7 ms·

Without trivializing institutionalized sexism, the author's highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude makes me feel uncomfortable, not because of the gende

Without trivializing institutionalized sexism, the author's highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude makes me feel uncomfortable, not because of the genders of those involved but because he seems to let the workplace hierarchy completely define both himself and the boss. I am not familiar with the author, but is it unfathomable that he has accomplished something that some donor would like to speak to him about privately? Is that necessarily disrespectful towards his boss? Unless the author and his boss (in her tweet) withheld some information, they are being very assuming about the donor's motives and beliefs. The other anecdotes mentioned in this piece appear to be stronger examples of sexism, such as the journalist who wrote an article about the charity without mentioning anything about the female executive director, and the comments made in that closed-door meeting with industry leaders. But I wish that the author hadn't diluted the message in the final paragraph by using sexist terms like "mansplaining."

eesmith 8y ago
I got zero sense of a 'highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude'. I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss. Kuhn writes "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productive if he instead spoke with Karen." Since you don't know what he's done, why do you second-guess his explicit statement by positing "is it unfathomable that he has accomplished something that some donor would like to speak to him about privately." Apparently yes, it is unfathomable to Kuhn and Sandler. True, it's possible that the donor is (say) hoping for a private meeting with Kuhn to proposition him for a one-night stand - we can imagine many such scenarios which are broader than the simple context of a donor relationship to a non-profit. But these then become much more improbable than the stated view that the donor used a gender biased viewpoint to misjudge the dynamics involved. You write "they are being very assuming about the donor's motives and beliefs" - but compare that with Kuhn's phrase "repeatedly insisted that the donation was gated on a conversation with me". If there were a reasonable explanation, perhaps based on Kuhn's past accomplishments, why didn't the donor say so explicitly? Or are you proposing that the donor did say so, and that Kuhn is hiding the response, in order to misdirect us? You know little of him, so what is the basis of your doubt? I cannot easily reconcile what you wrote, when I compare it to the original text, as something other than trivializing institutionalized sexism.
- jbob2000 8y ago
  > I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss People aren’t as rigid as the organizational structure wants them to be. My boss is also my boss, but when his boss wants to cut through the bs and get stuff done, he comes right to me. Humans are fluid like that. You can read about Bradley, he’s been around the open source community for decades. The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him, how is that not immediately obvious? Why be disingenuous and think that it is something more insidious (why would you even suggest something sexual? There was no indication of that....)?
  - eesmith 8y ago
    What you describe is your boss's boss exercising power within his job position. That is not the case Kuhn describes. When someone comes to you to have handle something which should be handled by your boss's boss, do you go ahead and do it? Even if you don't want to, and it's outside of your job description? I have read about Kuhn and Sandler. I have also listened to most of their oggcasts. You write "The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him" Do you have evidence that that is the case? Because as presented, we don't know the specific reasons, and Kuhn states that "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productive if he instead spoke with Karen". I presume Kuhn doesn't think his reputation is relevant. Nor do I see a reason to think that Bradley's reputation is relevant. If the donor wants to speak to Bradley, why gate the donation on the private meeting? Why not donate the money without that thread attached, and independently arrange a private meeting with Kuhn? Also, Sandler also has a reputation. She has been in the free software community for 13 years, has a legal background in defending free software, is the Executive Director, and (according to Kuhn), "better than [him] at the key jobs of a successful Executive Director." The question isn't "why would someone want to have a private conversation with Kuhn?" but "why would a donor gate a donation on having a private conversation with Kuhn?" It is certainly not "immediately obvious" that Sandler shouldn't also be at that conversation. Can you explain why it's obvious to you? The "disingenuous" comment I made you mentioned is because the OP wrote "unfathomable", which is an extremist viewpoint which sidesteps the topic. I can make up fathomable reasons - and indeed I did - but they are all much more improbable than the stated reason of institutional sexism.
jbob2000 8y ago
It’s also worth pointing out that role changes take time for people to realize. This guy used to be the executive director and people knew him as that guy. All of a sudden Karen replaces him and everybody is instantly supposed to treat her as in charge and totally disregard their previous relationship with him? Come on. The exec holding back the donation wasn’t holding it back to speak to a man, he was holding it back to speak to Bradley. The whole peice feels contrived and I feel like it diminishes real sexism that women face. It’s not sexism to want to skip the hierarchy and talk to the person who has been a heavyweight in the organization and wider community for decades.
- eesmith 8y ago
  You wrote: "and everybody is instantly supposed to treat her as in charge and totally disregard their previous relationship with him? Come on." As described, that is not the case for this situation. Kuhn wrote: > Yet, the executive, who was previously well briefed on the role changes at Conservancy, repeatedly insisted that the donation was gated on a conversation with me. How do you turn that into "instantly supposed to treat her as in charge"?
  - jbob2000 8y ago
    I find your activity for this article highly suspect. You are picking apart some lay comments as if this is a doctoral dissertation. This is not the place for nuanced debate, especially around trite personal problems someone on the other side of the continent is having.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      My reply was much closer to high school debate than a doctoral dissertation. What you said was clearly not a valid interpretation of the evidence presented. If it's so trite, why are you chiming in at all?

eesmith 8y ago

I got zero sense of a 'highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude'. I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss. Kuhn writes "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productive if he instead spoke with Karen." Since you don't know what he's done, why do you second-guess his explicit statement by positing "is it unfathomable that he has accomplished something that some donor would like to speak to him about privately." Apparently yes, it is unfathomable to Kuhn and Sandler. True, it's possible that the donor is (say) hoping for a private meeting with Kuhn to proposition him for a one-night stand - we can imagine many such scenarios which are broader than the simple context of a donor relationship to a non-profit. But these then become much more improbable than the stated view that the donor used a gender biased viewpoint to misjudge the dynamics involved. You write "they are being very assuming about the donor's motives and beliefs" - but compare that with Kuhn's phrase "repeatedly insisted that the donation was gated on a conversation with me". If there were a reasonable explanation, perhaps based on Kuhn's past accomplishments, why didn't the donor say so explicitly? Or are you proposing that the donor did say so, and that Kuhn is hiding the response, in order to misdirect us? You know little of him, so what is the basis of your doubt? I cannot easily reconcile what you wrote, when I compare it to the original text, as something other than trivializing institutionalized sexism.

jbob2000 8y ago
> I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss People aren’t as rigid as the organizational structure wants them to be. My boss is also my boss, but when his boss wants to cut through the bs and get stuff done, he comes right to me. Humans are fluid like that. You can read about Bradley, he’s been around the open source community for decades. The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him, how is that not immediately obvious? Why be disingenuous and think that it is something more insidious (why would you even suggest something sexual? There was no indication of that....)?
- eesmith 8y ago
  What you describe is your boss's boss exercising power within his job position. That is not the case Kuhn describes. When someone comes to you to have handle something which should be handled by your boss's boss, do you go ahead and do it? Even if you don't want to, and it's outside of your job description? I have read about Kuhn and Sandler. I have also listened to most of their oggcasts. You write "The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him" Do you have evidence that that is the case? Because as presented, we don't know the specific reasons, and Kuhn states that "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productive if he instead spoke with Karen". I presume Kuhn doesn't think his reputation is relevant. Nor do I see a reason to think that Bradley's reputation is relevant. If the donor wants to speak to Bradley, why gate the donation on the private meeting? Why not donate the money without that thread attached, and independently arrange a private meeting with Kuhn? Also, Sandler also has a reputation. She has been in the free software community for 13 years, has a legal background in defending free software, is the Executive Director, and (according to Kuhn), "better than [him] at the key jobs of a successful Executive Director." The question isn't "why would someone want to have a private conversation with Kuhn?" but "why would a donor gate a donation on having a private conversation with Kuhn?" It is certainly not "immediately obvious" that Sandler shouldn't also be at that conversation. Can you explain why it's obvious to you? The "disingenuous" comment I made you mentioned is because the OP wrote "unfathomable", which is an extremist viewpoint which sidesteps the topic. I can make up fathomable reasons - and indeed I did - but they are all much more improbable than the stated reason of institutional sexism.

jbob2000 8y ago

It’s also worth pointing out that role changes take time for people to realize. This guy used to be the executive director and people knew him as that guy. All of a sudden Karen replaces him and everybody is instantly supposed to treat her as in charge and totally disregard their previous relationship with him? Come on. The exec holding back the donation wasn’t holding it back to speak to a man, he was holding it back to speak to Bradley. The whole peice feels contrived and I feel like it diminishes real sexism that women face. It’s not sexism to want to skip the hierarchy and talk to the person who has been a heavyweight in the organization and wider community for decades.

eesmith 8y ago
You wrote: "and everybody is instantly supposed to treat her as in charge and totally disregard their previous relationship with him? Come on." As described, that is not the case for this situation. Kuhn wrote: > Yet, the executive, who was previously well briefed on the role changes at Conservancy, repeatedly insisted that the donation was gated on a conversation with me. How do you turn that into "instantly supposed to treat her as in charge"?
- jbob2000 8y ago
  I find your activity for this article highly suspect. You are picking apart some lay comments as if this is a doctoral dissertation. This is not the place for nuanced debate, especially around trite personal problems someone on the other side of the continent is having.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    My reply was much closer to high school debate than a doctoral dissertation. What you said was clearly not a valid interpretation of the evidence presented. If it's so trite, why are you chiming in at all?