5 ms·

Can someone explain to me what the author is trying to say? I see two things in the article: 1. In the author's eyes, the majority of early Facebook employees

by walrus 14y ago

Can someone explain to me what the author is trying to say? I see two things in the article: 1. In the author's eyes, the majority of early Facebook employees acted in a juvenile masculine manner[1]. 2. Some of those early Facebook employees weren't nice people. Am I missing something more subtle? [1] I.e., the manner young males are stereotyped[2]. [2] I'm not accusing the author of stereotyping.

pnmahoney 14y ago
It's easy to miss the point with the bearkskin rug thing. It's worth spelling out: a workplace which tolerates sexual harassment (senior supervisor known to proposition all the women at the company), or forces its female employees to go through backchannels to deal with sex-driven workplace hostility? It's less that the 'employees weren't nice people' and more that this employee was powerless to reign in patterns of offensive/illegal/errant behavior. Still it wouldn't be so necessary to focus on, _except_ for all the crap being thrown in here to accept/defend it.
- walrus 14y ago
  Thanks. After reading your comment and rereading the article, I agree with your interpretation (but I can't stand the author's presentation). It's too bad that the author chose to put the "male" spin on things[1][2][3][4]. I found that offensive enough to distract me from understanding the main point of the article on my first read. (Also, the bearskin part was far-fetched. As another commenter here said: unless there was more context involved, she was probably reading into that too much.) [1] "[...]young, plain-looking guys in T-shirts, gazing at their screens, seemed startled—if not displeased—to see a strange new woman in the office." [2] "[...]it seemed like the kind of thing that suburban boys from Harvard would think was urban and cool." [3] "[...]or the unrepentantly boyish company culture that it represented[...]" [4] "As Mark wrote on his business card with boyish hubris[...]"
tspiteri 14y ago
I don't know if it's only me, but I saw the young male stereotyping as a way to justify their behaviour, as in: it's not that bad, it's just boys being boys. The things that were really bad were the things dealt with later.

by walrus 14y ago

pnmahoney 14y ago

It's easy to miss the point with the bearkskin rug thing. It's worth spelling out: a workplace which tolerates sexual harassment (senior supervisor known to proposition all the women at the company), or forces its female employees to go through backchannels to deal with sex-driven workplace hostility? It's less that the 'employees weren't nice people' and more that this employee was powerless to reign in patterns of offensive/illegal/errant behavior. Still it wouldn't be so necessary to focus on, _except_ for all the crap being thrown in here to accept/defend it.

walrus 14y ago
Thanks. After reading your comment and rereading the article, I agree with your interpretation (but I can't stand the author's presentation). It's too bad that the author chose to put the "male" spin on things[1][2][3][4]. I found that offensive enough to distract me from understanding the main point of the article on my first read. (Also, the bearskin part was far-fetched. As another commenter here said: unless there was more context involved, she was probably reading into that too much.) [1] "[...]young, plain-looking guys in T-shirts, gazing at their screens, seemed startled—if not displeased—to see a strange new woman in the office." [2] "[...]it seemed like the kind of thing that suburban boys from Harvard would think was urban and cool." [3] "[...]or the unrepentantly boyish company culture that it represented[...]" [4] "As Mark wrote on his business card with boyish hubris[...]"

tspiteri 14y ago

I don't know if it's only me, but I saw the young male stereotyping as a way to justify their behaviour, as in: it's not that bad, it's just boys being boys. The things that were really bad were the things dealt with later.