5 ms·

Being an ex-queer (bi ;) I've had to put up with my fair share of subtle jabs and general discomfort with my presence. After a long time I figured out that the

by mtrimpe 15y ago

Being an ex-queer (bi ;) I've had to put up with my fair share of subtle jabs and general discomfort with my presence. After a long time I figured out that the only thing that worked for me was to be more dominant than 'them.' The thing is, women (and queers) are fucking powerful, they're just powerful in a different way. Ironically, but not unsurprisingly, women are taught not to use this power as it's 'inappropriate.' You see, men don't have a clue as to how group dynamics work. Women do and have been trained in this from childhood on as it is their 'arena' just as much as the sports field is ours. When we enter the workforce however, suddenly 'fair' means fighting like it happens on the sports field, 'fair' means fighting the boys' fight. In the workplace, open competitiveness and overt displays of hierarchical dominance (boy's game) are perfectly acceptable, but figuring out the motives of your enemy's friends, observing when he breaks them and subtly informing those friends about that in order to weaken his support base (girl's game) is considered 'nasty.' When I finally accepted that this was bullshit, everything turned around for me. Whenever someone did something like this to me, over the next few days several of his allies would get a quick visit from me with some nice small-talk and a little one-liner thrown in about how X hurt me by doing Y. Within days X would find himself somewhat more alienated, perhaps reprimanded slightly by one of his peers about Y, left to wonder what he did wrong. Over time it was as if a subconscious message spread across the workfloor: "You'd better respect me. If you don't your life will become a lot harder and you'll have no idea how the fuck it happened." Now for everyone who reads this and thinks my description of this is disgusting, please understand that I'm merely able to describe it this way as I've had the fairly unique perspective of having been a part of both 'worlds.' From a woman's perspective an in-depth analysis of mens' quest for dominance would sound equally messed up. Just like very few men understand a woman's world, very few women understand a man's world. TL;DR; Men and women establish hierarchies in different ways. Women have been taught their way is inappropriate in business. They should do it anyhow. P.S. Funnily enough, after I started dating a girl and 'became straight,' the women on the floor suddenly started calling me out on this behavior and nudged me back into the 'male hierarchy.'

spindritf 15y ago
> men don't have a clue as to how group dynamics work Do you think that those thousands upon thousands of (male) political leaders who climbed to the very tops of their social hierarchies -- from Crassus to Clinton, over thousands of years -- got there by pure luck without understanding how group dynamics work? How to make and break alliances? How to inform on their competitors? Open competitiveness and overt dominance won out in our culture because they worked, not because alternatives were unavailable to men. Those traits allow to create stable organizations which went on and conquered the world, often literally. There's nothing stopping men from mastering intrigue, it's just very destructive, much more so than competitiveness and dominance, even fistfights will damage the group less than constant shifting and mind games.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - DieBuche 15y ago
    I think there was another guy, first name Bill I think.
- mtrimpe 15y ago
  I'm not just talking about intrigue; I'm trying to describe a different model of the world which operates on a different kind of duality. In that model intrigue is indeed the punishment, but care and support is the reward. This might be constrained to just my experience in the gay community and my extrapolation to the female population might be incorrect. All I know is that I eventually became strongly aware of a delicate and ever changing network of social ties every non-straight-male I knew was participating in and acutely aware of. And yes, it's probably a very essential component of the skillset political leaders need to master to rise to the top. I'd argue however that it only becomes a necessity to master at the top, whereas for most queers I know it's present regardless of political ambitions.
scott_w 15y ago
I disagree that the methods you describe are confined to women. I've seen enough men do similar things. I'd say the reason people find it "dirty" is the same reason dirty players get angry when they're fouled - they can't take what they dish out.
astine 15y ago
"In the workplace, open competitiveness and overt displays of hierarchical dominance (boy's game) are perfectly acceptable, but figuring out the motives of your enemy's friends, observing when he breaks them and subtly informing those friends about that in order to weaken his support base (girl's game) is considered 'nasty.'" It is nasty. It's called passive-aggressiveness and it undermines honest communication in the workplace. It will make people unwilling to treat with you honestly. The fact that you think this form of behavior is more natural to women than men is actually quite sexist.
- Cushman 15y ago
  I iPad-downvoted you, sorry-- I actually agree 100%. It's important to keep in mind in general that even members of oppressed classes can be discriminatory, and it's no less of a problem.
- mtrimpe 15y ago
  Argh, I knew I shouldn't have used a broad description of male behavior and narrow one of the female. The male equivalent of what I described here would be when two managers shouting against each other in ever stronger terms that they are more important and have more authority than the other until one backs down. Equally destructive I believe, but something you'd never see a woman engage in.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I think you're writing these comments with the best intentions but also that you should probably stop digging.
    - mtrimpe 15y ago
      You're probably right. I tried to get a positive message across (i.e. 'Embrace your femininity to your advantage.') I ended up sounding vindictive though, probably because I am at some level. It's hard to publicly talk about this and even harder to find the right constructive tone between the indignation, anger and resentment that (for me) have accompanied my non-standard gender identity. And even though I don't know what to make of the large number of downvotes, I'm still glad I tried. :)
philwelch 15y ago
To whatever extent the "girl's game" is such, it's largely because for centuries, female social hierarchies consisted of social groups of gossiping housewives and male social hierarchies consisted of business and politics--though the two certainly intersected when the wives of businessmen and politicians talked. (One notable intersection happened during the Andrew Jackson administration and ultimately led to the end of John Calhoun's vice presidency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petticoat_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petticoat_affair) Analogously speaking--just because whites held social power over blacks by virtue of better education doesn't somehow mean education itself is an artifact of white supremacy, it means that lack of education is an artifact of oppression. Likewise, having to passive-aggressively gossip in the background isn't some kind of feminine power, it's an artifact of oppression against women preventing them from speaking and acting more openly. If women are going to be peers and equals to men in a professional workplace, they should act like it.
- mtrimpe 15y ago
  Thanks for your very well thought out reply. To a certain degree what you are saying is very much true. What you are forgetting however is that if you go further back in time men were hunters and women were gatherers. Women stayed around the camp and were free to chat and men went off to hunt and had to be silent. I'm trying to make the point that part of this is probably genetically/hormonally engrained into the female psyche (it's probably what you have tweak to 'fix' people like me) and that part of what is holding women back in the workplace, especially in tech as compared to e.g. fashion, is that they are asked to leave this part of them behind. 'If women are going to be peers and equals to men in a professional workplace, they should act like it.' Equals in what way?
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Nah, I'd have to see some serious cross-cultural research to believe that the "girl's game" is a universal, as would anyone who's had a whiff of anthropology at any point in their education. Also, speaking as a bisexual myself, I'm kind of offended by your characterization of bisexuals, unless by "bisexual" you mean "intersexed" or "transgender" or something, which in itself is actually just as offensive. Being queer doesn't mean engaging in stereotypical, effeminate behaviors like the ones you're describing.
dancesdrunk 15y ago
I have to disagree. I've had to manage a team of around 40 people who compete nationally (not tech per se, but I believe the same applies in a work place), and it only takes one person with the behaviour you describe to completely wreck how everyone operates and gets along. We went from a tight knit, supportive group to being watchful of what we say, wondering who's out to get us and generally having to "watch our backs". Loyalties were split, motives were changed and within a matter of weeks it was an incredibly poisonous atmosphere. If you want to get ahead - be better than those you're competing against. Don't try to undermine them, it does get noticed and unfortunately - for a small personal gain you're causing a hell lot more damage without even realising.

by mtrimpe 15y ago

spindritf 15y ago

> men don't have a clue as to how group dynamics work Do you think that those thousands upon thousands of (male) political leaders who climbed to the very tops of their social hierarchies -- from Crassus to Clinton, over thousands of years -- got there by pure luck without understanding how group dynamics work? How to make and break alliances? How to inform on their competitors? Open competitiveness and overt dominance won out in our culture because they worked, not because alternatives were unavailable to men. Those traits allow to create stable organizations which went on and conquered the world, often literally. There's nothing stopping men from mastering intrigue, it's just very destructive, much more so than competitiveness and dominance, even fistfights will damage the group less than constant shifting and mind games.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- DieBuche 15y ago
  I think there was another guy, first name Bill I think.
mtrimpe 15y ago
I'm not just talking about intrigue; I'm trying to describe a different model of the world which operates on a different kind of duality. In that model intrigue is indeed the punishment, but care and support is the reward. This might be constrained to just my experience in the gay community and my extrapolation to the female population might be incorrect. All I know is that I eventually became strongly aware of a delicate and ever changing network of social ties every non-straight-male I knew was participating in and acutely aware of. And yes, it's probably a very essential component of the skillset political leaders need to master to rise to the top. I'd argue however that it only becomes a necessity to master at the top, whereas for most queers I know it's present regardless of political ambitions.

scott_w 15y ago

I disagree that the methods you describe are confined to women. I've seen enough men do similar things. I'd say the reason people find it "dirty" is the same reason dirty players get angry when they're fouled - they can't take what they dish out.

astine 15y ago

"In the workplace, open competitiveness and overt displays of hierarchical dominance (boy's game) are perfectly acceptable, but figuring out the motives of your enemy's friends, observing when he breaks them and subtly informing those friends about that in order to weaken his support base (girl's game) is considered 'nasty.'" It is nasty. It's called passive-aggressiveness and it undermines honest communication in the workplace. It will make people unwilling to treat with you honestly. The fact that you think this form of behavior is more natural to women than men is actually quite sexist.

Cushman 15y ago
I iPad-downvoted you, sorry-- I actually agree 100%. It's important to keep in mind in general that even members of oppressed classes can be discriminatory, and it's no less of a problem.
mtrimpe 15y ago
Argh, I knew I shouldn't have used a broad description of male behavior and narrow one of the female. The male equivalent of what I described here would be when two managers shouting against each other in ever stronger terms that they are more important and have more authority than the other until one backs down. Equally destructive I believe, but something you'd never see a woman engage in.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I think you're writing these comments with the best intentions but also that you should probably stop digging.
  - mtrimpe 15y ago
    You're probably right. I tried to get a positive message across (i.e. 'Embrace your femininity to your advantage.') I ended up sounding vindictive though, probably because I am at some level. It's hard to publicly talk about this and even harder to find the right constructive tone between the indignation, anger and resentment that (for me) have accompanied my non-standard gender identity. And even though I don't know what to make of the large number of downvotes, I'm still glad I tried. :)

philwelch 15y ago

To whatever extent the "girl's game" is such, it's largely because for centuries, female social hierarchies consisted of social groups of gossiping housewives and male social hierarchies consisted of business and politics--though the two certainly intersected when the wives of businessmen and politicians talked. (One notable intersection happened during the Andrew Jackson administration and ultimately led to the end of John Calhoun's vice presidency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petticoat_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petticoat_affair) Analogously speaking--just because whites held social power over blacks by virtue of better education doesn't somehow mean education itself is an artifact of white supremacy, it means that lack of education is an artifact of oppression. Likewise, having to passive-aggressively gossip in the background isn't some kind of feminine power, it's an artifact of oppression against women preventing them from speaking and acting more openly. If women are going to be peers and equals to men in a professional workplace, they should act like it.

mtrimpe 15y ago
Thanks for your very well thought out reply. To a certain degree what you are saying is very much true. What you are forgetting however is that if you go further back in time men were hunters and women were gatherers. Women stayed around the camp and were free to chat and men went off to hunt and had to be silent. I'm trying to make the point that part of this is probably genetically/hormonally engrained into the female psyche (it's probably what you have tweak to 'fix' people like me) and that part of what is holding women back in the workplace, especially in tech as compared to e.g. fashion, is that they are asked to leave this part of them behind. 'If women are going to be peers and equals to men in a professional workplace, they should act like it.' Equals in what way?
- philwelch 15y ago
  Nah, I'd have to see some serious cross-cultural research to believe that the "girl's game" is a universal, as would anyone who's had a whiff of anthropology at any point in their education. Also, speaking as a bisexual myself, I'm kind of offended by your characterization of bisexuals, unless by "bisexual" you mean "intersexed" or "transgender" or something, which in itself is actually just as offensive. Being queer doesn't mean engaging in stereotypical, effeminate behaviors like the ones you're describing.

dancesdrunk 15y ago

I have to disagree. I've had to manage a team of around 40 people who compete nationally (not tech per se, but I believe the same applies in a work place), and it only takes one person with the behaviour you describe to completely wreck how everyone operates and gets along. We went from a tight knit, supportive group to being watchful of what we say, wondering who's out to get us and generally having to "watch our backs". Loyalties were split, motives were changed and within a matter of weeks it was an incredibly poisonous atmosphere. If you want to get ahead - be better than those you're competing against. Don't try to undermine them, it does get noticed and unfortunately - for a small personal gain you're causing a hell lot more damage without even realising.