5 ms·

As a man who struggles with low confidence and self-esteem, I hate the way women are given special attention over this stuff. I frequently don't apply for jobs

by J-dawg 10y ago

As a man who struggles with low confidence and self-esteem, I hate the way women are given special attention over this stuff. I frequently don't apply for jobs I see that I could probably do, for all of the reasons listed in the article. A couple of times I have even pulled out after a successful first round interview due to anxiety about continuing. This is an example of how the "women in tech" movement alienates men who would otherwise be potential allies. Instead of focussing on women, why not leave gender out of it and focus on "low-confidence candidates" (or whatever you want to call this cohort of people). That way if it's true that women are more likely to be "low-confidence" then you'll end up helping more women anyway, but you'll do it without alienating men. Ignoring the root cause and jumping straight to helping women is exactly what what makes feminists look like man-haters. I'm sick of the stereotype that because I'm an oh-so-privileged white male I must have had a ridiculously easy life and be full of confidence.

decebalus1 10y ago
> I'm an oh-so-privileged white male I must have had a ridiculously easy life Been waiting for that privilege to kick in yet... however, after reading all those articles about women in tech and realizing that a) I tend to not negotiate and avoid conflict b) terrified (for my family's wellfare) of confronting my boss when I feel I'm being unjustly compensated\treated, c) shitting my pants when the next round of layoffs is leaked and d) being an introvert makes me not speak up as much in meetings to 'establish dominance', maybe I'm a woman after all?
- Fraztastic 10y ago
  Maybe put the slightest bit of effort into researching this. Look at yourself. You got the job, right? You don't want to admit this to yourself, but it was easier for you than a woman.
  - Oxitendwe 10y ago
    Do you have any idea how insulting and dismissive you sound? You know nothing about the circumstances of his hiring, how can you possibly say his real and concrete experience was easier than that of some hypothetical woman?
  - wmccullough 10y ago
    >Look at yourself. You got the job, right? You don't want to admit this to yourself, but it was easier for you than a woman Based on what evidence do you make this claim? I'm not saying this isn't the case, but can you provide evidence?
    - danso 10y ago
      What evidence would satisfy you?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - decebalus1 10y ago
    wow. Been working like an ass my whole life. If I only knew how easy it actually would have been.. :(
rebelwebmaster 10y ago
One of the key points in the article was that confidence isn't the whole story. > According to the self-report of the respondents, the barrier to applying was not lack of confidence. In fact, for both men and women, “I didn’t think I could do the job well” was the least common of all the responses.
- J-dawg 10y ago
  All of the responses listed in the questionnaire loosely relate to confidence, and that's the sense in which I was using it. Confidence means not being afraid of bluffing your way through an interview when you only have 60% of the required skills, for example. Note that more men than women didn't apply to jobs for this reason.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
You should be happy, not angry. If companies work to eliminate the low-confidence barrier in hiring it will benefit you as side-effect.
- J-dawg 10y ago
  Then why bring gender into it at all?
  - bryanlarsen 10y ago
    Because it's the issue du jour. Because it's the issue du jour it's going to get a lot more attention, money and effort.
    - J-dawg 10y ago
      It's almost as if companies don't really care about fairness and instead care about aligning themselves with the issue du jour. Imagine that!
burkaman 10y ago
That's not what privilege means, it's not an on-off switch. It's just about recognizing factors out of your control that might give you slight advantages over other people. When people talk about "white privilege" they don't mean your life must be great because you're white, they mean regardless of your situation, you have more opportunities because of your skin color, which increases the odds of having a better life. Some people take it too far, but the next time you hear someone talk about privilege, try to interpret it to mean "marginal advantage" rather than "privilege=wealth", because that's probably what they mean. Also, "alienates men who would otherwise be potential allies" doesn't really make sense. Your support for gender equality in tech should not depend on how inclusive and understanding feminists are, it should depend on whether or not you think women deserve equal rights and access in the workplace. Obviously the world is a better place when we all work together and get along, but I think you should strive to make sure your beliefs are not affected by how much you dislike other people who share those beliefs.
- Exofunctor 10y ago
  This approach may work (I say "may" because most of the time it's not actually backed up by hard evidence free of confounding variables), but it's also lazy; there are vastly more accurate predictors of a priori success rate than race or gender. It's especially lazy for organizations that have access to those more accurate predictors, like universities, to use race and gender instead. More accurate predictors include parental education, family wealth, social connections, etc. Mostly what people would describe as social class.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    You don't have to pick just one though, right? Gender clearly has an effect even if it's less predictive than other factors, so why not try to account for every factor you know of?
- metaphorm 10y ago
  > Your support for gender equality in tech should not depend on how inclusive and understanding feminists are who appointed you the gatekeeper of what another thinking, feeling human being ought to think or feel? maybe you should interpret this as a call to introspect certain trends in feminist politics and communication strategies. if someone tells you "I am feeling alienated because of X" rather than thought-police that person and tell them "no you're wrong and you WILL feel the way I tell you to feel" perhaps it would be of greater utility to consider what the other person is telling you.
taeric 10y ago
Sadly, you are showing with this post that you actually would not be a good potential ally. Seriously, by focusing the discussion on this point and in this fashion, you are literally stalling progress. If there are problems that can be fixed, fix them. If you have concerns that we are leaving more feminine men in the back ranks, address those. But to turn the discussion into chastising people is to hurt the debate. And I am fully sympathetic to your point. I feel that way for a lot of things. I have come to realize that at best you are falling victim to "perfect being enemy of the good" and at worst you are allowing yourself to be a weapon that the those actually abusing power use against those they are abusing their power against.
- watwut 10y ago
  I think that good start would me not to imply he is feminine for having low confidence. For that matter, not to call guys feminine ju because they have something in them that is more likely to be found in women. It is like calling women masculine just because she likes hardware. I think that this matter if your goal is equality. People being afraid to show side of them that is not stereotypical matters.
  - taeric 10y ago
    You are implying that feminine is somehow a bad trait. That is terribly misguided. That is, if you want progress, stop seeing "feminine men" as somehow a derogatory statement. If you see women arguing for things that you feel you don't have as a man, realize that there is something that would have to set you apart from many men for this to be true. Now, should overconfidence be a masculine trait? I'd argue not. But I would not place confidence on anyone claiming it is not seen that way in the present world.
    - oriel 10y ago
      It's not about whether feminine or masculine are positive or negative traits. They are labels that are being misapplied, and in this case not relevant. They do imply bias on behalf of the user, especially in a discussion oriented around male/female roles. Better to use the terms provided, 'low confidence individuals', etc.
danso 10y ago
I'm sorry for your situation but articles like these are looking at trends across groups. They're not meant to insinuate that every man is in a better position than every woman. The article talks about surveying 1,000+ men and women. Undoubtedly, some of the men in that sample had less confidence than some of the women. It doesn't make it invalid to analyze statistics across the group overall.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  why doesn't it make it invalid? there are many situations where considering the mean is so deeply distorting as to make any conclusions drawn from it either unreasonable or outright false. I think calls for greater clarity and attention to detail when doing data analysis are well-considered and we should be _deeply suspect_ of claims made based on statistical aggregates, and particularly the mean average which is one of the most distorting and lossy aggregates there is.
  - danso 10y ago
    I don't argue that statistical analysis can be distorting, in fact, of course it can be. All data collection of any sort is at best a limited picture of what we think is reality. But that doesn't make aggregates useless because outliers exist. Just because Stanford freshman swimmer Katie Ledecky is faster than some Olympic gold medal-winning mens relay teams [0] doesn't invalidate the observation that the average man is a faster swimmer than the average woman. In the GP, I don't think he's making a "well-considered" call for "greater clarity." He's using the fact that because he lacks self-confidence, that focusing on women as a group is bullshit, as if the purported problems that women face are only substantial once it can be proven that all women are worse than all men. [0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/katie-ledecky-is-the-present-and-the-future-of-swimming/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/katie-ledecky-is-the-pr...
    - J-dawg 10y ago
      >as if the purported problems that women face are only substantial once it can be proven that all women are worse than all men. This is a total misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm more than fine with women being helped. What I'm saying is, don't do it in a way that excludes men with the same problem.
watwut 10y ago
Gender has a bit to do with it currently tho. I have met people who openly questioned my choice of career based on gender and stopped only when I proved myself - that made me assume I am less likely to suceed by bluffing like many guys do. I still think so. You don't have that factor, through your condition sounds pretty bad.
mikeash 10y ago
Rather than being upset that the focus is on women, why don't you be grateful that there's so much attention given to the problems people experience due to low confidence and self-esteem, and use the various bits of advice given "for women" to help your own situation too? Trying to help one group doesn't mean you're trying to hurt another group. Focusing on women doesn't make someone anti-men. That's what groups like "all lives matter" fail to understand, and what you don't seem to get here.
- J-dawg 10y ago
  Sorry for repeating myself, but why bring gender into it at all? If we have collectively decided that helping people with low self-confidence is a good thing, why not leave it at that? If more women than men get helped in the process, then I'm fine with that.
  - euyyn 10y ago
    It's much easier to make a study comparing women to men than one comparing "low self-confidence people" to "highly-confident people". Helping in the form of advice to the job seekers: as Mike said, the advice applies equally to the men in the same situation. Helping in the form of making employers aware, so they can optimize their job descriptions: It incidentally helps men of low self-confidence too. Notice, tough, that being socialized into assuming a requirement is hard instead of "not really" isn't the same as not being confident. And that some commenters here are defending that a candidate that lacks the confidence to even apply for a job isn't worth their time considering.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Let me ask the opposite question: why does it bother you that they bring gender into it? As for why they do it, it's because women have historically been oppressed, and a lot of people now try to pretend like it's all over and done with when it clearly is not. Does it even matter why? They do. It's there. You can be thankful for what they're doing to draw attention to problems you face, or you can be upset that they haven't explicitly included you in the group they focus on. I don't see why you'd pick the latter.
Mz 10y ago
The article says the exact opposite of what you are complaining about. It says women do not lack confidence, they lack good information about how hiring works.
- J-dawg 10y ago
  I did read the article. Maybe I'm using a loose definition of "confidence" but it still all comes down to confidence. Applying to a job when you don't strictly meet the guidelines is a form of confidence. Side note: I noticed the article was quoting tired old tropes like "women are socialised to follow the rules", without evidence.
  - Mz 10y ago
    I am generally sympathetic to your view that a lot of women do things that actively alienate men, but you come across here as having baggage and just wanting to vent, not discuss the actual points of this actual article. So, I think this is sort of the pot calling the kettle black.
metaphorm 10y ago
> feminists look like man-haters. there isn't a single, unified thing that is "a feminist". however, some factions that call themselves feminists are legitimately man-haters.
watwut 10y ago
According to article, lack of confidence was NOT the issue in play. So this is more about you making assumption

by J-dawg 10y ago

decebalus1 10y ago

> I'm an oh-so-privileged white male I must have had a ridiculously easy life Been waiting for that privilege to kick in yet... however, after reading all those articles about women in tech and realizing that a) I tend to not negotiate and avoid conflict b) terrified (for my family's wellfare) of confronting my boss when I feel I'm being unjustly compensated\treated, c) shitting my pants when the next round of layoffs is leaked and d) being an introvert makes me not speak up as much in meetings to 'establish dominance', maybe I'm a woman after all?

Fraztastic 10y ago
Maybe put the slightest bit of effort into researching this. Look at yourself. You got the job, right? You don't want to admit this to yourself, but it was easier for you than a woman.
- Oxitendwe 10y ago
  Do you have any idea how insulting and dismissive you sound? You know nothing about the circumstances of his hiring, how can you possibly say his real and concrete experience was easier than that of some hypothetical woman?
- wmccullough 10y ago
  >Look at yourself. You got the job, right? You don't want to admit this to yourself, but it was easier for you than a woman Based on what evidence do you make this claim? I'm not saying this isn't the case, but can you provide evidence?
  - danso 10y ago
    What evidence would satisfy you?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- decebalus1 10y ago
  wow. Been working like an ass my whole life. If I only knew how easy it actually would have been.. :(

rebelwebmaster 10y ago

One of the key points in the article was that confidence isn't the whole story. > According to the self-report of the respondents, the barrier to applying was not lack of confidence. In fact, for both men and women, “I didn’t think I could do the job well” was the least common of all the responses.

J-dawg 10y ago
All of the responses listed in the questionnaire loosely relate to confidence, and that's the sense in which I was using it. Confidence means not being afraid of bluffing your way through an interview when you only have 60% of the required skills, for example. Note that more men than women didn't apply to jobs for this reason.

bryanlarsen 10y ago

You should be happy, not angry. If companies work to eliminate the low-confidence barrier in hiring it will benefit you as side-effect.

J-dawg 10y ago
Then why bring gender into it at all?
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  Because it's the issue du jour. Because it's the issue du jour it's going to get a lot more attention, money and effort.
  - J-dawg 10y ago
    It's almost as if companies don't really care about fairness and instead care about aligning themselves with the issue du jour. Imagine that!

burkaman 10y ago

That's not what privilege means, it's not an on-off switch. It's just about recognizing factors out of your control that might give you slight advantages over other people. When people talk about "white privilege" they don't mean your life must be great because you're white, they mean regardless of your situation, you have more opportunities because of your skin color, which increases the odds of having a better life. Some people take it too far, but the next time you hear someone talk about privilege, try to interpret it to mean "marginal advantage" rather than "privilege=wealth", because that's probably what they mean. Also, "alienates men who would otherwise be potential allies" doesn't really make sense. Your support for gender equality in tech should not depend on how inclusive and understanding feminists are, it should depend on whether or not you think women deserve equal rights and access in the workplace. Obviously the world is a better place when we all work together and get along, but I think you should strive to make sure your beliefs are not affected by how much you dislike other people who share those beliefs.

Exofunctor 10y ago
This approach may work (I say "may" because most of the time it's not actually backed up by hard evidence free of confounding variables), but it's also lazy; there are vastly more accurate predictors of a priori success rate than race or gender. It's especially lazy for organizations that have access to those more accurate predictors, like universities, to use race and gender instead. More accurate predictors include parental education, family wealth, social connections, etc. Mostly what people would describe as social class.
- burkaman 10y ago
  You don't have to pick just one though, right? Gender clearly has an effect even if it's less predictive than other factors, so why not try to account for every factor you know of?
metaphorm 10y ago
> Your support for gender equality in tech should not depend on how inclusive and understanding feminists are who appointed you the gatekeeper of what another thinking, feeling human being ought to think or feel? maybe you should interpret this as a call to introspect certain trends in feminist politics and communication strategies. if someone tells you "I am feeling alienated because of X" rather than thought-police that person and tell them "no you're wrong and you WILL feel the way I tell you to feel" perhaps it would be of greater utility to consider what the other person is telling you.

taeric 10y ago

Sadly, you are showing with this post that you actually would not be a good potential ally. Seriously, by focusing the discussion on this point and in this fashion, you are literally stalling progress. If there are problems that can be fixed, fix them. If you have concerns that we are leaving more feminine men in the back ranks, address those. But to turn the discussion into chastising people is to hurt the debate. And I am fully sympathetic to your point. I feel that way for a lot of things. I have come to realize that at best you are falling victim to "perfect being enemy of the good" and at worst you are allowing yourself to be a weapon that the those actually abusing power use against those they are abusing their power against.

watwut 10y ago
I think that good start would me not to imply he is feminine for having low confidence. For that matter, not to call guys feminine ju because they have something in them that is more likely to be found in women. It is like calling women masculine just because she likes hardware. I think that this matter if your goal is equality. People being afraid to show side of them that is not stereotypical matters.
- taeric 10y ago
  You are implying that feminine is somehow a bad trait. That is terribly misguided. That is, if you want progress, stop seeing "feminine men" as somehow a derogatory statement. If you see women arguing for things that you feel you don't have as a man, realize that there is something that would have to set you apart from many men for this to be true. Now, should overconfidence be a masculine trait? I'd argue not. But I would not place confidence on anyone claiming it is not seen that way in the present world.
  - oriel 10y ago
    It's not about whether feminine or masculine are positive or negative traits. They are labels that are being misapplied, and in this case not relevant. They do imply bias on behalf of the user, especially in a discussion oriented around male/female roles. Better to use the terms provided, 'low confidence individuals', etc.

danso 10y ago

I'm sorry for your situation but articles like these are looking at trends across groups. They're not meant to insinuate that every man is in a better position than every woman. The article talks about surveying 1,000+ men and women. Undoubtedly, some of the men in that sample had less confidence than some of the women. It doesn't make it invalid to analyze statistics across the group overall.

metaphorm 10y ago
why doesn't it make it invalid? there are many situations where considering the mean is so deeply distorting as to make any conclusions drawn from it either unreasonable or outright false. I think calls for greater clarity and attention to detail when doing data analysis are well-considered and we should be _deeply suspect_ of claims made based on statistical aggregates, and particularly the mean average which is one of the most distorting and lossy aggregates there is.
- danso 10y ago
  I don't argue that statistical analysis can be distorting, in fact, of course it can be. All data collection of any sort is at best a limited picture of what we think is reality. But that doesn't make aggregates useless because outliers exist. Just because Stanford freshman swimmer Katie Ledecky is faster than some Olympic gold medal-winning mens relay teams [0] doesn't invalidate the observation that the average man is a faster swimmer than the average woman. In the GP, I don't think he's making a "well-considered" call for "greater clarity." He's using the fact that because he lacks self-confidence, that focusing on women as a group is bullshit, as if the purported problems that women face are only substantial once it can be proven that all women are worse than all men. [0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/katie-ledecky-is-the-present-and-the-future-of-swimming/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/katie-ledecky-is-the-pr...
  - J-dawg 10y ago
    >as if the purported problems that women face are only substantial once it can be proven that all women are worse than all men. This is a total misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm more than fine with women being helped. What I'm saying is, don't do it in a way that excludes men with the same problem.

watwut 10y ago

Gender has a bit to do with it currently tho. I have met people who openly questioned my choice of career based on gender and stopped only when I proved myself - that made me assume I am less likely to suceed by bluffing like many guys do. I still think so. You don't have that factor, through your condition sounds pretty bad.

mikeash 10y ago

Rather than being upset that the focus is on women, why don't you be grateful that there's so much attention given to the problems people experience due to low confidence and self-esteem, and use the various bits of advice given "for women" to help your own situation too? Trying to help one group doesn't mean you're trying to hurt another group. Focusing on women doesn't make someone anti-men. That's what groups like "all lives matter" fail to understand, and what you don't seem to get here.

J-dawg 10y ago
Sorry for repeating myself, but why bring gender into it at all? If we have collectively decided that helping people with low self-confidence is a good thing, why not leave it at that? If more women than men get helped in the process, then I'm fine with that.
- euyyn 10y ago
  It's much easier to make a study comparing women to men than one comparing "low self-confidence people" to "highly-confident people". Helping in the form of advice to the job seekers: as Mike said, the advice applies equally to the men in the same situation. Helping in the form of making employers aware, so they can optimize their job descriptions: It incidentally helps men of low self-confidence too. Notice, tough, that being socialized into assuming a requirement is hard instead of "not really" isn't the same as not being confident. And that some commenters here are defending that a candidate that lacks the confidence to even apply for a job isn't worth their time considering.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Let me ask the opposite question: why does it bother you that they bring gender into it? As for why they do it, it's because women have historically been oppressed, and a lot of people now try to pretend like it's all over and done with when it clearly is not. Does it even matter why? They do. It's there. You can be thankful for what they're doing to draw attention to problems you face, or you can be upset that they haven't explicitly included you in the group they focus on. I don't see why you'd pick the latter.

Mz 10y ago

The article says the exact opposite of what you are complaining about. It says women do not lack confidence, they lack good information about how hiring works.

J-dawg 10y ago
I did read the article. Maybe I'm using a loose definition of "confidence" but it still all comes down to confidence. Applying to a job when you don't strictly meet the guidelines is a form of confidence. Side note: I noticed the article was quoting tired old tropes like "women are socialised to follow the rules", without evidence.
- Mz 10y ago
  I am generally sympathetic to your view that a lot of women do things that actively alienate men, but you come across here as having baggage and just wanting to vent, not discuss the actual points of this actual article. So, I think this is sort of the pot calling the kettle black.

metaphorm 10y ago

> feminists look like man-haters. there isn't a single, unified thing that is "a feminist". however, some factions that call themselves feminists are legitimately man-haters.

watwut 10y ago

According to article, lack of confidence was NOT the issue in play. So this is more about you making assumption