5 ms·

"When female executives spoke more than their peers, both men and women punished them with 14 percent lower ratings." I've seen similar comments before and eve

• frandroid 12y ago
  Indeed. Patriarchy is enforced by both men and women.
  • frandroid 12y ago
    Oh yeah I forgot. Make a feminist point on HN, get downvoted to hell and beneath.
    • teamhappy 12y ago
      > Make a feminist point on HN, get downvoted to hell and beneath. That's not true at all. I think you got down-voted because you missed the point of the comment you replied to. (I think) the point was that even if you get rid of patriarchy, you'd still have to deal with women putting each other down. I guess that's noteworthy because it's easy to forget when you read an article like this one. I am constantly amazed by how poorly we treat each other. All of us, really.
      • rmc 12y ago
        But how much of women putting other women down is due to patriarchy? What if it's all due to patriarchy? What if getting rid of patriarchy solves it all?
        • teamhappy 12y ago
          I can't tell if those are rhetorical questions or not. Part of it might be patriarchy, but I'm pretty sure for the most part it's just nature at work. Women competing with other women for the attention of men doesn't sound new to me.
          • rmc 12y ago
            The parent comment implied without evidence that that all women putting down women had nothing to do with patriarchy. I gave a reason as to how it might (to a possibly massive amount) be due to patriarchy. And what if "nature at work" isn't so natural? Go back 50 years and people would say that it's unnatural for 2 men to love each other.
        • dragonwriter 12y ago
          The way patriarchy is usually defined by feminists, women putting other women down (at least to the extent that that is because the women being put down are acting in a way that is outside of the fixed gender roles held by the women doing the putting down) is an example of patriarchy, not an effect of it.
          • teamhappy 12y ago
            Let me see if I got this right. You're saying "normal" women putting down "weird" women would fall under the agreed upon definition of patriarchy? How is that not just xenophobia/mobbing?
            • gaius 12y ago
              A great deal of what feminists blame men for, is really women competing with women. Size zero models for example.
    • Someone1234 12y ago
      I didn't, but maybe some people felt that comment didn't add to the discussion. All you wanted to do was injected a single politically charged word into the discussion, you had no insights to add or thoughts on how it applied to this story in particular. It was low effort overall. Seems now with this additional post that you just made your original post because you wanted to play victim or start an argument, either way it isn't making you look any better and still doesn't contribute to the overall discussion. In particular as you barely waited 5 minutes before declaring yourself a victim.
• drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  This also opens the door to having one or two self-promoting types control the conversation by commenting early on and to never stop talking. I find its helpful to interrupt people sometimes as it helps cut the BS in meetings. I doubt there's an easy fix here. My take is that there's a larger aspect not addressed in the article: women simply aren't socialized to be socially aggressive. The same way women often won't negotiate salary and then we wring our hands over women's salaries. How about of instead changing everything to suite these women, we encourage them to be more socially aggressive? Its not like these things are pleasant or easy for men either. I feel like if I didn't learn how to act this way, I wouldn't be competitive at my job. The same way I see loads of shy male techies who never speak up and don't contribute much and don't end up promoted or appreciated. I think its a skill that can be learned and things like "oh I'm INTJ, oh I'm a woman, etc" are excuses. Why aren't some people motivated to learn the proper social skills? As a previous shy person, I know that this is just a learn-able skill. I don't think we need to make meetings longer and "nicer" and if we did, it would just lead to resentment and fleeing of talent to company B where that talent can thrive without a lot of politically correct baggage holding them back. Now company A is a bunch of quiet milquetoast types unable to engage in argumentation and eventually not be competitive against a more aggressive company. Lastly, a lot of the more quiet people I've worked with are so because they just don't have a lot of good ideas. They're bureaucrats and desk jockeys or are ultrafocused on their little niche of the world and add the same things over and over regardless of context. Yeah, the TPS reports might be slow to load, but this isn't the time or place for it, yet the TPS manager has literally nothing else to add. Maybe those without much to add should be quiet. The Harrison Bergeron-ing of all things really isn't the way to go. I really wish more people understood that.
  • frandroid 12y ago
    > women simply aren't socialized to be socially aggressive The article makes the point that women are socially penalized when they are aggressive. It's not a lack of socialization into aggressiveness, but rather an active socialization into passiveness.
  • DanBC 12y ago
    > Its not like these things are pleasant or easy for men either. So the system doesn't work for women, nor for minority groups, nor for many men. Doesn't that suggest that we should be trying to fix the system?
• lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Might be worth getting a conch. Ideally a plastic model one, that is difficult to smash.
  • theorique 12y ago
    "Kill the pig! Cut his throat! Bash it in!"
• at-fates-hands 12y ago
  >>> I've seen similar comments before and even going as far as saying women were harder on women than men when moving up in a career. This is probably the one single point I've seen completely overlooked in every men vs. women debate. As someone who's been in management, I can't count how many times senior executives who were male wanted to promote a woman to a more senior role, only to have other senior women disagree to such an extent, it caused a scene. This is probably one of the more interesting dynamics in this conversation which is often brushed aside. One of my colleagues once made the comparison how men are always in the "alpha" mode. Always trying to be top dog, always trying to outdo their peers for the top roles. He said this is just as prevalent with women, and most people never see it because women tend to be more, shall I say more "backstabbing" than their male counter parts.
  • wavefunction 12y ago
    I'm not always in "alpha mode" because I only compete with myself. Competing with y'all is simply boring and a waste of my time ;)
    • wavefunction 12y ago
      Hit a nerve, I can see lol
    • justathrow2k 12y ago
      Damn, dawg, u gangsta. Hit me up on my boost mobile, son, lets do big thangs.
• rmc 12y ago
  Feminism and such isn't "men vs women", it's "women being put down". Women can be misogynist against women (heck there are gay people opposed to gay marriage, humans, eh?)
  • ANTSANTS 12y ago
    Where do you draw the line between "these women have internalized misogyny" and "people are more critical of their own gender?"
    • pdabbadabba 12y ago
      Is it really necessary to draw such a line when the data indicate that both genders are harder on women than on men?
      • ANTSANTS 12y ago
        Yes, because it's probably impossible to solve the problem of women being harder on women, just as I think it's impossible to solve the problem of men being harder on other men (in the grand scheme of life, not just looking at the workplace). It's human nature. If you don't account for that, you could, without realizing it, "solve" the problem of men being harder on women in a professional context, then end up pushing the gender politics past the point of being helpful. EDIT: I edited my reply to clarify some points just as you responded. I have now addressed your first question, and your second question is based on a misunderstanding due to poor wording on my part. EDIT EDIT, because I seem to have triggered HN's flamewar detector and it's not letting me post anymore: >I've been ignoring this premise for the sake of argument, but now it's time to raise an objection: Men aren't harder on other men. Both men and women are harder on women. Yes, I do believe men are harder on men than on women in the grand scheme of life, even if I concede that men can be harder on women in business and the workplace. Men are significantly more likely to be victims of violence from men than women are, whether in public life or in war. Far more men than women are incarcerated in the United States, where they are subject to worse treatment at the hands of guards and other prisoners alike than women are. A woman being raped is a tragedy, a man being raped is a literally a joke, a timeless staple of "edgy" comedians. Fathers expect significantly more from their sons than their daughters. A young woman living with her parents after college is natural; a young man is ridiculed. Men with problems are often not taken seriously by their peers; instead of lending an understanding ear, they're told to simply "man up" and bear it. Their problems are certainly not taken seriously by the media, which claims that their problems are insignificant compared to those faced by women and that they need to "check their privilege." Perhaps it should not be surprising that men are more likely to commit suicide than women. Some of those ideas, especially one about the expectations of fathers for a man's success, hint at another element of sexism: the patronizing way that men can expect less of women. If you agree that this element exists and sucks, then you are conceding that men are more critical of men than women. I'm not trying to sound like a "men's rights activist" or anything, but it boggles the mind how people can believe or disbelieve the same fact depending on when it suits their argument. >>dssacco >I have to disagree however. Most insults that men give other men attack their masculinity, which is implicitly sexist. That's a great point historically, but in my experience it hasn't been true for a while, and the majority of middle-class men wouldn't tell a man to "stop acting like a woman" these days. When a man is told to "be a man," the subtext is not "because you're acting feminine," but rather "because you're acting childish," or perhaps "because men are not allowed to express weakness." You can choose to interpret this as "all men are sexist because they're holding men to a higher standard here," or you can interpret as "men are not allowed to do something natural that is extremely important for mental health." Yet you don't hear anyone complaining about "interalized misandry," people always manage to reframe everything negative about the male experience as a matter of misogyny. As if we aren't allowed to have our own problems unless they involve women.
• jamesli 12y ago
  My personal experience makes me think that being minority might be one of the important factors, if not the most important one. Minorities are regularly ignored and interrupted in meetings while the majorities, unless explicitly reminded, don't feel it. I don't mean the majorities do it intentionally. Some of them, when reminded they are interrupting, apologize sincerely. It could be deep in human's conscience.
• dharmach 12y ago
  >women were harder on women than men Seen similar behaviour in many minorities (gender, race, religion, nationality)
  • bvanslyke 12y ago
    It makes you much more popular with the majority, sadly.
    • hueving 12y ago
      That has nothing to do with it. People are critical of people that represent them in some manner.
      • jeremysmyth 12y ago
        Not always. This is highly culturally dependent. For example, it's widely felt that Irish people (actual Irish, not Irish-American) are critical of other Irish people who succeed: "Look at him. Who does he think he is? Is he better than us?" etc. ...whereas it's widely felt that Americans admire other Americans who have succeeded.