot, the phylacteries to tighten around the wearer’s head—and, of course, the notorious “kipa spinner.”
No, Hogwarts was never the setting for any bigotry as brutal as that, and if I persist in recalling the minor injustices it is for the sake of guarding against future anti-Semitism in its most subtle forms." [1]
1. http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/true-history-jew...
For those who are questioning her experience, let's consider a piece of satire about bias at Hogwarts (and mentally substituting gender or other demographic of choice for religion here):
"These facts will likely surprise Hogwarts students today, especially those acquainted with the broader history of Judaism at their school... and though Spinoza’s invitation to deliver a series of lectures, in 1652, was met with protests, organizers were careful to note that it was the philosopher’s virulent anti-wizarding stance that they objected to, not his Jewish extraction.
A turning point in the story of anti-Semitism at Hogwarts came in 1920, when Jewish enrollment, buoyed by excellent Wizarding Admissions Test scores, peaked at thirty per cent. Complaints began to circulate that the “character of the place” was changing. These were vague comments, but no one mistook their meaning. The conservative Board of Governors (which, for the record, did not admit a Jew until Robert Rubin joined, in 1995) exerted enormous pressure on Headmaster Phineas Nigellus Black to “do something about it,” and the Class of 1926 was the first to be subject to the notorious Jewish quotas that would stand for almost fifty years. There were no hard numbers, of course—only a directive to the admissions committee to begin placing less weight on test scores and more on certain vaguely defined categories such as “character,” “fitness,” and “spell diction.” But it was enough.
Of course, the situation at Hogwarts had never been anywhere near as bad as at the universities in Eastern and Central Europe, where Jewish wizards as eminent as Freud and Einstein, unable to secure teaching appointments, were forced to use their magic in the service of formulating bizarre Muggle theories. Nor was Hogwarts ever the site of anti-Semitic violence, seen at too many of the Hungarian and Austrian wizarding schools during the tumultuous years after the First World War. There, student “demonstrations” often included the use of the so-called Jewish spells, cruel incantations that caused the peyes (side curls) to become scalding hot, the phylacteries to tighten around the wearer’s head—and, of course, the notorious “kipa spinner.”
No, Hogwarts was never the setting for any bigotry as brutal as that, and if I persist in recalling the minor injustices it is for the sake of guarding against future anti-Semitism in its most subtle forms." [1]
1. http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/true-history-jew...
I know guys make all kinds of jokes during work, some of them are not PC. If they do / do not make those jokes with a female coworker, which one is considered as sexism?
[deleted]
Yup, sounds like standard fare. I would have been impressed if she'd documented and reported this shitty behaviour. Then again Confrontation is difficult, no matter the context.
As someone who has tried to document and report shitty behavior, it's important to keep in mind how risky that is.
Here are a few patterns I've observed:
pattern (a) MAN: does shitty thing; WOMAN: hey please stop; WOMAN's performance review: "has conflicts with MAN"
pattern (b) MAN: does shitty thing; WOMAN: reports shitty thing; MANAGER: oh MAN is a nice guy, why don't you try working it out yourself
pattern (c) MAN: does shitty thing; WOMAN: does nothing because she actually reports to MAN
Here are a few patterns I've observed:
pattern (a) MAN: does shitty thing; WOMAN: hey please stop; WOMAN's performance review: "has conflicts with MAN"
pattern (b) MAN: does shitty thing; WOMAN: reports shitty thing; MANAGER: oh MAN is a nice guy, why don't you try working it out yourself
pattern (c) MAN: does shitty thing; WOMAN: does nothing because she actually reports to MAN
This happens in hierarchies regardless of genders. Anyone bullied in school or a workplace can tell you this.
You would need to measure if it in fact happens more often if it's a woman being a victim which is very difficult as most of those situations are not reported by neither gender.
Why would you report shitty behavior? Is that against some sort of code of conduct where you work?
fair enough, this is especially bad in the milirary... shudder
When the guy said:
> Oh… well then I should have applied for that internship.
A simple response like "what do you mean?" would be completely appropriate. Given the context of this example, I have a difficult time accepting the male was implying anything like what the author felt was directed at her. Rather I think it's a more reasonable assumption he came to the conclusion that if so many people from his school got Facebook internships, then he should have applied as well. But, we'll never know unless people do ask for a deeper explanation instead of just assuming malice.
> Oh… well then I should have applied for that internship.
A simple response like "what do you mean?" would be completely appropriate. Given the context of this example, I have a difficult time accepting the male was implying anything like what the author felt was directed at her. Rather I think it's a more reasonable assumption he came to the conclusion that if so many people from his school got Facebook internships, then he should have applied as well. But, we'll never know unless people do ask for a deeper explanation instead of just assuming malice.
This all the way. I tend to do that myself.
Going with OP's examples, I would have said the same thing as the guy said concerning her even if it was a male.
Going with OP's examples, I would have said the same thing as the guy said concerning her even if it was a male.
I think the part where she pointed out that not every sexist thing is overtly sexist really resonated with me. Not everything is so blatant that you can report it. If I confronted people every time something subtly sexist happened to me, people would think I was an oversensitive bitch. But at the same time, those little things add up.
Perhaps the people who have downvoted every comment so far would like to contribute to the conversation?
The conversation is they're right and your sexist!
She doesn't mention other women at her internships. If she had spoken to other women and they too experienced levels of sexism then yes; but since she doesn't make the mention we don't know.
Most of these incidents just sound like guys who were genuinely trying to be nice or funny, but because anything can be seen through the lens of sexism, this woman took the opportunity to consider herself oppressed.
I am reasonably convinced that even those trying to be nice or funny can be sexist, and in fact, can be sexist while trying to be nice or funny.
I am also convinced that sexism is a societal problem, and not the hand-wringing of a few key dudes.
There are plenty of things in Computer Science / engineering / etc that are trying to be nice/funny, but contribute to a strong culture of sexism.
I am also convinced that sexism is a societal problem, and not the hand-wringing of a few key dudes.
There are plenty of things in Computer Science / engineering / etc that are trying to be nice/funny, but contribute to a strong culture of sexism.
Possibly. As an outsider to the industry it is hard for me to understand exactly what people mean by sexism in the STEM fields. There is no cut and dry "Women cannot apply to this position." Instead it seems to be things like comments about the dress being fun which to me seem rather ambiguous about their intentions. I wouldn't consider that to be sexist, if I said that I would intend it as a compliment but I see stuff all the time about how seemingly innocent things like that are apparently sexist. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Even the recounting of guy talking about the Facebook internship seemed to me as if the guy was trying to joke about how she must be smart, so he should apply; as if he was trying to imply that it would have been a good idea/opportunity. I didn't interpret that incident as meaning that the guy thought he should get the internship over the girl, since she most certainly wasn't the only intern at Facebook over the summer.
A good starting place is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
... and predictably, the first comment proves her point.
You see two or three examples of comments in the article, and feel comfortable dismissing her point entirely as a result. But of course a written article has only room for two or three examples.
She wouldn't have written it if there weren't an absolute nonstop stream of this sort of crap over the course of years. A point she made abundantly clear, and an experience that would be oppressive to anyone.
(Not to mention the numerous things that can't possibly be read as "nice or funny", like having all your contributions ignored in favor of equivalent contributions from men. That makes me wonder if you actually read most of the article, or just skimmed and cherry picked a couple things that left you feeling justified in dismissing her.)
When you learn to listen to people who are struggling instead of dismissing them, your life will be better. I promise.
You see two or three examples of comments in the article, and feel comfortable dismissing her point entirely as a result. But of course a written article has only room for two or three examples.
She wouldn't have written it if there weren't an absolute nonstop stream of this sort of crap over the course of years. A point she made abundantly clear, and an experience that would be oppressive to anyone.
(Not to mention the numerous things that can't possibly be read as "nice or funny", like having all your contributions ignored in favor of equivalent contributions from men. That makes me wonder if you actually read most of the article, or just skimmed and cherry picked a couple things that left you feeling justified in dismissing her.)
When you learn to listen to people who are struggling instead of dismissing them, your life will be better. I promise.
Be careful what arguments you make. A person writing an article based on their experiences that they believe accurate and representative does not automatically make it so on both counts.
I did read that part. She claims her contributions were equivalent and I believe that they could have been, but where is the proof of that? If some independent party were to back up that claim with facts I would feel more comfortable supporting her point. I'm not denying that sexism exists, just making the point that I didn't like this article because I don't think it successfully makes its point.
Hopefully you can understand that intent isn't everything?
Being considerate of others isn't just saying "pshht i didn't mean anything by it!" it's actually thinking about how other people might react in the circumstances they've been put in.
You can call sexism a lens, but it might also help to understand the experiences others have lived (from their POV, not yours) to see why it's a lens that others are brought to employing.
Being considerate of others isn't just saying "pshht i didn't mean anything by it!" it's actually thinking about how other people might react in the circumstances they've been put in.
You can call sexism a lens, but it might also help to understand the experiences others have lived (from their POV, not yours) to see why it's a lens that others are brought to employing.
Your lens theory is nice, but I found found living in a transgender commune (yep, that's another story) insufferable in terms of second guessing every my comment or impulse. Persecution complexes are just not sustainable in promoting harmonius cross-communities, and at some point the person subject to sexism and oppression has to be prepared to expect some of the heat. It's simply the world we've inherited, and we can't expect it to magically change.
On the positive, things are changing. I see this issue get talked about a lot on here now, and there's a greater dialogue in the culture about it. It will take some time ...
On the positive, things are changing. I see this issue get talked about a lot on here now, and there's a greater dialogue in the culture about it. It will take some time ...
But everyone is subject to that. Humans are incredibly imperfect social beings - and teenagers and young adults are particularly good at not thinking through what they say. It doesn't mean people are trying to be sexist.
Surely we can agree that discrimination is not only about intent.
And, again, if you make someone else feel bad is it the right thing to do to go "oh, well i didn't mean to make you feel bad, so you shouldn't feel that way."
And, again, if you make someone else feel bad is it the right thing to do to go "oh, well i didn't mean to make you feel bad, so you shouldn't feel that way."
Perhaps, but there certainly are some incidents which are ambiguous. I fear that by taking that mindset we will create an environment where people have more incentive to not speak to or interact with women because they might get in trouble for an action that was either careless or consciously intended not to be sexist but gets twisted around and made to look that way. I certainly think that saying something like "you are less capable because you are a woman" is sexist but saying something like "your dress is fun" does not unambiguously imply that it was a sexual advance. Why can't it just be a nice unthreatening comment?
> people have more incentive to not speak to or interact with women because they might get in trouble for an action that was either careless or consciously intended not to be sexist but gets twisted around and made to look that way
This is how I feel about most tech gatherings now, even online discussions (I'm actually a bit nervous about this comment). Any interaction I have with a woman in tech, or any discussion about women in tech that I might participate in, has the potential for career-threatening blowback. So far I've been following the War Games strategy: "The only way to win, is not to play." But that doesn't feel great either, because now I'm consciously avoiding people who otherwise might have been great to have a conversation with.
The worst part is, I didn't have that problem until the whole women in tech thing was dragged into the light. I'm not saying that shouldn't have happened: it's obvious by now that there are problems that need solving. There have been consequences, however, of which I'm not sure the more vocal members of this movement are cognizant.
This is how I feel about most tech gatherings now, even online discussions (I'm actually a bit nervous about this comment). Any interaction I have with a woman in tech, or any discussion about women in tech that I might participate in, has the potential for career-threatening blowback. So far I've been following the War Games strategy: "The only way to win, is not to play." But that doesn't feel great either, because now I'm consciously avoiding people who otherwise might have been great to have a conversation with.
The worst part is, I didn't have that problem until the whole women in tech thing was dragged into the light. I'm not saying that shouldn't have happened: it's obvious by now that there are problems that need solving. There have been consequences, however, of which I'm not sure the more vocal members of this movement are cognizant.
Okay, it's great that you've got concerns about how guys feel, but shouldn't we equally consider how women in the field feel too?
I had female friends with whom i took CS classes who all had stories about guys who would do super weird things like start talking badly about them to others or refusing to cooperate with them on class projects after it being made clear that there was no romantic interest.
Nit picking individual comments or trying to negate how people feel about the circumstances they find themselves in isn't really addressing their concerns is it?
I had female friends with whom i took CS classes who all had stories about guys who would do super weird things like start talking badly about them to others or refusing to cooperate with them on class projects after it being made clear that there was no romantic interest.
Nit picking individual comments or trying to negate how people feel about the circumstances they find themselves in isn't really addressing their concerns is it?
[deleted](1)
Wow another privileged woman speaking about her "feels".
I take a bus with Mexican woman whose husband beats her but she is too scared to go to law enforcement( her being an illegal immigrant and all).
The contrast between two women is insane. Yet we talk everyday endlessly about the former not the latter. I am disgusted by this whole thing. Seriously WTF.
I take a bus with Mexican woman whose husband beats her but she is too scared to go to law enforcement( her being an illegal immigrant and all).
The contrast between two women is insane. Yet we talk everyday endlessly about the former not the latter. I am disgusted by this whole thing. Seriously WTF.
Just because the Mexican woman is in a worse situation compared to the Stanford grad, it doesn't make the Stanford grad's situation any less worse. If you were not allowed to eat any food once a week, and I told you "there's starving children in Africa with NO food 3 times a week" does that make you feel better about your situation?
You also happen to be posting on a tech website, so that would explain why we talk about the former and not the latter. Outside silicon valley no one cares about the former but there are many organizations trying their best to help with the latter.
In case you were wondering, that argument is known as the fallacy of relative privation: "an opponent's arguments should be dismissed or ignored, on the grounds of there existing more important problems, despite these issues being often completely unrelated to the subject at hand."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation
I knew someone would post this. I am talking about two people who work in the same office but one is treated like a princesses and another like invisible.
This whole gender gap thing is used by profiteers like "diversity consultants", media outlets like the original post for page views.
This whole gender gap thing is used by profiteers like "diversity consultants", media outlets like the original post for page views.
I am talking about women from the same society,I am not comparing women living under ISIS and the Standford grad. Why twist my words?
> Outside silicon valley no one cares about the former
Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
Just because other issues exists in the world doesn't invalidate issues elsewhere. There will always be someone who has it worse than you.
The next time you talk about your "feels" as you put it, see how you'd feel if someone guilted you because at least you're not a starving impoverished child with ebola in a third world country.
The next time you talk about your "feels" as you put it, see how you'd feel if someone guilted you because at least you're not a starving impoverished child with ebola in a third world country.
This is our country I am talking about not a third world country. Do you want to live in a society where one section of population is treated like precious princesses and another like dirt?
It is right to be disgusted with domestic violence, but that does not mean that you should not care about other problems. We should not limit ourselves to only care about the single worst problem.
I never said we should limit ourselves but the attention given should be proportionate to the suffering.
There seems to be something wrong with this commenting system. I tried to respond to someone who responded to what I wrote and the response did not take twice.
This is what I wrote: Changing others, changing men, changing culture is very difficult. Nice to talk about it but it really doesn't happen. What one can do is to change themselves and part of that is understanding that those people are ASD are more likely to be insensitive than others and that is partially a genetic phenomena. There is nothing wrong with women being more competitive than men in general and learning new technologies by going to meetups and otherwise. For example, most programmers know Java/Hadoop and far fewer really work with Scala/Spark. Learn advanced machine learning algorithms. Have a good understanding of computer architecture and computer chip fabrication.
I have been to a number of meetups and I have never seen any hostility towards women. These tend to be rather technical where meritocracy is respected.
In sum, those in technology are not wishful thinkers. One cannot change others, only themselves. Men are not going to change at least in the short term. I have given examples of a realistic means for dealing with the situation that I have seen women and others use.
This is what I wrote: Changing others, changing men, changing culture is very difficult. Nice to talk about it but it really doesn't happen. What one can do is to change themselves and part of that is understanding that those people are ASD are more likely to be insensitive than others and that is partially a genetic phenomena. There is nothing wrong with women being more competitive than men in general and learning new technologies by going to meetups and otherwise. For example, most programmers know Java/Hadoop and far fewer really work with Scala/Spark. Learn advanced machine learning algorithms. Have a good understanding of computer architecture and computer chip fabrication.
I have been to a number of meetups and I have never seen any hostility towards women. These tend to be rather technical where meritocracy is respected.
In sum, those in technology are not wishful thinkers. One cannot change others, only themselves. Men are not going to change at least in the short term. I have given examples of a realistic means for dealing with the situation that I have seen women and others use.
Ahhh Stanford undergrads. Whenever I'm thinking this life is too brutal I can always count on them to remind me there are people out there whose entire lives have been shrouded in naiveté and privilege.
I wonder how much the media is to blame for this young woman's mindset? Did she ever consider that her boss might not be asking her opinion because she was an intern? Or just jump to I'm not getting 100% attention on a silver platter, must be sexism? It's not clear from the article.
I wonder how much the media is to blame for this young woman's mindset? Did she ever consider that her boss might not be asking her opinion because she was an intern? Or just jump to I'm not getting 100% attention on a silver platter, must be sexism? It's not clear from the article.
Attempting to use sarcasm as an ad hominem attack on the author doesn't add to this conversation at all. Attending Stanford doesn't change the fact that she went through a certain set of negative experiences she feels compelled to write about. Given Stanford's proximity and close interconnection to the tech scene in the United States, and it's general reputation as a forward thinking university, it should concern us deeply as members of the tech community that sexist attitudes are still being perpetuated in places we generally assume to be safe spaces.
As for your three questions:
1) How is this relevant? This is a conversation about sexism in tech not an attempt to discredit the author's opinion by claiming she's been brainwashed by the media
2) Probably, although nobody here can really give an answer except her so you should ask her in the article comments
3) Sounds like she has some legitimate complaints so no I don't think this has anything to do with your implication that she is somehow fishing for attention.
As for your three questions:
1) How is this relevant? This is a conversation about sexism in tech not an attempt to discredit the author's opinion by claiming she's been brainwashed by the media
2) Probably, although nobody here can really give an answer except her so you should ask her in the article comments
3) Sounds like she has some legitimate complaints so no I don't think this has anything to do with your implication that she is somehow fishing for attention.
"I’ve had middle-aged coworkers ... GChat me pickup lines"
She is also kind of age-biased. Age doesn't matter, all kind of gender/legal-age/race relations are accepted by modern society.
She is also kind of age-biased. Age doesn't matter, all kind of gender/legal-age/race relations are accepted by modern society.
Let's posit "middle-aged" means "in their 40s". She's a junior in college, so let's say 20 or so.
So you're suggesting that objecting to getting pickup lines from people literally old enough to be her father is "age-biased", and not, you know, "creepy"? Hmm.
So you're suggesting that objecting to getting pickup lines from people literally old enough to be her father is "age-biased", and not, you know, "creepy"? Hmm.
Many men who program computers, especially those who are very competent, are ASD (on the Autistic Spectrum), eg, perhaps some form of Aspergers. In Autism Researcher Simon Baron-Cohen's terminology they are "hyper" systemic but "hypo" empathic. Thus, they may be acting socially unaware, especially compared with women and people should keep that in mind.
Also, women should consider at working and at least understanding and be able to talk about higher levels of technology that many of their male counterparts have not worked with. One woman I knew who has never worried about the issues in this article got an EE degree from a top rated university and did a lot of C++ contract work at high rates. Part of her education was being mentored by men who were very competent in programming yet older than she was.
Any guy that thinks he is smarter can be "put in his place" by someone who knows technology better and can show it.
Also, women should go to Meetups where they can me people in industry and learn new technologies that they may not have had in school. In the meetups that I attend in NYC, I see relatively few women and meetups are a great place to make contacts and learn new technologies.
Also, women should consider at working and at least understanding and be able to talk about higher levels of technology that many of their male counterparts have not worked with. One woman I knew who has never worried about the issues in this article got an EE degree from a top rated university and did a lot of C++ contract work at high rates. Part of her education was being mentored by men who were very competent in programming yet older than she was.
Any guy that thinks he is smarter can be "put in his place" by someone who knows technology better and can show it.
Also, women should go to Meetups where they can me people in industry and learn new technologies that they may not have had in school. In the meetups that I attend in NYC, I see relatively few women and meetups are a great place to make contacts and learn new technologies.
1. Being ASD is not a carte blanche.
2. Suggesting that "simply knowing more" is sufficient ignores the way many men will discount a woman's knowledge compared to a man's knowledge simply because she's a woman.
3. Can we not resort to putting people into their place to establish dominance hierarchies? What about synergistic differences? Those are tremendously valuable.
4. Many meetups can be frustrating or downright hostile to women. Even well intentioned organizers can have a difficult time attracting women if attendance is already primarily male. Let's not forget that women make about 70¢ per $1 that men make, so they tend to have less opportunity to spend leisure time at a meetup.
This is a problem, and we can't ask women to simply try harder. They've been trying harder their whole lives. Perhaps it's time for us men to try harder for once.
2. Suggesting that "simply knowing more" is sufficient ignores the way many men will discount a woman's knowledge compared to a man's knowledge simply because she's a woman.
3. Can we not resort to putting people into their place to establish dominance hierarchies? What about synergistic differences? Those are tremendously valuable.
4. Many meetups can be frustrating or downright hostile to women. Even well intentioned organizers can have a difficult time attracting women if attendance is already primarily male. Let's not forget that women make about 70¢ per $1 that men make, so they tend to have less opportunity to spend leisure time at a meetup.
This is a problem, and we can't ask women to simply try harder. They've been trying harder their whole lives. Perhaps it's time for us men to try harder for once.
> "hyper" systemic but "hypo" empathic
A society is a system.
A society is a system.
> Slowly but steadily, I am learning to see my dresses and high-pitched voice not as hurdles to my success, but as symbols of the perspective I bring to the table.
This conclusion is fantastic and shows a sense of confidence and maturity that I think all professionals of all genders need to project.