5 ms·

I'm really dismayed by this story, because it reminds me of too many conversations with young professionals who are stuck in their career because they are not p

by sunir 13y ago

I'm really dismayed by this story, because it reminds me of too many conversations with young professionals who are stuck in their career because they are not professionally developing out of some inner rage. Quoting: > "Amy admits she'll "never know" if she wasn't hired by Google because she's female, because she's not an engineer, or whether there was something else wrong with her application." If you go through life believing that any prejudice (sexism, in this case) is dominating your career growth, you will always look for it in the tea leaves, project it onto any situation, and in return invite it. In truth, the person who is prejudiced is you. You have to live your life assuming good faith unless you have direct evidence of bad faith. You're crippling yourself to assume an ethereal, non-specific, constant prejudice against you because you are putting the locus of control outside yourself. http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/AssumeGoodFaith http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/AssumeGoodFaith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control In fact, in Amy's words: > "I feel like I have no power, that this happened to me, and it’s my fault," she said. "I feel so betrayed. And, at this point, I don't really feel like I have it in me to fail again." It's critical as a professional to believe that the situation is something specific, direct, and within you sphere of influence, so you can look to ways to improve. In this situation, if you start with the assumption no one was being sexist, it's not that difficult to identify the most probable reason she was not hired and her salary was lower. Google acquihired the engineering team; she was a designer. Therefore, she was not hired. If you see that as a cause, then it becomes easier to think of ways to improve, such as gaining software development skills or taking on a larger and larger product design roles to make yourself more valuable as an employee. Or just looking for another job. Of course, they could have been sexist towards her, but the article doesn't provide direct evidence, only Amy's perception of their attitude, which I fully trust she believes is fact even though I also believe she is just projecting. > "'Their attitude was, We can leave you with nothing because you’re a girl and you have a rich boyfriend,' she said." The lesson in an nutshell is to never assume prejudice. Only draw that conclusion from direct evidence.

kenjackson 13y ago
If you go through life believing that any prejudice (sexism, in this case) is dominating your career growth, you will always look for it in the tea leaves, project it onto any situation, and in return invite it. In truth, the person who is prejudiced is you. For better or worse, disadvantaged minorities always have to consider this. It's probably one of the biggest privileges that white males have in day to day life -- they rarely need to consider if race/gender played a role in any decision they encounter. There was an interesting experimental study that showed that a white male just released from prison was as likely to get a job callback as a black male with no criminal record [1]. There are typically multiple factors at play for any employment decision, but race and gender loom very large -- large enough that ignoring it is just ignorance. And note, that the domain matters. Jeremy Lin faced discrimination as a basketball player being Asian. But for most domains, being a white male is preferred. [1] Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment, Am Sociol Rev. Oct 1, 2009; 74(5): 777–799, http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/ASR_pager_etal09.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/ASR_pager_etal09.pdf
- sunir 13y ago
  First, not everyone here is a white male. Second, statistics that measure the state are not direct evidence. Individual cases may or may not fit. There may be statistics that measure a company that demonstrate a bias, but unless you have direct evidence of that, it's better to not burden your mind with that negativity. Third, you aren't a statistic. You have to keep developing and getting better. Don't internalize the statistical oppression. Internalization is the worst form of oppression.
  - tedks 13y ago
    It is incredibly, blindingly privileged to say that internalized oppression is the worst form of oppression. Being oppressed is the worst form of oppression. And, for people who aren't white men, oppression is a lived reality, not an abstract concept that you can attempt to rationalize away. It is both rational and justified to think that prejudice is a predominant factor in virtually everything, because it is. Finally, oppression isn't "statistical." The people who cause those statistics have names, faces, and addresses. As do the people who act as their apologists. The personal is the political, but the political is also personal.
    - ivanca 13y ago
      If this is true why so many homeless are white men? If this is true why being a soldier, the worst job in the world (because amputations and PTSD are no fun) is done by so many white men? Where is the "privilege" you talk about there? And there is no intrinsic racism against others by white men, where I'm from (Colombia) everyone is brown-ish but there is still a lot of racism against black people, just for being the majority not for being white.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        And why would people say that planes are for flying when there are so many on the ground? Where do you see this "flying" then? And what of broken planes, or model planes, or photographs of planes? Next time you see a photograph of a plane flying through the sky at 20,000 feet you can try again to convince me that racism exists, buddy.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ChuckMcM 13y ago
This was very similar to my thinking as well. If you look for reasons you will find them. The simplest explanation was the acquisition was for $X + All engineers. It was stated that the acquisition was done under duress (the company was out of money) She wasn't an engineer, she wasn't part of the deal. I would wonder why as a founder she wasn't part of the discussion with Google but that certainly can happen when its just the board (typically CEO and the early investors doing the discussion). Depending on the culture the CEO may or may not bring the other founders into the process. So this is the mind disease that "Amy" needs to cure: > "I feel like I have no power, that this happened to > me, and it’s my fault," she said. "I feel so > betrayed. And, at this point, I don't really > feel like I have it in me to fail again." She didn't "fail" any more than the rest of the group "succeeded", it was a business transaction and had nothing to with her and everything to do with Google hiring more engineers. She now has a CEO type person who she can note as someone who doesn't have her interests at heart (the company representative in the negotiation should have gotten her a decent severance package from the deal) and she's been through a company from start to finish so she has an idea of what it takes. Armed with that experience and, if she's spent some time processing it, wisdom, she is in a position to start again and potentially be more effective. What part of the marketing worked? What part didn't? Were the traction issues product or messaging related? Did they reach their target audience? If not why not? Do the whole post mortem thing and learn. I've been doing this a long time and know it is rarely "about you." You're resume now has a startup with a "successful" exit (acquired by Google), almost everyone reading it will know that is a better outcome than Chapter 7 bankruptcy. (everyone went home and got nothing) You get the respect of having 'been around the block.' which is awesome. So if you do go into a startup situation again, this time as part of the negotiation you say to your potential boss, I want it in my offer that we're acqui-hired and they decide not to hire me, I'll get 6 months severance with benefits so that I can work on my next thing. That is an "easy" thing to agree too since it both clarifies your position in a future acquisition strategy, and it only pays off when the company is being acquired. The second startup I did the Marketing VP had this in their agreement because they knew, as marketing, they were associated more with the product/space and not simply tech talent that could easily be re-purposed[1]. Bottom line, it isn't you, it's never about you, its about what the company wants. Move along. For grins and giggles though check in with your engineer colleagues to see if they would have preferred not to be hired later on. Often such acquisitions include a "retention" clause which, in practice, means the acquiring company can put you (an engineer) on really crappy projects that nobody else wants and you're going to do it anyway because you're locked in for some amount of time to get your bonus. A friend of mine, who has been acquired by Cisco twice, we would ask "So, how long are you in for?" because for an entrepreneur, being stuck at BigCorp for 18, 24, or 36 months really wasn't a vacation. [1] That engineers are fungible and marketing folks are not is of course not true but a lot of technical acquisitions treat it like it is I've found.
pistle 13y ago
EXACTLY! Blame the disenfranchised for their doubts and concerns. They probably got that way by watching movies or something. It's almost never based in a history of exploitation.

by sunir 13y ago

kenjackson 13y ago

If you go through life believing that any prejudice (sexism, in this case) is dominating your career growth, you will always look for it in the tea leaves, project it onto any situation, and in return invite it. In truth, the person who is prejudiced is you. For better or worse, disadvantaged minorities always have to consider this. It's probably one of the biggest privileges that white males have in day to day life -- they rarely need to consider if race/gender played a role in any decision they encounter. There was an interesting experimental study that showed that a white male just released from prison was as likely to get a job callback as a black male with no criminal record [1]. There are typically multiple factors at play for any employment decision, but race and gender loom very large -- large enough that ignoring it is just ignorance. And note, that the domain matters. Jeremy Lin faced discrimination as a basketball player being Asian. But for most domains, being a white male is preferred. [1] Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment, Am Sociol Rev. Oct 1, 2009; 74(5): 777–799, http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/ASR_pager_etal09.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/ASR_pager_etal09.pdf

sunir 13y ago
First, not everyone here is a white male. Second, statistics that measure the state are not direct evidence. Individual cases may or may not fit. There may be statistics that measure a company that demonstrate a bias, but unless you have direct evidence of that, it's better to not burden your mind with that negativity. Third, you aren't a statistic. You have to keep developing and getting better. Don't internalize the statistical oppression. Internalization is the worst form of oppression.
- tedks 13y ago
  It is incredibly, blindingly privileged to say that internalized oppression is the worst form of oppression. Being oppressed is the worst form of oppression. And, for people who aren't white men, oppression is a lived reality, not an abstract concept that you can attempt to rationalize away. It is both rational and justified to think that prejudice is a predominant factor in virtually everything, because it is. Finally, oppression isn't "statistical." The people who cause those statistics have names, faces, and addresses. As do the people who act as their apologists. The personal is the political, but the political is also personal.
  - ivanca 13y ago
    If this is true why so many homeless are white men? If this is true why being a soldier, the worst job in the world (because amputations and PTSD are no fun) is done by so many white men? Where is the "privilege" you talk about there? And there is no intrinsic racism against others by white men, where I'm from (Colombia) everyone is brown-ish but there is still a lot of racism against black people, just for being the majority not for being white.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      And why would people say that planes are for flying when there are so many on the ground? Where do you see this "flying" then? And what of broken planes, or model planes, or photographs of planes? Next time you see a photograph of a plane flying through the sky at 20,000 feet you can try again to convince me that racism exists, buddy.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ChuckMcM 13y ago

This was very similar to my thinking as well. If you look for reasons you will find them. The simplest explanation was the acquisition was for $X + All engineers. It was stated that the acquisition was done under duress (the company was out of money) She wasn't an engineer, she wasn't part of the deal. I would wonder why as a founder she wasn't part of the discussion with Google but that certainly can happen when its just the board (typically CEO and the early investors doing the discussion). Depending on the culture the CEO may or may not bring the other founders into the process. So this is the mind disease that "Amy" needs to cure: > "I feel like I have no power, that this happened to > me, and it’s my fault," she said. "I feel so > betrayed. And, at this point, I don't really > feel like I have it in me to fail again." She didn't "fail" any more than the rest of the group "succeeded", it was a business transaction and had nothing to with her and everything to do with Google hiring more engineers. She now has a CEO type person who she can note as someone who doesn't have her interests at heart (the company representative in the negotiation should have gotten her a decent severance package from the deal) and she's been through a company from start to finish so she has an idea of what it takes. Armed with that experience and, if she's spent some time processing it, wisdom, she is in a position to start again and potentially be more effective. What part of the marketing worked? What part didn't? Were the traction issues product or messaging related? Did they reach their target audience? If not why not? Do the whole post mortem thing and learn. I've been doing this a long time and know it is rarely "about you." You're resume now has a startup with a "successful" exit (acquired by Google), almost everyone reading it will know that is a better outcome than Chapter 7 bankruptcy. (everyone went home and got nothing) You get the respect of having 'been around the block.' which is awesome. So if you do go into a startup situation again, this time as part of the negotiation you say to your potential boss, I want it in my offer that we're acqui-hired and they decide not to hire me, I'll get 6 months severance with benefits so that I can work on my next thing. That is an "easy" thing to agree too since it both clarifies your position in a future acquisition strategy, and it only pays off when the company is being acquired. The second startup I did the Marketing VP had this in their agreement because they knew, as marketing, they were associated more with the product/space and not simply tech talent that could easily be re-purposed[1]. Bottom line, it isn't you, it's never about you, its about what the company wants. Move along. For grins and giggles though check in with your engineer colleagues to see if they would have preferred not to be hired later on. Often such acquisitions include a "retention" clause which, in practice, means the acquiring company can put you (an engineer) on really crappy projects that nobody else wants and you're going to do it anyway because you're locked in for some amount of time to get your bonus. A friend of mine, who has been acquired by Cisco twice, we would ask "So, how long are you in for?" because for an entrepreneur, being stuck at BigCorp for 18, 24, or 36 months really wasn't a vacation. [1] That engineers are fungible and marketing folks are not is of course not true but a lot of technical acquisitions treat it like it is I've found.

pistle 13y ago

EXACTLY! Blame the disenfranchised for their doubts and concerns. They probably got that way by watching movies or something. It's almost never based in a history of exploitation.