5 ms·

I think using the word 'fun' in this title is demeaning and misleading. Women aren't looking for fun, they're looking for meaningful, interesting work and are b

I think using the word 'fun' in this title is demeaning and misleading. Women aren't looking for fun, they're looking for meaningful, interesting work and are being denied it. (Obviously not all women, etc. etc.) I know a very talented woman with more experience and talent than her teammates who constantly deals with the interesting work being given to men instead of her. In meetings men look to the other men for opinions instead of her, even when she's leading the meeting. Partly it's because corporate environments prefer bluster to quieter expertise but the answer shouldn't be to tell women to be bigger blowhards than the men in order to get to do interesting stuff.

rayiner 10y ago
I don't think it's demeaning and misleading. Professionals--men and women--generally consider "meaningful, interesting work" to be the "fun" part of their jobs.
heartbreak 10y ago
The example seems like a problem that quiet people have. Not all women are quiet, and not all quiet people are women.
- kilroy123 10y ago
  Was thinking the same. Lot's of introverted and shy men, deal with the same issues as well.
  - MattGrommes 10y ago
    As an introvert myself, I agree that there is a bias against quieter people but I think these are issues that some people _also_ face, not that it's one issue instead of the other.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  Sure, but when you have a culture that punishes women for not being quiet by labeling them as aggressive, b*tchy, etc (after all, a certain presidential candidate often demeans his female opponent for "yelling" and so forth, despite that behaviour being perfectly acceptable in a man), you have now sown the seeds for gender bias.
  - heartbreak 10y ago
    That candidate (and especially his vocal supporters) attack beta males with as much vitriol as women. No intention of conflating "beta" with introvert. They aren't the same but I'm sure you get my point.
    - zzalpha 10y ago
      The difference is your "beta" male wouldn't be punished for changing tone.
deedubaya 10y ago
This makes sense, but seems like a larger workforce issue than scoped just to engineering, right? If so, I think the same argument could be made for introverts vs extroverts regardless of sex. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
theseatoms 10y ago
> Partly it's because corporate environments prefer bluster to quieter expertise but the answer shouldn't be to tell women to be bigger blowhards than the men in order to get to do interesting stuff. This often seems like a better dimension on which to analyze these "gender in the workplace" issues. That is, these issues arise more often due to the typical characteristics and behaviors that members of each gender display and engage in, rather than something essential about gender in and of itself. Blowhards versus... well.. what's the opposite of a blowhard? "Introvert" doesn't seem quite right. My point is that gender issues are often actually personality type issues.
- pasbesoin 10y ago
  It also affects quieter, sometimes more effective men. "Speak up!" It not infrequently reduces to physical posturing. And volume escalation. I kid you not. (Not to mention, that these loud and aggressive types often make particularly open-space workplaces much greater challenges to the concentration of... this quiet, effective type (me), for one.) Why does engineering increasingly suck in the U.S. (excluding some of the Silicon Valley et al. "gifted" enclaves)? Because type-A assholes have taken over U.S. management. And they shit all over anyone who isn't like them and isn't the bully they are. Next up: Do they succeed on the international scene? Or do different cultures shut them down? Does e.g. a Shenzhen -- where I just got my latest and greatest fitness tracker for $23 -- manage to give them a big "fuck you" while combining extant tech into new and compelling products?
  - theseatoms 10y ago
    > Next up: Do they succeed on the international scene? Ha... is there yet a "Godwin/Poe/Betteridge/etc's Law" equivalent for how quickly HN threads converge towards Trump?
- drabiega 10y ago
  Well part of the problem is that social norms are different for the genders. The kinds of behaviors that often allow men to dominate corporate environments are not effective/seen more negatively when adopted by women.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
>the answer shouldn't be to tell women to be bigger blowhards than the men in order to get to do interesting stuff Interesting statement but what's the justification for that and what precisely is the action to be taken? People who aren't willing to stand up for themselves will be dominated by those who are, regardless of gender. The biggest "blowhard" (to use your term) wins, at work, at school, at home, and at every other social interaction. That's basic social dynamics. Note that the article implicitly acknowledges this: “'In situations like this, [Coffman] suggests, 'you need to be your own best advocate and aggressively seek out the most interesting and challenging projects. If your male peers try to task you with menial work, you can tell them 'no'. They're your peers, not your bosses.'”
cushychicken 10y ago
I agree that the use of "fun" here is a little demeaning. I also think, however, that the overall point here was totally valid - you are your own best advocate, and you can't trust other people to hand you interesting work. Being handed menial, boring tasks is much more likely.
dang 10y ago
Alright, we replaced "fun" (in the title above) with "challenging assignments", which is closer to the language of the article.
- MattGrommes 10y ago
  I wish your change was reflected in the IEEE article's title. :)

rayiner 10y ago

I don't think it's demeaning and misleading. Professionals--men and women--generally consider "meaningful, interesting work" to be the "fun" part of their jobs.

heartbreak 10y ago

The example seems like a problem that quiet people have. Not all women are quiet, and not all quiet people are women.

kilroy123 10y ago
Was thinking the same. Lot's of introverted and shy men, deal with the same issues as well.
- MattGrommes 10y ago
  As an introvert myself, I agree that there is a bias against quieter people but I think these are issues that some people _also_ face, not that it's one issue instead of the other.
zzalpha 10y ago
Sure, but when you have a culture that punishes women for not being quiet by labeling them as aggressive, b*tchy, etc (after all, a certain presidential candidate often demeans his female opponent for "yelling" and so forth, despite that behaviour being perfectly acceptable in a man), you have now sown the seeds for gender bias.
- heartbreak 10y ago
  That candidate (and especially his vocal supporters) attack beta males with as much vitriol as women. No intention of conflating "beta" with introvert. They aren't the same but I'm sure you get my point.
  - zzalpha 10y ago
    The difference is your "beta" male wouldn't be punished for changing tone.

deedubaya 10y ago

This makes sense, but seems like a larger workforce issue than scoped just to engineering, right? If so, I think the same argument could be made for introverts vs extroverts regardless of sex. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

theseatoms 10y ago

> Partly it's because corporate environments prefer bluster to quieter expertise but the answer shouldn't be to tell women to be bigger blowhards than the men in order to get to do interesting stuff. This often seems like a better dimension on which to analyze these "gender in the workplace" issues. That is, these issues arise more often due to the typical characteristics and behaviors that members of each gender display and engage in, rather than something essential about gender in and of itself. Blowhards versus... well.. what's the opposite of a blowhard? "Introvert" doesn't seem quite right. My point is that gender issues are often actually personality type issues.

pasbesoin 10y ago
It also affects quieter, sometimes more effective men. "Speak up!" It not infrequently reduces to physical posturing. And volume escalation. I kid you not. (Not to mention, that these loud and aggressive types often make particularly open-space workplaces much greater challenges to the concentration of... this quiet, effective type (me), for one.) Why does engineering increasingly suck in the U.S. (excluding some of the Silicon Valley et al. "gifted" enclaves)? Because type-A assholes have taken over U.S. management. And they shit all over anyone who isn't like them and isn't the bully they are. Next up: Do they succeed on the international scene? Or do different cultures shut them down? Does e.g. a Shenzhen -- where I just got my latest and greatest fitness tracker for $23 -- manage to give them a big "fuck you" while combining extant tech into new and compelling products?
- theseatoms 10y ago
  > Next up: Do they succeed on the international scene? Ha... is there yet a "Godwin/Poe/Betteridge/etc's Law" equivalent for how quickly HN threads converge towards Trump?
drabiega 10y ago
Well part of the problem is that social norms are different for the genders. The kinds of behaviors that often allow men to dominate corporate environments are not effective/seen more negatively when adopted by women.

GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago

>the answer shouldn't be to tell women to be bigger blowhards than the men in order to get to do interesting stuff Interesting statement but what's the justification for that and what precisely is the action to be taken? People who aren't willing to stand up for themselves will be dominated by those who are, regardless of gender. The biggest "blowhard" (to use your term) wins, at work, at school, at home, and at every other social interaction. That's basic social dynamics. Note that the article implicitly acknowledges this: “'In situations like this, [Coffman] suggests, 'you need to be your own best advocate and aggressively seek out the most interesting and challenging projects. If your male peers try to task you with menial work, you can tell them 'no'. They're your peers, not your bosses.'”

cushychicken 10y ago

I agree that the use of "fun" here is a little demeaning. I also think, however, that the overall point here was totally valid - you are your own best advocate, and you can't trust other people to hand you interesting work. Being handed menial, boring tasks is much more likely.

dang 10y ago

Alright, we replaced "fun" (in the title above) with "challenging assignments", which is closer to the language of the article.

MattGrommes 10y ago
I wish your change was reflected in the IEEE article's title. :)