5 ms·

The sexist part is not the "hard problems" but the competitiveness. I don't think sexism is intrinsic to solving hard problems - certainly gender-inclusive com

The sexist part is not the "hard problems" but the competitiveness. I don't think sexism is intrinsic to solving hard problems - certainly gender-inclusive companies work on hard problems successfully. But in my experience those companies tend to be more collaborative. Google needs to celebrate heroes. Like Jeff Dean. Or Sanjay Ghemawat. Those are Great Men. They are "Living Gods" because they solved Really Hard Problems. Getting into that class of people requires being a "lead" which necessarily means other people around you aren't leading. So you need to prove why you're worthy of being the "lead" which means proving the others around you aren't. This is toxic masculinity. Not solving hard problems.

Veuxdo 4y ago
I'm don't see the connection between what you wrote and masculinity.
hyperbovine 4y ago
This take strikes me as a weird form of reverse-sexism, in the sense of Kinsley's famous piece about reverse-snobbery (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/03/bill-o-reilly-among-the-snobs.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/03/bill-o-reilly-am...).
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
It seems that you missed their point: the toxicity is non-gendered. (I say you missed their point but they also kinda did a poor job of making it, FWIW.) There might be a point that Google's culture in practice is male-dominant but I think it's mistaken thinking that puts the toxicity on the male-dominance. Consider your words as if they were being said about a woman: > Proving you're smart by solving hard problems is a gorilla-chest-thumping exercise. Isn't it still true?
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  It's hard to claim a phrase like "toxic masculinity" is non-gendered.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    I'm claiming that toxicity is non-gendered.
sytelus 4y ago
Proving that you can lead does not neccesarily mean that you must prove others cannot lead. This is the fundamental problem in your thinking when you make such generic and universal claims. If people are doing this (and I do believe it happens a lot), then it is certainly very toxic culture but calling it "toxic masculinity" is forcing the issues into your own sexist ideologies. Also, competitiveness is not by default "masculine". You are doing massive disservice to many brilliant competative and successful women by making such blanket claims. When resources are finite, competition are natural regardless of sex. For example, we all need to demonstrate good grades out of school to get in to programs with very limited seats. Being able to compete is neither exclusive or inherent male characteristic.
- tfp137 4y ago
  Whether or not it's "toxic masculinity", the internal lingo around performance reviews at Google is lulzy. It's called "perfing" (as in, if you do something bad, you might get "perfed hard" next cycle) and managers frequently threaten to take people "into the Perf Room" although it's just an expression (there isn't actually a dedicated "Perf Room"). Anyone who gets below 3.0 (Meets Expectation) during the calibration process is called a "PB" It used to be "pillow biter" but you can't make that joke anymore so it's just "PB", as in "How many PBs does Exec want us to have this cycle?" It's offensive and backward, but it's also hilarious that grown men (and women, if they ever get let in to executive circles) are using language that sounds like it was invented by teenagers.
  - vkou 4y ago
    > It's called "perfing" (as in, if you do something bad, you might get "perfed hard" next cycle) and managers frequently threaten to take people "into the Perf Room" although it's just an expression (there isn't actually a dedicated "Perf Room"). Anyone who gets below 3.0 (Meets Expectation) during the calibration process is called a "PB" It used to be "pillow biter" but you can't make that joke anymore so it's just "PB", as in "How many PBs does Exec want us to have this cycle?" 1. You must be in an incredibly toxic enclave if managers in your org are routinely threatening people that way. It's certainly possible, it's a big company, there's been a number of shitty directors/execs that have made the news. But given points #2 and #3, I have reservations about believing generalizations about this particular claim. 2. ME is not a '3.0' (Unless you're measuring on a 12-point scale, that starts at 0.) There are three ratings above, and only one rating below ME - Needs Improvement. Which is a pretty serious wake-up call for the person and their manager. 3. Very few people get NI, you seem to be confusing Google with either old Microsoft, or Amazon, whose bell curves, as I understand, require(d) ~1/5th of the company to be on the shit list at any particular point in time.
skrbjc 4y ago
Women aren’t competitive???
strikelaserclaw 4y ago
People who joined early on will always have much much more opportunity to become heroes.
faeriechangling 4y ago
The whole usage of the phrase "Toxic masculinity" to describe "Competitiveness" is some throughly pointless gendering which only serves to confuse matters.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lliamander 4y ago
I agree that competitiveness is masculine[1], but it's not obvious to me that this is a case where it is toxic. It may be a more competitive or masculine environment than you would prefer, and that's fine. But what benefit do you think comes from labeling the perceived problems of Google's culture as "toxic masculinity"? [1]Yes women are also competitive, but most of the extremely competitive people are men.

Veuxdo 4y ago

I'm don't see the connection between what you wrote and masculinity.

hyperbovine 4y ago

This take strikes me as a weird form of reverse-sexism, in the sense of Kinsley's famous piece about reverse-snobbery (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/03/bill-o-reilly-among-the-snobs.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/03/bill-o-reilly-am...).

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago

It seems that you missed their point: the toxicity is non-gendered. (I say you missed their point but they also kinda did a poor job of making it, FWIW.) There might be a point that Google's culture in practice is male-dominant but I think it's mistaken thinking that puts the toxicity on the male-dominance. Consider your words as if they were being said about a woman: > Proving you're smart by solving hard problems is a gorilla-chest-thumping exercise. Isn't it still true?

ALittleLight 4y ago
It's hard to claim a phrase like "toxic masculinity" is non-gendered.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  I'm claiming that toxicity is non-gendered.

sytelus 4y ago

Proving that you can lead does not neccesarily mean that you must prove others cannot lead. This is the fundamental problem in your thinking when you make such generic and universal claims. If people are doing this (and I do believe it happens a lot), then it is certainly very toxic culture but calling it "toxic masculinity" is forcing the issues into your own sexist ideologies. Also, competitiveness is not by default "masculine". You are doing massive disservice to many brilliant competative and successful women by making such blanket claims. When resources are finite, competition are natural regardless of sex. For example, we all need to demonstrate good grades out of school to get in to programs with very limited seats. Being able to compete is neither exclusive or inherent male characteristic.

tfp137 4y ago
Whether or not it's "toxic masculinity", the internal lingo around performance reviews at Google is lulzy. It's called "perfing" (as in, if you do something bad, you might get "perfed hard" next cycle) and managers frequently threaten to take people "into the Perf Room" although it's just an expression (there isn't actually a dedicated "Perf Room"). Anyone who gets below 3.0 (Meets Expectation) during the calibration process is called a "PB" It used to be "pillow biter" but you can't make that joke anymore so it's just "PB", as in "How many PBs does Exec want us to have this cycle?" It's offensive and backward, but it's also hilarious that grown men (and women, if they ever get let in to executive circles) are using language that sounds like it was invented by teenagers.
- vkou 4y ago
  > It's called "perfing" (as in, if you do something bad, you might get "perfed hard" next cycle) and managers frequently threaten to take people "into the Perf Room" although it's just an expression (there isn't actually a dedicated "Perf Room"). Anyone who gets below 3.0 (Meets Expectation) during the calibration process is called a "PB" It used to be "pillow biter" but you can't make that joke anymore so it's just "PB", as in "How many PBs does Exec want us to have this cycle?" 1. You must be in an incredibly toxic enclave if managers in your org are routinely threatening people that way. It's certainly possible, it's a big company, there's been a number of shitty directors/execs that have made the news. But given points #2 and #3, I have reservations about believing generalizations about this particular claim. 2. ME is not a '3.0' (Unless you're measuring on a 12-point scale, that starts at 0.) There are three ratings above, and only one rating below ME - Needs Improvement. Which is a pretty serious wake-up call for the person and their manager. 3. Very few people get NI, you seem to be confusing Google with either old Microsoft, or Amazon, whose bell curves, as I understand, require(d) ~1/5th of the company to be on the shit list at any particular point in time.

skrbjc 4y ago

Women aren’t competitive???

strikelaserclaw 4y ago

People who joined early on will always have much much more opportunity to become heroes.

faeriechangling 4y ago

The whole usage of the phrase "Toxic masculinity" to describe "Competitiveness" is some throughly pointless gendering which only serves to confuse matters.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lliamander 4y ago

I agree that competitiveness is masculine[1], but it's not obvious to me that this is a case where it is toxic. It may be a more competitive or masculine environment than you would prefer, and that's fine. But what benefit do you think comes from labeling the perceived problems of Google's culture as "toxic masculinity"? [1]Yes women are also competitive, but most of the extremely competitive people are men.