3 ms·
> This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves
by benchaney 9y ago
> This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous.
You can't have it both ways. If you don't want to get involved in the argument, you don't have to, but getting involved and then doing any of the things GP is decrying is actively toxic.
- mcfunk 9y agoWomen don't have a choice as to whether we participate. It comes up everywhere. It comes up in our workplaces, and as the minority group in conversation, we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way.
- benchaney 9y agoNothing in your comment is a reason you have to participate. > we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way. If you are concerned about third parties being swayed if you stay silent, that makes it even more important to not engage in the behavior I am decrying. Doing nothing is unlikely to impact most people's opinions. Appealing to platitudes (or worse, actively misrepresenting your opponent) will be actively counterproductive.