5 ms·

She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is acce

She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak. > This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does. I would not call it "reverse sexism", because it is is just plain sexism. Of course the author doesn't "see it that way", despite acknowledging it, because the author directly benefits from said sexism. If the author is being encouraged to apply for and accepted to speak at conferences primarily based on their gender, then the industry's reaction will be to expect that women speakers are token speakers, and this will set back women in the industry. Embrace differences, embrace diversity, but in the long run special treatment does not benefit anybody.

jazzyk 11y ago
Agreed. How I wish that (at least for the remaining few conferences where you can submit a proposal without having to be a "silver sponsor"), submissions were "blind". No name submitted, you get a reference number back to confirm your submission. Focus on merit, not gender/name recognition/budget.
jonahrd 11y ago
What kind of manager treats every single employee the same, regardless of differences in talent, background, needs, etc? If a manager hires a person who needs a bit more structure in order to stay focused, that person should be given a little more structure. Or in this case, if a manager hires someone who has been pushed down her whole life and has learned to fade into the background so as not to upset men around her, the manager should most definitely spend some time helping her get accustomed to speaking her mind and advocating for herself. It's just good managing. This way, she'll be able to contribute much more to the team that she would if she was still worried about fitting in. And her knowledge can be spread to new female employees, which helps move the inequality further towards equality in the long run. I don't see how this "special treatment" is in any way detrimental.
- new_corp_dev 11y ago
  Helping people overcome whatever unique problems they face in order to reach their full potential is expected and encouraged. Offering them opportunities solely based on a protected status is not. I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status. In the very same article the author laments not knowing whether she is being offered more responsibility because she is a woman or if it's because she's seen as capable and competent. It's a completely valid assumption, because she's already been offered more responsibility because she is a woman.
  - RIMR 11y ago
    >I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status. This is exactly the problem that goes ignored when people argue that "reverse discrimination" isn't a problem. Treating people differently because of their protected status only serves to further divide. The interest should be on making sure boys and girls get the same opportunities and encouragement growing up. in US universities, we have 30 male STEM majors for every female STEM major. We aren't going to see the industry change until we fix the root problem - that men are 30x more interested in STEM jobs than women. No amount of Social Justice Theater is going to level the playing field when men are being raised believing they can be whatever they want, and women are raised believing that marrying a wealthy man and becoming a stay-at-home mom is the greatest thing they can do with their lives. Women are lacking in STEM not because STEM is sexist, but because few women ever consider a future in STEM. Introducing pro-woman sexism into STEM is a paradoxical way to "solve" the problem.
    - jonahrd 11y ago
      And what if there's a young software engineering student who's inspired by this talk and decides to keep studying against her preconceived notions that this is a "field for men"? Hosting more women speakers at conferences helps to fix the broken stereotype of software engineers all being white dudes, which in turns fixes the problem of fewer women and minorities becoming interested in STEM.
frandroid 11y ago
In critical race theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory), the main tenet is that racism is the combination of discrimination and power. Everyone can do negative discrimination versus anyone based on race, but it becomes racism when the party that does the discrimination has power over the party being discriminated again. If you apply this schema to patriarchy, one cannot call positive discrimination "reverse sexism" or "sexism". I agree with you that "special treatment" does not benefit anybody, but there is so much misogyny (aka "special treatment") that counter-treatment is not just desirable, but necessary.
- LesZedCB 11y ago
  Thanks, said it better than I could. People never consider power when talking about race or gender, only about actions or behavior.
- new_corp_dev 11y ago
  I disagree. Discrimination, both sexism and racism, is any negative treatment towards someone based on protected status, regardless of who is "in power". The critical race theory definition is just a shield to hide behind while practicing racist or sexist behavior, and I will only acknowledge it as such.
- RIMR 11y ago
  If we actually do break down barriers and correct our gender biases as a society, what is to stop us from continuing this "special treatment" at the expense of men? When do we say "mission accomplished"? Case in point: "Black History Month" wasn't supposed to be permanent. We still celebrate it though, as if black history were distinctly different from American history. It started off with good intentions, but it continues to this day as an unnecessarily divisive holiday. How much "black history" is ignored 11 months out of the year just so we can celebrate it in February (the shortest month of the year)? Sexual discrimination is sexual discrimination, regardless of context.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
LesZedCB 11y ago
Encouraging and incentivizing a female employee to speak at a conference is not reverse sexism or sexism. It's simply providing a pathway to level the playing field. The cultural meme of reverse racism or reverse sexism is simply used to continue in our racist or sexist behaviors unapologetically. These are still cultural issues to deal with, despite the progress we have made on them, and therefore there is a real power dynamic that needs to be accounted for, which manifests itself in people deliberately righting wrongs such as by giving extra encouragement to female developers.
- new_corp_dev 11y ago
  All capable employees should be encouraged and incentivized equally, or based on their competence. Incentive based on protected status is discrimination.
  - neogodless 11y ago
    "The cultural meme of reverse racism or reverse sexism is simply used to continue in our racist or sexist behaviors unapologetically." If all capable employees were encouraged and incentivized equally, in all situations (i.e. all women attending conferences would be encouraged equally as men because the number of women speaking at conferences was equal to the number of men), then we would not have an issue with sexism in the industry. We do. Because of that, the industry raising up the females in the industry to attempt parity is necessary, whether or not it qualifies for the definition of discrimination.
- RIMR 11y ago
  >It's simply providing a pathway to level the playing field. This doesn't level the playing field. It specifically encourages employers to treat their female employees differently than male employees. As Bryana mentioned in her blog, it's pretty much impossible for a woman to not be singled out in STEM, simply because she is a woman. Men almost never have to worry about their gender being brought up, while women generally either have to deal with being looked down or being put on a pedestal. You can thank "people deliberately righting wrongs such as by giving extra encouragement to female developers" for this additional layer of sexism in STEM...
RIMR 11y ago
Agreed, but at least Bryana doesn't have the defeatist attitude that a lot of women in her position develop. Sexism is real, and it shows it's nasty face all the time, but to not let it define you and to refuse to change how you work because of other people's biases is far more empowering than this "every woman is a victim" narrative that gets pushed far too often. But yes, I agree. It is sexist to push her to do things BECAUSE she is a woman. She should be pushed to do things regardless of her gender. Any emphasis on sex is sexist. Any emphasis on race is racist. We aren't defined by the color of our skin or what we have between our legs. Unfortunately, people regularly do sexist and racist things in an attempt to be "anti-sexist" or "anti-racist", and it just doesn't do any long-term good. I like to call it "moonwalking", because it gives the illusion that you're moving forward, but really you're just stealthily moving backward...
- chillacy 11y ago
  > Any emphasis on sex is sexist. Any emphasis on race is racist. We aren't defined by the color of our skin or what we have between our legs. I see this attitude not infrequently among pseudo-liberal city crowds. I've heard the claims that we're postracial or past the need for feminism or civil rights activism. I agree that's how it should be, but it's not. Civil rights was only a generation ago, and america has spent more time mistreating its women and minorities than not. It's delusional to believe that everything is going to be fixed. The reality is that women do have a tougher time due to various social programming, and minorities do as well in many industries due to stereotypes that we all hold. To pretend like we all have the same advantages in America is a lie, and one that benefits the ones already at the top. Here's a good test: if gender/religion/etc truly doesn't matter, would you rather be a <not straight>, <not white>, <not man> who practices <not christianity> in america, or a straight white anglo man? It shouldn't matter, right?

jazzyk 11y ago

Agreed. How I wish that (at least for the remaining few conferences where you can submit a proposal without having to be a "silver sponsor"), submissions were "blind". No name submitted, you get a reference number back to confirm your submission. Focus on merit, not gender/name recognition/budget.

jonahrd 11y ago

What kind of manager treats every single employee the same, regardless of differences in talent, background, needs, etc? If a manager hires a person who needs a bit more structure in order to stay focused, that person should be given a little more structure. Or in this case, if a manager hires someone who has been pushed down her whole life and has learned to fade into the background so as not to upset men around her, the manager should most definitely spend some time helping her get accustomed to speaking her mind and advocating for herself. It's just good managing. This way, she'll be able to contribute much more to the team that she would if she was still worried about fitting in. And her knowledge can be spread to new female employees, which helps move the inequality further towards equality in the long run. I don't see how this "special treatment" is in any way detrimental.

new_corp_dev 11y ago
Helping people overcome whatever unique problems they face in order to reach their full potential is expected and encouraged. Offering them opportunities solely based on a protected status is not. I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status. In the very same article the author laments not knowing whether she is being offered more responsibility because she is a woman or if it's because she's seen as capable and competent. It's a completely valid assumption, because she's already been offered more responsibility because she is a woman.
- RIMR 11y ago
  >I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status. This is exactly the problem that goes ignored when people argue that "reverse discrimination" isn't a problem. Treating people differently because of their protected status only serves to further divide. The interest should be on making sure boys and girls get the same opportunities and encouragement growing up. in US universities, we have 30 male STEM majors for every female STEM major. We aren't going to see the industry change until we fix the root problem - that men are 30x more interested in STEM jobs than women. No amount of Social Justice Theater is going to level the playing field when men are being raised believing they can be whatever they want, and women are raised believing that marrying a wealthy man and becoming a stay-at-home mom is the greatest thing they can do with their lives. Women are lacking in STEM not because STEM is sexist, but because few women ever consider a future in STEM. Introducing pro-woman sexism into STEM is a paradoxical way to "solve" the problem.
  - jonahrd 11y ago
    And what if there's a young software engineering student who's inspired by this talk and decides to keep studying against her preconceived notions that this is a "field for men"? Hosting more women speakers at conferences helps to fix the broken stereotype of software engineers all being white dudes, which in turns fixes the problem of fewer women and minorities becoming interested in STEM.

frandroid 11y ago

In critical race theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory), the main tenet is that racism is the combination of discrimination and power. Everyone can do negative discrimination versus anyone based on race, but it becomes racism when the party that does the discrimination has power over the party being discriminated again. If you apply this schema to patriarchy, one cannot call positive discrimination "reverse sexism" or "sexism". I agree with you that "special treatment" does not benefit anybody, but there is so much misogyny (aka "special treatment") that counter-treatment is not just desirable, but necessary.

LesZedCB 11y ago
Thanks, said it better than I could. People never consider power when talking about race or gender, only about actions or behavior.
new_corp_dev 11y ago
I disagree. Discrimination, both sexism and racism, is any negative treatment towards someone based on protected status, regardless of who is "in power". The critical race theory definition is just a shield to hide behind while practicing racist or sexist behavior, and I will only acknowledge it as such.
RIMR 11y ago
If we actually do break down barriers and correct our gender biases as a society, what is to stop us from continuing this "special treatment" at the expense of men? When do we say "mission accomplished"? Case in point: "Black History Month" wasn't supposed to be permanent. We still celebrate it though, as if black history were distinctly different from American history. It started off with good intentions, but it continues to this day as an unnecessarily divisive holiday. How much "black history" is ignored 11 months out of the year just so we can celebrate it in February (the shortest month of the year)? Sexual discrimination is sexual discrimination, regardless of context.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago

LesZedCB 11y ago

Encouraging and incentivizing a female employee to speak at a conference is not reverse sexism or sexism. It's simply providing a pathway to level the playing field. The cultural meme of reverse racism or reverse sexism is simply used to continue in our racist or sexist behaviors unapologetically. These are still cultural issues to deal with, despite the progress we have made on them, and therefore there is a real power dynamic that needs to be accounted for, which manifests itself in people deliberately righting wrongs such as by giving extra encouragement to female developers.

new_corp_dev 11y ago
All capable employees should be encouraged and incentivized equally, or based on their competence. Incentive based on protected status is discrimination.
- neogodless 11y ago
  "The cultural meme of reverse racism or reverse sexism is simply used to continue in our racist or sexist behaviors unapologetically." If all capable employees were encouraged and incentivized equally, in all situations (i.e. all women attending conferences would be encouraged equally as men because the number of women speaking at conferences was equal to the number of men), then we would not have an issue with sexism in the industry. We do. Because of that, the industry raising up the females in the industry to attempt parity is necessary, whether or not it qualifies for the definition of discrimination.
RIMR 11y ago
>It's simply providing a pathway to level the playing field. This doesn't level the playing field. It specifically encourages employers to treat their female employees differently than male employees. As Bryana mentioned in her blog, it's pretty much impossible for a woman to not be singled out in STEM, simply because she is a woman. Men almost never have to worry about their gender being brought up, while women generally either have to deal with being looked down or being put on a pedestal. You can thank "people deliberately righting wrongs such as by giving extra encouragement to female developers" for this additional layer of sexism in STEM...

RIMR 11y ago

Agreed, but at least Bryana doesn't have the defeatist attitude that a lot of women in her position develop. Sexism is real, and it shows it's nasty face all the time, but to not let it define you and to refuse to change how you work because of other people's biases is far more empowering than this "every woman is a victim" narrative that gets pushed far too often. But yes, I agree. It is sexist to push her to do things BECAUSE she is a woman. She should be pushed to do things regardless of her gender. Any emphasis on sex is sexist. Any emphasis on race is racist. We aren't defined by the color of our skin or what we have between our legs. Unfortunately, people regularly do sexist and racist things in an attempt to be "anti-sexist" or "anti-racist", and it just doesn't do any long-term good. I like to call it "moonwalking", because it gives the illusion that you're moving forward, but really you're just stealthily moving backward...

chillacy 11y ago
> Any emphasis on sex is sexist. Any emphasis on race is racist. We aren't defined by the color of our skin or what we have between our legs. I see this attitude not infrequently among pseudo-liberal city crowds. I've heard the claims that we're postracial or past the need for feminism or civil rights activism. I agree that's how it should be, but it's not. Civil rights was only a generation ago, and america has spent more time mistreating its women and minorities than not. It's delusional to believe that everything is going to be fixed. The reality is that women do have a tougher time due to various social programming, and minorities do as well in many industries due to stereotypes that we all hold. To pretend like we all have the same advantages in America is a lie, and one that benefits the ones already at the top. Here's a good test: if gender/religion/etc truly doesn't matter, would you rather be a <not straight>, <not white>, <not man> who practices <not christianity> in america, or a straight white anglo man? It shouldn't matter, right?