4 ms·

Because of the power differential? In the same way that it's different for a short man dealing with harassment from a tall man, or an average man dealing with h

Because of the power differential? In the same way that it's different for a short man dealing with harassment from a tall man, or an average man dealing with harassment from a gymbro.

fatdog 10y ago
Where is the line between assertiveness in an environment where people are so-called "equals," and harassment? People (men, women, etc) use leverage to achieve their goals, and most managers in tech aren't equipped to resolve power dynamics. Most of what guys do to each other to get leverage when they are "equals" would be considered harassment by a gentler temperament. There is a counter narrative to the progressive political one that has some valid questions.
concinds 10y ago
There are always power dynamics in corporations. It's called office politics. They'll always exist because that's how human relationships work. Some people are better than others at relationships. Your prejudice for so-called "gymbros" aside, most employees have underwhelming relationship skills, and anyone can learn to play the politics game well enough to have a good career. Blaming being "short" is just excuse-making. Ironically, someone trying to arouse a mob mentality by making such an issue public is playing office politics just as much as anyone else is, only in a more underhanded way, since instead of advocating for themselves within the workplace, they cast themselves as victims and invite others to "rescue" them. Isn't that a dysfunctional relationship dynamic? At least as dysfunctional as the dynamic it alleges to opposes? This whole debate seems more temperamental in nature. The idea that her being defended by her boss was "sexist" (akin to tumblr feminists' whining about door-holding as a sign of sexism) just strikes me as offense-taking for the sake of it. And the tech industry's dominant temperament (they aren't known for being particularly masculine, though I assume most of them will be offended by this description; this isn't meant as an insult BTW, to each their own) is likely to be much more receptive to damsel-in-distress-type narratives as to the exact same relationship dynamics happening between men of higher social stature and men of lower stature.
- concinds 10y ago
  To expand, since I can no longer edit: People here really should read up on what "relationship triangles" are. Most people a) can't recognize them when they occur, and b) don't realize how toxic and dysfunctional this relationship dynamic is. This must not become the new norm in the workplace, as there will be, as with any type of dysfunction, large human costs. In an ideal world, people would assert themselves respectfully to the people causing undesired behavior (which OP admits she didn't do) and coworkers should empathically listen and adjust their behavior (which according to her also didn't happen). Both of those things should have happened; there are two reasons they didn't: 1) Most people are simply not mature enough to communicate like this. People don't get taught how to resolve conflict among each other and how to assert themselves respectfully. Most people don't know how to assert themselves, and instead blame, generalize ("you always do this"), and attack. And most people also can't empathically listen, and adapt their behavior, they might just refuse to change, or even feel slighted and seek "revenge". This is a complex problem, and the people treating it as a "women's issue" are presenting an almost pathetically oversimplified view. 2) Even if people dared assert themselves, they're afraid that the company would punish them for it. This also should be fixed, but it doesn't undermine the existence of the first point. The real problem is that the vast majority of people have pretty poor communication skills, and nobody is willing to address this, instead opting to play political partisan games. Schools and the culture at large should teach effective communication, assertion and problem-solving skills, if we want to make any progress.
- dang 10y ago
  We appreciate that you've been making an effort to comment substantively on HN, but what you posted here is an uncharitable reading of the article, and that makes for low-quality discussion. (By "charitable" I mean that we should respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of a thing, not a weaker one that's easier to argue against.) For example, you appear to me to have completely misread that use of the word "sexist". Ok, we all misread things sometimes, and the article wasn't clear at that point. But framing this as "trying to arouse a mob mentality" is so out of keeping with how the author engaged with HN commenters in this thread that I think you were clearly wrong to take it that way, and therefore wrong to post it. It's true that some people do try to arouse mob mentalities about things. But we should be extra careful not to treat people that way when they aren't—otherwise their good faith has been squandered on us, and that's very bad.

Because of the power differential? In the same way that it's different for a short man dealing with harassment from a tall man, or an average man dealing with harassment from a gymbro.

fatdog 10y ago

Where is the line between assertiveness in an environment where people are so-called "equals," and harassment? People (men, women, etc) use leverage to achieve their goals, and most managers in tech aren't equipped to resolve power dynamics. Most of what guys do to each other to get leverage when they are "equals" would be considered harassment by a gentler temperament. There is a counter narrative to the progressive political one that has some valid questions.

concinds 10y ago

There are always power dynamics in corporations. It's called office politics. They'll always exist because that's how human relationships work. Some people are better than others at relationships. Your prejudice for so-called "gymbros" aside, most employees have underwhelming relationship skills, and anyone can learn to play the politics game well enough to have a good career. Blaming being "short" is just excuse-making. Ironically, someone trying to arouse a mob mentality by making such an issue public is playing office politics just as much as anyone else is, only in a more underhanded way, since instead of advocating for themselves within the workplace, they cast themselves as victims and invite others to "rescue" them. Isn't that a dysfunctional relationship dynamic? At least as dysfunctional as the dynamic it alleges to opposes? This whole debate seems more temperamental in nature. The idea that her being defended by her boss was "sexist" (akin to tumblr feminists' whining about door-holding as a sign of sexism) just strikes me as offense-taking for the sake of it. And the tech industry's dominant temperament (they aren't known for being particularly masculine, though I assume most of them will be offended by this description; this isn't meant as an insult BTW, to each their own) is likely to be much more receptive to damsel-in-distress-type narratives as to the exact same relationship dynamics happening between men of higher social stature and men of lower stature.

concinds 10y ago
To expand, since I can no longer edit: People here really should read up on what "relationship triangles" are. Most people a) can't recognize them when they occur, and b) don't realize how toxic and dysfunctional this relationship dynamic is. This must not become the new norm in the workplace, as there will be, as with any type of dysfunction, large human costs. In an ideal world, people would assert themselves respectfully to the people causing undesired behavior (which OP admits she didn't do) and coworkers should empathically listen and adjust their behavior (which according to her also didn't happen). Both of those things should have happened; there are two reasons they didn't: 1) Most people are simply not mature enough to communicate like this. People don't get taught how to resolve conflict among each other and how to assert themselves respectfully. Most people don't know how to assert themselves, and instead blame, generalize ("you always do this"), and attack. And most people also can't empathically listen, and adapt their behavior, they might just refuse to change, or even feel slighted and seek "revenge". This is a complex problem, and the people treating it as a "women's issue" are presenting an almost pathetically oversimplified view. 2) Even if people dared assert themselves, they're afraid that the company would punish them for it. This also should be fixed, but it doesn't undermine the existence of the first point. The real problem is that the vast majority of people have pretty poor communication skills, and nobody is willing to address this, instead opting to play political partisan games. Schools and the culture at large should teach effective communication, assertion and problem-solving skills, if we want to make any progress.
dang 10y ago
We appreciate that you've been making an effort to comment substantively on HN, but what you posted here is an uncharitable reading of the article, and that makes for low-quality discussion. (By "charitable" I mean that we should respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of a thing, not a weaker one that's easier to argue against.) For example, you appear to me to have completely misread that use of the word "sexist". Ok, we all misread things sometimes, and the article wasn't clear at that point. But framing this as "trying to arouse a mob mentality" is so out of keeping with how the author engaged with HN commenters in this thread that I think you were clearly wrong to take it that way, and therefore wrong to post it. It's true that some people do try to arouse mob mentalities about things. But we should be extra careful not to treat people that way when they aren't—otherwise their good faith has been squandered on us, and that's very bad.