5 ms·

You have to be careful how you do it as well. Because I offered to do a task like that (it wasn't note taking, I think it was making tea) saying something like

by ErrantX 15y ago

You have to be careful how you do it as well. Because I offered to do a task like that (it wasn't note taking, I think it was making tea) saying something like [names changed] "Chris, I'm not sure why Amy is always asked to make the tea! I'll happily do it". Which I thought was politely volunteering whilst also publicly raising my bosses problematic behaviour - an educational experience. I got glowering dagger stares from "Amy", and afterwards she told me she felt humiliated because I'd exposed her as a target of sexism, which made her feel like a failure. Which is awful that it had come to that (and in retrospect I was an idiot...). So; use this approach with caution! Edit: though in my defence "Chris" did improve no end after that; giving"Amy" only her fair share of mundane tasks, etc.

olliesaunders 15y ago
Amy shouldn’t be blaming herself for being the victim of sexist behavior. You could have tried to convince her of that. Even though you didn’t, you weren’t an idiot here. Aside from her internal negative reaction, the situation was actually improved.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  From the sound of it, she's not. She's blaming ErrantX. What I gather is, she didn't feel offended, and rather, by him doing what he did, make her feel as if others saw her as being "offended." I think that is much more likely the case. The question is, should ErrantX be offended for other people? If he's offended, he should speak up. But being offended for other people implies they are also offended. And, if they aren't, sends the wrong signals.
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    We discussed it in depth after, because we are close friends (which helped). It wasn't so much exposing her as being offended; she was put out by the treatment, but had gotten used to it over time. To the extent it didn't bother her any more (the more I tell this anecdote, the more awful it seems really!). When I raised it as an issue, publicly, it brought all of that back. In addition it made her feel that everyone saw her as being targeted, and unable to cope with it (partly because we were so close, she imagined they saw her getting me to stand up for her where she could not). Whereas before she could think of it as a private upset between her and "Chris". I never even thought of it in that context; "Chris" was doing something inappropriate, I felt that calling him on it would be a good way to resolve it for everyone. What I missed is that it could affect "Amy" in unexpected ways. A private conversation with "Chris" would probably have been better... So, yes, she blamed me. And herself. But only really in the heat of the moment - after the fact she was grateful, just wished I'd done it another way. One thing she did say was that her initial reaction was that I was just as bad (sexist) because it looked like I saw her as unable to stand up for herself (which wasn't what my thought process was, I should add!). But after she realised that actually she hadn't stood up for herself on this issue. That blurs the line so much on terms like sexism. So I learned; human social interaction is blooming complicated!
    - jasonlotito 15y ago
      Thanks for the followup! Very informative. Unfortunately, it only leads to more questions, as you seem to clearly understand (Clearly understanding your confusion seems an odd thing to say). Luckily, you were close friends. This makes things much easier. This lends weight to my worry about sticking up for other people when they show no signs of bother. Should I have been offended for Amy? I don't know her. As you pointed out, if I did, that would be just as sexist. Let's be clear here, I'd probably feel uncomfortable for the person being denigrated in such a manner. But what is my responsibility? I mention this because all to often people are quick to say "Hey, I'd jump in to defend a person," and while well meaning, it's just not that easy. Even women can't agree on this (not that they should). On one hand, Amy was perfectly content and these things didn't bother her. On the other hand, in some manner of speaking, they are still wrong. The move Shallow Hal comes to mind here (to some extent, as ignorance isn't the key part here). This leads me to my way of thinking. Unless it's out right obvious and offends me, I'm not going to rush to the defense of someone because I think they should be offended. However, I will support people who do come out and clearly state they are offended, and support them. If they accept the treatment (for example, always taking notes at the meeting) without a word, who am I to treat them like a defenseless child incapable of defending themselves. Supporting the person after they've made it clear they aren't happy with the mistreatment, on the other hand, I think is fair and proper. Some people might feel awkward raising an alarm that something bothers them. This is understandable. In some manner, we must encourage them without outright saying "Hey, doesn't it bother you that you are always asked to take notes? (Maybe that's acceptable if the relationship is more than a co-worker type)." In the end, it's the best I can offer.
      - lolilives 15y ago
        I agree that the least harmful approach is to let the victim initiate the defense, but like you said, people might feel awkward raising the alarm. The underlying problem here is that we are taught (by our culture) that: 1. It is okay to be subtly sexist but even worst, 2. We're being bitchy (uncool) if we defend ourselves (I'd argue that it's part of our intense worship of "being cool" but that's another topic) I think we would be in a better position to tackle these problems of subtle sexism if it was more socially accepted (and encouraged) to stand up for yourselves (especially for females to stand up for themselves). A side note: I read once that when asked, females would attack a rapist who is raping their friend or sibling but would not attack when they are themselves being raped by the rapist. I think this stems from the theory 2 above: that we are viewed as bitchy if defend ourselves, but we are praised if we defend someone else.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
DanBC 15y ago
There's some research showing that people associate "bullying" with childhood. After that they think that being bullied makes them weak; or that they couldn't be bullies because that's something that kids do and adults are rational. This NewYorker article (which I found via Longform) about the trial of Dharun Ravi (over the completed suicide of Tyler Clementi) has a tiny snippet about that. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_parker?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_...) Your experience shows just how serious the problem is - people don't know or think they're being sexist; the target of that behaviour don't want to speak out because they're told to "just lighten up" or they don't want to appear "weak" and other people don't speak out because it feels awkward or not the right time or whatever. And it's not just sexism; there's 'hetero normative' and racist and anti-disabled stuff going on all the time. And this anti-disability stuff is important for programmers - people on the Autistic spectrum (which covers Asperger's Syndrome) are covered by English Equalities laws, yet we see open mocking of people with Asperger's.
mechanical_fish 15y ago
Thanks for the story. This is why, though my approach has been gently and justly accused of being "passive" downthread, the passivity is the key in this case. Don't overtly "defend" Amy. (Or Chuck, or any teamaker of any gender, for that matter.) Don't use the word "sexism", don't start doing math on how often each team member has been asked to make tea in the last two years, and don't otherwise call attention to your noble sacrifice (which, as you've seen, in an otherwise-mostly-male crowd serves to throw an uncomfortable spotlight on Amy). Say as little as possible. Just make tea. Try to win the initiative: If you start the job first, it can pre-empt argument over who is going to do it. Or if you lose the initiative, but Amy has interrupted her typing to start making the tea, say something like "hey, if you'd like to keep writing I'll make the tea today". (If she says no, don't press.) If you inadvertently attract too much attention, you can make a joke about how much you enjoy tea. Quote some Hitchhiker's Guide or something. It's amazing how useful random whimsy can be. Now, of course if you're always missing from the start of every key meeting because you're making tea the folks in the meeting may be liable to demote you in their minds. This is a sad but true fact of politics: Act like the doormat, and you'll become the doormat. There is a reason why badly-gelled teams tend to try and assign lousy jobs to the person with the weakest political position. So this might not be your final move in this game. But you may be in a better strategic position than Amy to negotiate the necessary change (which could be: rotating the tea-making role through the team, getting catered tea, moving an electric kettle into the corner of the conference room, or just "forgetting" to make the tea and seeing what happens: Maybe the team will settle on one of the above alternatives, or maybe it'll turn out that tea just isn't important enough after all to be worth the risk of introducing hierarchy into an otherwise egalitarian team.)
- ErrantX 15y ago
  I've been thinking about this, and to be honest that could equally be seen as sexist, and also backfire. Things like But you may be in a better strategic position than Amy to negotiate the necessary change could certainly be considered sexist if voiced. What you are suggesting is much the same as what I did do - simply missing out the overt portion. It has advantages; it probably saves people being put in awkward positions, on the spot. But it could take longer, and backfire on you personally. And theoretically (I suppose) it could solidify ones own even-more-subtle sexism. This is why I struggle with situations of equality in general. I think the whole issue is a minefield where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And any thought process will end up offending someone. Ultimately the key is to do whatever you do for the right reasons. The wrong reasons are probably "because she cant stand up for herself" and the right reason is probably "because that doesn't seem right". With empathy and common sense applied in spades. As you say; this is a lot easier to address in a cohesive environment. By my observation - if people are playing office politics the sexism is probably just one part of an overall game.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by ErrantX 15y ago

olliesaunders 15y ago

Amy shouldn’t be blaming herself for being the victim of sexist behavior. You could have tried to convince her of that. Even though you didn’t, you weren’t an idiot here. Aside from her internal negative reaction, the situation was actually improved.

jasonlotito 15y ago
From the sound of it, she's not. She's blaming ErrantX. What I gather is, she didn't feel offended, and rather, by him doing what he did, make her feel as if others saw her as being "offended." I think that is much more likely the case. The question is, should ErrantX be offended for other people? If he's offended, he should speak up. But being offended for other people implies they are also offended. And, if they aren't, sends the wrong signals.
- ErrantX 15y ago
  We discussed it in depth after, because we are close friends (which helped). It wasn't so much exposing her as being offended; she was put out by the treatment, but had gotten used to it over time. To the extent it didn't bother her any more (the more I tell this anecdote, the more awful it seems really!). When I raised it as an issue, publicly, it brought all of that back. In addition it made her feel that everyone saw her as being targeted, and unable to cope with it (partly because we were so close, she imagined they saw her getting me to stand up for her where she could not). Whereas before she could think of it as a private upset between her and "Chris". I never even thought of it in that context; "Chris" was doing something inappropriate, I felt that calling him on it would be a good way to resolve it for everyone. What I missed is that it could affect "Amy" in unexpected ways. A private conversation with "Chris" would probably have been better... So, yes, she blamed me. And herself. But only really in the heat of the moment - after the fact she was grateful, just wished I'd done it another way. One thing she did say was that her initial reaction was that I was just as bad (sexist) because it looked like I saw her as unable to stand up for herself (which wasn't what my thought process was, I should add!). But after she realised that actually she hadn't stood up for herself on this issue. That blurs the line so much on terms like sexism. So I learned; human social interaction is blooming complicated!
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    Thanks for the followup! Very informative. Unfortunately, it only leads to more questions, as you seem to clearly understand (Clearly understanding your confusion seems an odd thing to say). Luckily, you were close friends. This makes things much easier. This lends weight to my worry about sticking up for other people when they show no signs of bother. Should I have been offended for Amy? I don't know her. As you pointed out, if I did, that would be just as sexist. Let's be clear here, I'd probably feel uncomfortable for the person being denigrated in such a manner. But what is my responsibility? I mention this because all to often people are quick to say "Hey, I'd jump in to defend a person," and while well meaning, it's just not that easy. Even women can't agree on this (not that they should). On one hand, Amy was perfectly content and these things didn't bother her. On the other hand, in some manner of speaking, they are still wrong. The move Shallow Hal comes to mind here (to some extent, as ignorance isn't the key part here). This leads me to my way of thinking. Unless it's out right obvious and offends me, I'm not going to rush to the defense of someone because I think they should be offended. However, I will support people who do come out and clearly state they are offended, and support them. If they accept the treatment (for example, always taking notes at the meeting) without a word, who am I to treat them like a defenseless child incapable of defending themselves. Supporting the person after they've made it clear they aren't happy with the mistreatment, on the other hand, I think is fair and proper. Some people might feel awkward raising an alarm that something bothers them. This is understandable. In some manner, we must encourage them without outright saying "Hey, doesn't it bother you that you are always asked to take notes? (Maybe that's acceptable if the relationship is more than a co-worker type)." In the end, it's the best I can offer.
    - lolilives 15y ago
      I agree that the least harmful approach is to let the victim initiate the defense, but like you said, people might feel awkward raising the alarm. The underlying problem here is that we are taught (by our culture) that: 1. It is okay to be subtly sexist but even worst, 2. We're being bitchy (uncool) if we defend ourselves (I'd argue that it's part of our intense worship of "being cool" but that's another topic) I think we would be in a better position to tackle these problems of subtle sexism if it was more socially accepted (and encouraged) to stand up for yourselves (especially for females to stand up for themselves). A side note: I read once that when asked, females would attack a rapist who is raping their friend or sibling but would not attack when they are themselves being raped by the rapist. I think this stems from the theory 2 above: that we are viewed as bitchy if defend ourselves, but we are praised if we defend someone else.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

DanBC 15y ago

There's some research showing that people associate "bullying" with childhood. After that they think that being bullied makes them weak; or that they couldn't be bullies because that's something that kids do and adults are rational. This NewYorker article (which I found via Longform) about the trial of Dharun Ravi (over the completed suicide of Tyler Clementi) has a tiny snippet about that. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_parker?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_...) Your experience shows just how serious the problem is - people don't know or think they're being sexist; the target of that behaviour don't want to speak out because they're told to "just lighten up" or they don't want to appear "weak" and other people don't speak out because it feels awkward or not the right time or whatever. And it's not just sexism; there's 'hetero normative' and racist and anti-disabled stuff going on all the time. And this anti-disability stuff is important for programmers - people on the Autistic spectrum (which covers Asperger's Syndrome) are covered by English Equalities laws, yet we see open mocking of people with Asperger's.

mechanical_fish 15y ago

Thanks for the story. This is why, though my approach has been gently and justly accused of being "passive" downthread, the passivity is the key in this case. Don't overtly "defend" Amy. (Or Chuck, or any teamaker of any gender, for that matter.) Don't use the word "sexism", don't start doing math on how often each team member has been asked to make tea in the last two years, and don't otherwise call attention to your noble sacrifice (which, as you've seen, in an otherwise-mostly-male crowd serves to throw an uncomfortable spotlight on Amy). Say as little as possible. Just make tea. Try to win the initiative: If you start the job first, it can pre-empt argument over who is going to do it. Or if you lose the initiative, but Amy has interrupted her typing to start making the tea, say something like "hey, if you'd like to keep writing I'll make the tea today". (If she says no, don't press.) If you inadvertently attract too much attention, you can make a joke about how much you enjoy tea. Quote some Hitchhiker's Guide or something. It's amazing how useful random whimsy can be. Now, of course if you're always missing from the start of every key meeting because you're making tea the folks in the meeting may be liable to demote you in their minds. This is a sad but true fact of politics: Act like the doormat, and you'll become the doormat. There is a reason why badly-gelled teams tend to try and assign lousy jobs to the person with the weakest political position. So this might not be your final move in this game. But you may be in a better strategic position than Amy to negotiate the necessary change (which could be: rotating the tea-making role through the team, getting catered tea, moving an electric kettle into the corner of the conference room, or just "forgetting" to make the tea and seeing what happens: Maybe the team will settle on one of the above alternatives, or maybe it'll turn out that tea just isn't important enough after all to be worth the risk of introducing hierarchy into an otherwise egalitarian team.)

ErrantX 15y ago
I've been thinking about this, and to be honest that could equally be seen as sexist, and also backfire. Things like But you may be in a better strategic position than Amy to negotiate the necessary change could certainly be considered sexist if voiced. What you are suggesting is much the same as what I did do - simply missing out the overt portion. It has advantages; it probably saves people being put in awkward positions, on the spot. But it could take longer, and backfire on you personally. And theoretically (I suppose) it could solidify ones own even-more-subtle sexism. This is why I struggle with situations of equality in general. I think the whole issue is a minefield where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And any thought process will end up offending someone. Ultimately the key is to do whatever you do for the right reasons. The wrong reasons are probably "because she cant stand up for herself" and the right reason is probably "because that doesn't seem right". With empathy and common sense applied in spades. As you say; this is a lot easier to address in a cohesive environment. By my observation - if people are playing office politics the sexism is probably just one part of an overall game.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]