3 ms·
I'm disappointed the best she could do summing up her 20-year experience as a woman in tech is high baseline agression, cynicism, two examples of violence on he
by etripe 5y ago
I'm disappointed the best she could do summing up her 20-year experience as a woman in tech is high baseline agression, cynicism, two examples of violence on her part, one genuinely off-colour remark and one piece of unacceptable behaviour by a colleague.
I would have preferred to see some analysis of how she has had to and did adjust to the way men think, some tips for colleagues welcoming women, something she appreciated in working with men, some area she uniquely shone because she was a woman in a male environment, etc.
What we got was a thinly veiled foregone conclusion of "anything I don't like is discrimination because I'm a woman" and "the problem is men". As usual, she is merely the victim, has no agency and no interest in a non-gynocentric perspective. As it stands, there is little to be gained from her post besides discouraging women from joining up and demonising men.
- steve_g 5y agoPunching a bully in the chest seems like agency to me. I liked the way that worked out.
- PicassoCTs 5y agoThat punch, that was tech-bro language. Good on her. And it worked.
- rasputnik6502 5y agoyep. worked. Good for her. In the symmetrical situation (man punching a woman in workplace) i cant imagine it would ever work. The guy would have been fired on the spot, and then have his ass beaten some more by lawyers. Bye bye career. The author of the article paints herelf here as a poor victim and i really consider this wrong.
- dasil003 5y agoYou really might want to reflect on your own biases as your last paragraph is entirely your editorial and is not present in the article at all. To the contrary she had mutual respect with her team, and was found to be justified in punching someone by higher ups, which would definitely not be the case if she was the one with an unreasonable chip on her shoulder. Also, your suggestion about presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic. The insidious thing about experiencing prejudice is that it can be very difficult for a reasonable person to be sure whether it's real or whether it's in their head—by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on.
- etripe 5y ago> not present in the article at all Did you find any evidence of sexism in her first example? Is it unreasonable to say she jumped to her own conclusions there? Do you think there might have been more going on in her second example than "sexism" when she got seated in a supply closet? Is it reasonable to assume no one went to lunch with her just because she was a woman? > presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic As opposed to her one-sided anecdotal "evidence" of a sector structurally ill-adapted to women that she somehow stuck with for 20 years anyway? The fact she stuck with it so long is indicative that there must be upsides, none of which she mentions because she wasn't interested in providing a measured or constructive account - she wanted to write about sexism. > by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on. That's precisely it: her account isn't factual, it's anecdotal with all the inherent biases and one-sided interpretation that go along with that. What nutritional value are you deriving? What did you find actionable or insightful? What are reasonable men to take away from her post? What are women, aside from "don't join up"?