4 ms·

Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. I'll find the study if

Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. I'll find the study if you'd like. And I think that's really what was missing from his piece; why do these differences exist and isn't it possible they are constructed rather than innate? He lists a few reasons he is convinced they are not, including their consistency across cultures, but I remain unconvinced all of his list of differences can be explained in this way. Particularly leading. There are way too many studies that show the biases women have to deal with in that regard and assuming they have no impact on behavior is silly.

camgunz 9y ago
> Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. Women aren't the problem in this scenario.
- morgtheborg 9y ago
  That was my point. You can find sex "differences" but unless you somehow raised men and women separately, you'll be hard pressed to know which ones are innate and which ones are created through outside pressures. Not in all cases, of course, but in terms of behavior.
  - camgunz 9y ago
    No I get what you're saying. I'm saying the way you phrased it puts the onus on women. It's fairer to say, "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive" because men have the problem, not women.
    - morgtheborg 9y ago
      And this is partially why people got so upset at that Googler. You understood what I said, but you're somehow displeased I didn't phrase it in the way you would have and are reading a direction of duty/responsibility that isn't in my comment nor in my thoughts.
      - camgunz 9y ago
        I totally get that. I think it's probably natural to think stuff like this is completely trivial and the tactic of people who are "looking for excuses to be offended" or "looking to play the victim". But I take issue with a number of things in that first sentence of yours I quoted, and your comment here to which I'm replying. I'll try and be as explicit as possible because I think one of the major duties of allies is to try and explain our positions in our own communities instead of just shouting down opposing positions (which, I should say, I think is valid if you're on the oppressed end of those positions -- it's not also your job to teach people how they're oppressing you). > women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men This is your quote. "Women" are the subject of your sentence, meaning your sentence is about women. You then use the passive construction "is perceived", which avoids saying that, in this context, men are (largely) the ones who have trouble with assertiveness in women when it comes to leadership. A different way of saying the same thing is what I responded with: "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive". "Men" are the subject of my sentence, and I use active verbs to clearly say their behavior is the issue. Our sentences both address the same issue and, more or less, confront the same causes. But the difference is that my sentence emphasizes the fact that men are the problem, whereas your sentences emphasizes the fact that women are the victim of the problem. If we were to apply your emphasis to every social issue, we'd have a long list of problems with victims. But if we apply my emphasis, we'd have a long list of problems with perpetrators and, more importantly, behavior to correct. We can't afford to not call out where the problems lie, we can't afford to dance around what the problem actually is, and we can't hem and haw when it comes time to say who should change their behavior. That's why I took issue with your sentence. And again, you may feel like these are insufferably insignificant, but there's a long history of minimizing the experiences and feelings of women that also transcends every culture, and stuff like this is just more of it bubbling up. We minimize the transgressions of men by overlooking their behavior (not naming them as the subject) or not directly attaching them to their behavior (using the passive), but in the process we tie women to the issue (using them as the subject) and frame it like it's their inadequacy (tying them to the outcome). Things like this are hard, complicated, and embedded in every part of our culture. It's uncomfortable but we need to look at things with this level of detail because sexism exists even here. It's kind of a harsh phrase, but this is where "intent is irrelevant" comes in. I'm sure you didn't mean to do all the stuff I've pinned on you here, and maybe you still disagree that you have done it. But many people will feel that you have done these things when they read your sentence, and you should at least treat their feelings as valid, try to understand why they feel that way, and consider some changes to how you phrase things.

camgunz 9y ago

> Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. Women aren't the problem in this scenario.

morgtheborg 9y ago
That was my point. You can find sex "differences" but unless you somehow raised men and women separately, you'll be hard pressed to know which ones are innate and which ones are created through outside pressures. Not in all cases, of course, but in terms of behavior.
- camgunz 9y ago
  No I get what you're saying. I'm saying the way you phrased it puts the onus on women. It's fairer to say, "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive" because men have the problem, not women.
  - morgtheborg 9y ago
    And this is partially why people got so upset at that Googler. You understood what I said, but you're somehow displeased I didn't phrase it in the way you would have and are reading a direction of duty/responsibility that isn't in my comment nor in my thoughts.
    - camgunz 9y ago
      I totally get that. I think it's probably natural to think stuff like this is completely trivial and the tactic of people who are "looking for excuses to be offended" or "looking to play the victim". But I take issue with a number of things in that first sentence of yours I quoted, and your comment here to which I'm replying. I'll try and be as explicit as possible because I think one of the major duties of allies is to try and explain our positions in our own communities instead of just shouting down opposing positions (which, I should say, I think is valid if you're on the oppressed end of those positions -- it's not also your job to teach people how they're oppressing you). > women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men This is your quote. "Women" are the subject of your sentence, meaning your sentence is about women. You then use the passive construction "is perceived", which avoids saying that, in this context, men are (largely) the ones who have trouble with assertiveness in women when it comes to leadership. A different way of saying the same thing is what I responded with: "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive". "Men" are the subject of my sentence, and I use active verbs to clearly say their behavior is the issue. Our sentences both address the same issue and, more or less, confront the same causes. But the difference is that my sentence emphasizes the fact that men are the problem, whereas your sentences emphasizes the fact that women are the victim of the problem. If we were to apply your emphasis to every social issue, we'd have a long list of problems with victims. But if we apply my emphasis, we'd have a long list of problems with perpetrators and, more importantly, behavior to correct. We can't afford to not call out where the problems lie, we can't afford to dance around what the problem actually is, and we can't hem and haw when it comes time to say who should change their behavior. That's why I took issue with your sentence. And again, you may feel like these are insufferably insignificant, but there's a long history of minimizing the experiences and feelings of women that also transcends every culture, and stuff like this is just more of it bubbling up. We minimize the transgressions of men by overlooking their behavior (not naming them as the subject) or not directly attaching them to their behavior (using the passive), but in the process we tie women to the issue (using them as the subject) and frame it like it's their inadequacy (tying them to the outcome). Things like this are hard, complicated, and embedded in every part of our culture. It's uncomfortable but we need to look at things with this level of detail because sexism exists even here. It's kind of a harsh phrase, but this is where "intent is irrelevant" comes in. I'm sure you didn't mean to do all the stuff I've pinned on you here, and maybe you still disagree that you have done it. But many people will feel that you have done these things when they read your sentence, and you should at least treat their feelings as valid, try to understand why they feel that way, and consider some changes to how you phrase things.