If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(IT World)   So, you want to work with brogrammers? Good luck with that   (itworld.com) divider line 128
    More: Interesting, tech, Quora, Income gender gap, top position, GigaOM  
•       •       •

3340 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Dec 2013 at 9:05 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-17 12:17:47 PM
Telos:

*rolls eyes*

Oh, look, you made something up, and can't defend the most basic source of your outrage.  She didn't make an equivalence.

If I said "people have been murdered, stolen from, and harassed freely on this street for the last week"  I'm saying all 3 things are happening(and maybe we need more police on that street), not that they're the same.  This can only be ascribed to you wanting to find a feminist "out to get men".

Like, there's no there there.
 
2013-12-17 12:19:59 PM

LasersHurt: To be fair to ikanreed, the article just says that every woman she knows has had one or more of 3 things done to them - it does NOT say that harassment is as bad as rape.

To be fair to everyone else, ikanreed is kind of wildly overreacting.

Everyone calm the hell down.


She's outraged, therefore she's right.
 
2013-12-17 12:21:07 PM

baconbeard: LasersHurt: To be fair to ikanreed, the article just says that every woman she knows has had one or more of 3 things done to them - it does NOT say that harassment is as bad as rape.

To be fair to everyone else, ikanreed is kind of wildly overreacting.

Everyone calm the hell down.

She's outraged, therefore she's right.


I have no idea if "she" is even a she. Doesn't matter. And being an a-hole back isn't going to help.
 
2013-12-17 12:21:10 PM

LasersHurt: To be fair to ikanreed, the article just says that every woman she knows has had one or more of 3 things done to them - it does NOT say that harassment is as bad as rape.

To be fair to everyone else, ikanreed is kind of wildly overreacting.

Everyone calm the hell down.


Oh come on, bringing "look at how unfair women are being to men" based on intentionally misreading a blog post some random place on the internet, into a thread about how there is legitimate sexism in my industry isn't really overreacting.  It's like "look, look at how hard men have it" without even the most basic of credible cases.

Feminism can go too far, but completely and willfully misconstruing something that's not even topical in order to justify measurable systemic sexism is normal.  That's what MRA types do.
 
2013-12-17 12:22:09 PM

ikanreed: Telos:

*rolls eyes*

Oh, look, you made something up, and can't defend the most basic source of your outrage.  She didn't make an equivalence.

If I said "people have been murdered, stolen from, and harassed freely on this street for the last week"  I'm saying all 3 things are happening(and maybe we need more police on that street), not that they're the same.  This can only be ascribed to you wanting to find a feminist "out to get men".

Like, there's no there there.


Really?  Let's go back a paragraph then:

"
Those boxes opened because they are all part of my stories. But my stories aren't only my stories-they are the experiences of my girl friends, my guy friends, my mentors, my parents. It's all the same stuff.

Part of the stuff is: every single woman I know has either been sexually abused, assaulted or harassed-every woman I know, all of my friends-of-friends-of-friends. Check it: that is 100%."
 
2013-12-17 12:22:09 PM

baconbeard: LasersHurt: To be fair to ikanreed, the article just says that every woman she knows has had one or more of 3 things done to them - it does NOT say that harassment is as bad as rape.

To be fair to everyone else, ikanreed is kind of wildly overreacting.

Everyone calm the hell down.

She's outraged, therefore she's right.


Who is outraged thus right?  I'm a little confused.
 
2013-12-17 12:22:55 PM

ikanreed: LasersHurt: To be fair to ikanreed, the article just says that every woman she knows has had one or more of 3 things done to them - it does NOT say that harassment is as bad as rape.

To be fair to everyone else, ikanreed is kind of wildly overreacting.

Everyone calm the hell down.

Oh come on, bringing "look at how unfair women are being to men" based on intentionally misreading a blog post some random place on the internet, into a thread about how there is legitimate sexism in my industry isn't really overreacting.  It's like "look, look at how hard men have it" without even the most basic of credible cases.

Feminism can go too far, but completely and willfully misconstruing something that's not even topical in order to justify measurable systemic sexism is normal.  That's what MRA types do.


You're not wrong, necessarily. But getting worked up and assuming things, namecalling, etc. - does not help. We don't know if anyone here is the MRA type - maybe they're just generic dickheads?

/yeah I know namecalling
 
2013-12-17 12:24:08 PM

ikanreed: baconbeard: LasersHurt: To be fair to ikanreed, the article just says that every woman she knows has had one or more of 3 things done to them - it does NOT say that harassment is as bad as rape.

To be fair to everyone else, ikanreed is kind of wildly overreacting.

Everyone calm the hell down.

She's outraged, therefore she's right.

Who is outraged thus right?  I'm a little confused.


It was a joke.
 
2013-12-17 12:24:38 PM

Telos: ikanreed: Telos:

*rolls eyes*

Oh, look, you made something up, and can't defend the most basic source of your outrage.  She didn't make an equivalence.

If I said "people have been murdered, stolen from, and harassed freely on this street for the last week"  I'm saying all 3 things are happening(and maybe we need more police on that street), not that they're the same.  This can only be ascribed to you wanting to find a feminist "out to get men".

Like, there's no there there.

Really?  Let's go back a paragraph then:

"
Those boxes opened because they are all part of my stories. But my stories aren't only my stories-they are the experiences of my girl friends, my guy friends, my mentors, my parents. It's all the same stuff.

Part of the stuff is: every single woman I know has either been sexually abused, assaulted or harassed-every woman I know, all of my friends-of-friends-of-friends. Check it: that is 100%."


The "same stuff" that lead to "the marginalization and standardization of beauty, cultural ideas of sex and sexual expression, the objectification and belittling of a full human form to a mere sack of well-appropriated body parts, fears of abuse and trauma" for both genders.

It's clearly there in the article. You're reading things into it, or failing to read the present text carefully.
 
2013-12-17 12:25:02 PM

Telos: ikanreed: Telos:

*rolls eyes*

Oh, look, you made something up, and can't defend the most basic source of your outrage.  She didn't make an equivalence.

If I said "people have been murdered, stolen from, and harassed freely on this street for the last week"  I'm saying all 3 things are happening(and maybe we need more police on that street), not that they're the same.  This can only be ascribed to you wanting to find a feminist "out to get men".

Like, there's no there there.

Really?  Let's go back a paragraph then:

"
Those boxes opened because they are all part of my stories. But my stories aren't only my stories-they are the experiences of my girl friends, my guy friends, my mentors, my parents. It's all the same stuff.

Part of the stuff is: every single woman I know has either been sexually abused, assaulted or harassed-every woman I know, all of my friends-of-friends-of-friends. Check it: that is 100%."


Wow, you have suck reading comprehension.
 
2013-12-17 12:26:16 PM

baconbeard: ikanreed: baconbeard: LasersHurt: To be fair to ikanreed, the article just says that every woman she knows has had one or more of 3 things done to them - it does NOT say that harassment is as bad as rape.

To be fair to everyone else, ikanreed is kind of wildly overreacting.

Everyone calm the hell down.

She's outraged, therefore she's right.

Who is outraged thus right?  I'm a little confused.

It was a joke.


Oh, I see, it was about me, but you got my gender wrong.  That's cool.  I'm right because people were basically just making things up, and any sort of serious reading reveals this.
 
2013-12-17 12:37:06 PM

ikanreed: Telos: ikanreed: Telos:

*rolls eyes*

Oh, look, you made something up, and can't defend the most basic source of your outrage.  She didn't make an equivalence.

If I said "people have been murdered, stolen from, and harassed freely on this street for the last week"  I'm saying all 3 things are happening(and maybe we need more police on that street), not that they're the same.  This can only be ascribed to you wanting to find a feminist "out to get men".

Like, there's no there there.

Really?  Let's go back a paragraph then:

"
Those boxes opened because they are all part of my stories. But my stories aren't only my stories-they are the experiences of my girl friends, my guy friends, my mentors, my parents. It's all the same stuff.

Part of the stuff is: every single woman I know has either been sexually abused, assaulted or harassed-every woman I know, all of my friends-of-friends-of-friends. Check it: that is 100%."

Wow, you have suck reading comprehension.


Right, because she says all the same "stuff..." and then the "the stuff is" abuse, assault and harassment.  But I'm wrong here.  *rolls eyes*

Sorry, but including minor violations to inflate your statistic is wrong.  It is wrong because it cheapens the more severe acts.

Furthermore, I wasn't trying to justify any sexual harassment in the tech world (of which I have witnessed none.)  The only harassment I've heard of anywhere in my professional life is from my ex who works at a logistics company (aka NOT the technology sector.)  It was constantly baffling to her, as well, because she has NEVER seen an office like this in her entire career.  A career which has included technology companies as well as fortune 500 companies.

The reality is a couple people had a side discussion about feminism itself, NOT about this specific article or even harassment in technology companies and I jumped in because it reminded me of something I read a couple weeks ago.  YOU decided that I was defending sexual harassment in the tech sector, and jumped all over it like the best of internet white knights.
 
2013-12-17 12:39:57 PM

Telos: ikanreed: Telos: ikanreed: Telos:

*rolls eyes*

Oh, look, you made something up, and can't defend the most basic source of your outrage.  She didn't make an equivalence.

If I said "people have been murdered, stolen from, and harassed freely on this street for the last week"  I'm saying all 3 things are happening(and maybe we need more police on that street), not that they're the same.  This can only be ascribed to you wanting to find a feminist "out to get men".

Like, there's no there there.

Really?  Let's go back a paragraph then:

"
Those boxes opened because they are all part of my stories. But my stories aren't only my stories-they are the experiences of my girl friends, my guy friends, my mentors, my parents. It's all the same stuff.

Part of the stuff is: every single woman I know has either been sexually abused, assaulted or harassed-every woman I know, all of my friends-of-friends-of-friends. Check it: that is 100%."

Wow, you have suck reading comprehension.

Right, because she says all the same "stuff..." and then the "the stuff is" abuse, assault and harassment.  But I'm wrong here.  *rolls eyes*

Sorry, but including minor violations to inflate your statistic is wrong.  It is wrong because it cheapens the more severe acts.

Furthermore, I wasn't trying to justify any sexual harassment in the tech world (of which I have witnessed none.)  The only harassment I've heard of anywhere in my professional life is from my ex who works at a logistics company (aka NOT the technology sector.)  It was constantly baffling to her, as well, because she has NEVER seen an office like this in her entire career.  A career which has included technology companies as well as fortune 500 companies.

The reality is a couple people had a side discussion about feminism itself, NOT about this specific article or even harassment in technology companies and I jumped in because it reminded me of something I read a couple weeks ago.  YOU decided that I was defending sexual harassme ...


Ok, I'll give you that assuming you were trying to be topical might have been an unreasonable assumption.  I won't give you the "all the same stuff" thing, because it reflects a poor understanding of what was meant.  Like, really poor.  Everyone had a story relating to one of those 3 things.  That's not a complicated interpretation of the phrase.
 
2013-12-17 12:47:29 PM

LasersHurt: The "same stuff" that lead to "the marginalization and standardization of beauty, cultural ideas of sex and sexual expression, the objectification and belittling of a full human form to a mere sack of well-appropriated body parts, fears of abuse and trauma" for both genders.

It's clearly there in the article. You're reading things into it, or failing to read the present text carefully.


Look, the problem here is that she wanted to inflate her statistic to show how bad things are for women.  If she had only included assault and abuse, she just wouldn't have had "100% of her friends."

If she had just included sexual assault it would only be 25%, and frankly if she just wanted to prove women were harassed and objectified she could have only included the harassment and probably gotten 100%.

She could have listed them separately, such as X% assaulted, Y% harassed, etc.  Instead she lumped them together into one whole as if they were the same.
 
2013-12-17 12:55:15 PM
Wow... that esaclated quickly you guys above...

I think women aren't driven to and don't thrive in software development for the same reason 90% of people aren't: we tend to be harsh, intellectually demeaning, anti-social, and unhelpful as a group.  We are those things because that's what drove us to learn.  People were harsh, demeaning, and anti-social, and unhelpful to us, so we learned everything ourselves, and think that is the best way to learn.  We also are very bad communicators and are bad teachers because we generally didn't grow up learning together with others.

That being said, and I may be projecting here: software engineers are some of the fairest minded people I know, and least biased. They are just equally "mean" to everyone in direct proportion to how much of their time they think you are wasting.
 
2013-12-17 12:56:07 PM

Telos: LasersHurt: The "same stuff" that lead to "the marginalization and standardization of beauty, cultural ideas of sex and sexual expression, the objectification and belittling of a full human form to a mere sack of well-appropriated body parts, fears of abuse and trauma" for both genders.

It's clearly there in the article. You're reading things into it, or failing to read the present text carefully.

Look, the problem here is that she wanted to inflate her statistic to show how bad things are for women.  If she had only included assault and abuse, she just wouldn't have had "100% of her friends."

If she had just included sexual assault it would only be 25%, and frankly if she just wanted to prove women were harassed and objectified she could have only included the harassment and probably gotten 100%.

She could have listed them separately, such as X% assaulted, Y% harassed, etc.  Instead she lumped them together into one whole as if they were the same.


I don't think your central argument here is valid. The author gave reasons why most people have body-image issues or sexual hangups - for BOTH genders. Your starting point seems invalid.
 
2013-12-17 12:56:29 PM

Clever Neologism: Wow... that esaclated quickly you guys above...

I think women aren't driven to and don't thrive in software development for the same reason 90% of people aren't: we tend to be harsh, intellectually demeaning, anti-social, and unhelpful as a group.  We are those things because that's what drove us to learn.  People were harsh, demeaning, and anti-social, and unhelpful to us, so we learned everything ourselves, and think that is the best way to learn.  We also are very bad communicators and are bad teachers because we generally didn't grow up learning together with others.

That being said, and I may be projecting here: software engineers are some of the fairest minded people I know, and least biased. They are just equally "mean" to everyone in direct proportion to how much of their time they think you are wasting.


So, 10% of men can be different, but all women are the same.  That's... kinda messed up.
 
2013-12-17 01:06:26 PM
Do you believe there are no generalized differences between the genders?
 
2013-12-17 01:06:55 PM

MrEricSir: "Differently" as in not wanting to be harassed at work. Which might sound simple enough, but even having anti-harassment policies is apparently quite polarizing when introduced to a culture of "brogrammers," i.e. insecure wanna-be fratboys.


No, differently as in wanting special recognition or accommodation of the fact that they're female.

Harassment is never OK, and if you ask even brogrammers, "Is it OK to intimidate or make uncomfortable someone because they're female?" they'll say no if they're not scum.  That said, some companies (tech or otherwise) or business units have a culture of hazing, pranking, machismo, and screwing with each other.  There is a huge managerial problem when they allow the wrong personality types to mix, or when they don't take action to ensure that new hires are comfortable where they are placed, it doesn't matter if they're male or female.

One very sticky problem for managers and HR in the modern workplace is differentiating between "harassment" and "sexual harassment", especially in the instance where someone doesn't know that they're potentially harassing another.  Taken most liberally, sexual harassment is whenever someone thinks that they've been harassed in a method relating to their gender, while more conservative individuals might want to put boundaries about what behavior and motivations can be considered as such.  For a real life example, people have filed sexual harassment claims for things as simple as posting/discussing a work attire policy (e.g. telling someone they shouldn't bare their midriff at work).  A female employee might feel embarrassed or sexualized because the workplace was declaring her attire unacceptable, but as a matter of sexual harassment, this is clearly in a different league than something like demanding sex for advancement within the company.

Depending on the person, they might want a dress code that is crystal clear about what is or is not acceptable work attire.  If you were a woman entering into an all-male office, you might appreciate a new dress code to accommodate you specifically, or you might be horrified that the subject was even an issue.
 
2013-12-17 01:21:13 PM

Clever Neologism: we tend to be harsh, intellectually demeaning, anti-social, and unhelpful as a group.  We are those things because that's what drove us to learn.  People were harsh, demeaning, and anti-social, and unhelpful to us, so we learned everything ourselves, and think that is the best way to learn.  We also are very bad communicators and are bad teachers because we generally didn't grow up learning together with others.


This wasn't true in any software development house I've worked in, at all.
 
2013-12-17 01:21:51 PM

gnosis301: Clever Neologism: we tend to be harsh, intellectually demeaning, anti-social, and unhelpful as a group.  We are those things because that's what drove us to learn.  People were harsh, demeaning, and anti-social, and unhelpful to us, so we learned everything ourselves, and think that is the best way to learn.  We also are very bad communicators and are bad teachers because we generally didn't grow up learning together with others.

This wasn't true in any software development house I've worked in, at all.


Good for you, I guess?
 
2013-12-17 01:25:10 PM

LasersHurt: gnosis301: Clever Neologism: we tend to be harsh, intellectually demeaning, anti-social, and unhelpful as a group.  We are those things because that's what drove us to learn.  People were harsh, demeaning, and anti-social, and unhelpful to us, so we learned everything ourselves, and think that is the best way to learn.  We also are very bad communicators and are bad teachers because we generally didn't grow up learning together with others.

This wasn't true in any software development house I've worked in, at all.

Good for you, I guess?


It was.  I also don't think what Clever said is true for a lot of people in our field.
 
2013-12-17 01:29:56 PM

gnosis301: LasersHurt: gnosis301: Clever Neologism: we tend to be harsh, intellectually demeaning, anti-social, and unhelpful as a group.  We are those things because that's what drove us to learn.  People were harsh, demeaning, and anti-social, and unhelpful to us, so we learned everything ourselves, and think that is the best way to learn.  We also are very bad communicators and are bad teachers because we generally didn't grow up learning together with others.

This wasn't true in any software development house I've worked in, at all.

Good for you, I guess?

It was.  I also don't think what Clever said is true for a lot of people in our field.


Well, sure, there are some it does not apply to. But it's also not made up, I've met plenty of folks like that over the years. I've met plenty of douchers who don't think women have a place there either. It's mostly the older guys, the beardy unix types, etc.

It's reminiscent of the trouble with girls in Gaming, kind of. There is/was a lot of pushback there. Still ground to be covered, and they pretty quickly got to be 50% of the gaming audience.

I think too many people want to dismiss it as women seeking special treatment, either because they haven't seen it personally or because they're part of the problem. But it's something that will "take care of itself" as long as decent folks remember to say something, and as long as women DON'T shy away from the fields.
 
2013-12-17 01:35:30 PM
I'm one of only maybe 15-20 women in my building of 200 people, and the only woman in my electronics lab of 20.  The only sexism I tend to encounter is generalized rather than directed specifically at me.  Mostly from guys unused to speaking in mixed company and will make demeaning remarks about women in casual conversation since they're accustomed to having a wholly receptive audience.
 
Ant
2013-12-17 01:50:06 PM

G33k3ss: The bullies in school become the bullies at work.


Geeks never become sexist assholes?
 
2013-12-17 02:14:38 PM

LasersHurt: Well, sure, there are some it does not apply to. But it's also not made up, I've met plenty of folks like that over the years.


It's a spectrum of behavior but the ones at the anti-social extreme tend to be the ones whose behaviors stick out and define the group. They also tend to be the ones who are the best at dealing with problems that require intense, almost superhuman, attention to details. If you need someone to analyze a month's worth of net traffic to figure out why every three hours on odd numbered days packet error increase by several orders of magnitude, they're the best person for the job. They're not the type to see the forest but they're really good at seeing the tree... and the bark... and the little burrowing insects with tiny red spots on the  tips of their legs. In most jobs their personality would have gotten them the boot long ago but since their obsessive attention to detail is a very valuable skill, they can get away with some rather unorthodox personality quirks. For those not use to dealing with that type of person, it can feel like they're directing anger at you personally when in reality they're annoyed that an attempt to engage them in small talk has gotten in between them and the problem they're working on.
 
2013-12-17 02:15:35 PM
Hint #1: If it's a brohive, you don't have to worry about getting an interview with them in the first place if you're not a guy.

Hint #2: It is so incredibly rare for any place to still be a brohive that you are more likely to win the lottery than to worry about getting an interview with them.
 
2013-12-17 02:16:33 PM

Fubini: There is a huge managerial problem when they allow the wrong personality types to mix, or when they don't take action to ensure that new hires are comfortable where they are placed, it doesn't matter if they're male or female.


This is very true in my experience.  It's not that females are treated differently, it's that they are often treated the same.  The same goofing, pranks, caustic comments, etc. are not biased based on gender, but based on someone just being another meatsack in the room.  A guy calling another guy a douche is not the same as a guy calling a woman a douche, though the intent may be the same and is not intended as a reference on gender at all.  If you have a raw team that is high performing and a candidate asks specifically about the female culture or to speak with other females in the office that would raise a red flag.
 
2013-12-17 02:17:15 PM

pkellmey: Hint #1: If it's a brohive, you don't have to worry about getting an interview with them in the first place if you're not a guy.

Hint #2: It is so incredibly rare for any place to still be a brohive that you are more likely to win the lottery than to worry about getting an interview with them.


Markedly untrue.  I'm not sure what leads you to conclude either point.
 
2013-12-17 02:19:51 PM

Clever Neologism: Wow... that esaclated quickly you guys above...

I think women aren't driven to and don't thrive in software development for the same reason 90% of people aren't: we tend to be harsh, intellectually demeaning, anti-social, and unhelpful as a group.  We are those things because that's what drove us to learn.  People were harsh, demeaning, and anti-social, and unhelpful to us, so we learned everything ourselves, and think that is the best way to learn.  We also are very bad communicators and are bad teachers because we generally didn't grow up learning together with others.

That being said, and I may be projecting here: software engineers are some of the fairest minded people I know, and least biased. They are just equally "mean" to everyone in direct proportion to how much of their time they think you are wasting.


You seem bitter... ;)  I won't speak for all programmers, but I actually like helping people.  I always helped out with peoples' labs in college, I try to make my coworkers' lives easier (even if they are ungrateful and don't realize it.)  I've never noticed other programmers to be unhelpful either... not that I've worked with tons of other coders.
 
2013-12-17 02:21:58 PM
Isn't the very term "brogrammers" sexist and offensive?
 
2013-12-17 02:22:23 PM

mjbok: Fubini: There is a huge managerial problem when they allow the wrong personality types to mix, or when they don't take action to ensure that new hires are comfortable where they are placed, it doesn't matter if they're male or female.

This is very true in my experience.  It's not that females are treated differently, it's that they are often treated the same.  The same goofing, pranks, caustic comments, etc. are not biased based on gender, but based on someone just being another meatsack in the room.  A guy calling another guy a douche is not the same as a guy calling a woman a douche, though the intent may be the same and is not intended as a reference on gender at all.  If you have a raw team that is high performing and a candidate asks specifically about the female culture or to speak with other females in the office that would raise a red flag.


That's what happens sometimes.  But seriously, it's not all the time, and you should maybe speak or read about the stories of women in tech.  It's not "sorta immature culture".  It's actual bigots driving the core of the problem.
 
2013-12-17 02:24:41 PM
Wow. Did /r/mensrights link here or something?
 
2013-12-17 02:25:37 PM

baconbeard: Isn't the very term "brogrammers" sexist and offensive?


Usually it's okay to call out the specific people engaged in sexism without getting an entire gender.  I think the whole "tolerate our intolerance" argument is really played out, and I see no reason to take it to task over and over.
 
2013-12-17 02:26:17 PM

Aexia: Wow. Did /r/mensrights link here or something?


No, Fark's always been a bit like that.
 
2013-12-17 02:28:20 PM

LasersHurt: Telos: LasersHurt: The "same stuff" that lead to "the marginalization and standardization of beauty, cultural ideas of sex and sexual expression, the objectification and belittling of a full human form to a mere sack of well-appropriated body parts, fears of abuse and trauma" for both genders.

It's clearly there in the article. You're reading things into it, or failing to read the present text carefully.

Look, the problem here is that she wanted to inflate her statistic to show how bad things are for women.  If she had only included assault and abuse, she just wouldn't have had "100% of her friends."

If she had just included sexual assault it would only be 25%, and frankly if she just wanted to prove women were harassed and objectified she could have only included the harassment and probably gotten 100%.

She could have listed them separately, such as X% assaulted, Y% harassed, etc.  Instead she lumped them together into one whole as if they were the same.

I don't think your central argument here is valid. The author gave reasons why most people have body-image issues or sexual hangups - for BOTH genders. Your starting point seems invalid.


No, she mentioned guys... and then goes on to talk about abuse, assault and harassment in terms of only women.  100% the women she knows.  That was my point earlier when I said " feminist culture is embracing absurdities, such as equating harassment to rape, to the point where it even poisons messages of unity. "

She talks about everyone, then switches to a statement only about how women are hurt, then switches back to talking about everyone.  It's out of place even without trying to inflate her statistic.  It's out of place, yet she even draws more attention to it by using a larger font.  Clearly the fact that 100% of her friends have been harassed (or assaulted/abused) is more important than how many men have been abused.

The sad fact is I liked the article, I liked her overall message (mostly.)  That statement just stands out so much as being clumsy and destructive to the message, which is worsened by including harassment alongside sexual assault and abuse.
 
2013-12-17 02:28:58 PM

ikanreed: That's what happens sometimes. But seriously, it's not all the time, and you should maybe speak or read about the stories of women in tech. It's not "sorta immature culture". It's actual bigots driving the core of the problem.


I've worked in tech for two decades.  Have I seen sexism?  Sure.  I saw it in retail and the food industry also.  Is it the norm?  No.  Have I seen it both ways?  Absolutely.  I've seen it from both sides.  I've seen women that prefer to hire women and have a mostly women oriented team (especially in QA).  I've seen support (Tier III) that was apprehensive about adding a woman to the team due to how harsh the team is.  I've seen it both ways.  It's written quite a bit about the bro-centric sexism of developers like it is the rule.  I see it as an unacceptable exception, but far from the rule.

As an additional point I have seen both men and women who were qualified for a job opening passed over due to concerns about them fitting into the culture.
 
2013-12-17 02:29:50 PM

Telos: LasersHurt: Telos: LasersHurt: The "same stuff" that lead to "the marginalization and standardization of beauty, cultural ideas of sex and sexual expression, the objectification and belittling of a full human form to a mere sack of well-appropriated body parts, fears of abuse and trauma" for both genders.

It's clearly there in the article. You're reading things into it, or failing to read the present text carefully.

Look, the problem here is that she wanted to inflate her statistic to show how bad things are for women.  If she had only included assault and abuse, she just wouldn't have had "100% of her friends."

If she had just included sexual assault it would only be 25%, and frankly if she just wanted to prove women were harassed and objectified she could have only included the harassment and probably gotten 100%.

She could have listed them separately, such as X% assaulted, Y% harassed, etc.  Instead she lumped them together into one whole as if they were the same.

I don't think your central argument here is valid. The author gave reasons why most people have body-image issues or sexual hangups - for BOTH genders. Your starting point seems invalid.

No, she mentioned guys... and then goes on to talk about abuse, assault and harassment in terms of only women.  100% the women she knows.  That was my point earlier when I said " feminist culture is embracing absurdities, such as equating harassment to rape, to the point where it even poisons messages of unity. "

She talks about everyone, then switches to a statement only about how women are hurt, then switches back to talking about everyone.  It's out of place even without trying to inflate her statistic.  It's out of place, yet she even draws more attention to it by using a larger font.  Clearly the fact that 100% of her friends have been harassed (or assaulted/abused) is more important than how many men have been abused.

The sad fact is I liked the article, I liked her overall message (mostly.)  That statemen ...


Okay, you've identified an actual problem.  Congratulations.  But it's just some random woman's blog, in the end, and it's a subtle, minor mistake.
 
2013-12-17 02:30:17 PM

MrEricSir: Fubini: Talking to women in the industry, I've heard equal amounts of the opinion that they do/don't want to be treated differently as a woman.

"Differently" as in not wanting to be harassed at work. Which might sound simple enough, but even having anti-harassment policies is apparently quite polarizing when introduced to a culture of "brogrammers," i.e. insecure wanna-be fratboys.


The problem with harassment is that it's not:

a) Objective (ie: If you're going 45 in a 35, you're speeding)
b) subjective from the part of the harasser (ie: Saying "Sleep with me for a promotion".  That's harassment, and you KNOW IT).

It's subjective from the part of the VICTIM.  And while there's a LOT of things that are quite obviously harassment ("Sleep with me for a promotion"), there's a lot more things that are iffy, especially in an engineering culture that's favored somewhat crude jokes ("donglegate") and a very non-PC outlook on life (kerfuffle around master-slave, donglegate).  And when that hits feminism and the current immediate escalation way of thinking ("donglegate".  Seriously, the proper response was not immediate Twitter-shaming.), bad things happen.  And since there's a very real feeling on the part of the engineers that they (the women) are coming to play in our (programmers) sandbox, they should observe some/all of the customs of the sandbox.

Especially since a woman can ruin your entire life with one "false" (or actually false) harassment complaint, since harassment is a "guilty until innocent and even then" crime.

/And that's not to say that there aren't misogynistic "brogrammers".
//And in case you can't tell, I think that donglegate was a perfect example of the worst excesses of both sides.
 
2013-12-17 02:30:30 PM

Telos: LasersHurt: Telos: LasersHurt: The "same stuff" that lead to "the marginalization and standardization of beauty, cultural ideas of sex and sexual expression, the objectification and belittling of a full human form to a mere sack of well-appropriated body parts, fears of abuse and trauma" for both genders.

It's clearly there in the article. You're reading things into it, or failing to read the present text carefully.

Look, the problem here is that she wanted to inflate her statistic to show how bad things are for women.  If she had only included assault and abuse, she just wouldn't have had "100% of her friends."

If she had just included sexual assault it would only be 25%, and frankly if she just wanted to prove women were harassed and objectified she could have only included the harassment and probably gotten 100%.

She could have listed them separately, such as X% assaulted, Y% harassed, etc.  Instead she lumped them together into one whole as if they were the same.

I don't think your central argument here is valid. The author gave reasons why most people have body-image issues or sexual hangups - for BOTH genders. Your starting point seems invalid.

No, she mentioned guys... and then goes on to talk about abuse, assault and harassment in terms of only women.  100% the women she knows.  That was my point earlier when I said " feminist culture is embracing absurdities, such as equating harassment to rape, to the point where it even poisons messages of unity. "

She talks about everyone, then switches to a statement only about how women are hurt, then switches back to talking about everyone.  It's out of place even without trying to inflate her statistic.  It's out of place, yet she even draws more attention to it by using a larger font.  Clearly the fact that 100% of her friends have been harassed (or assaulted/abused) is more important than how many men have been abused.

The sad fact is I liked the article, I liked her overall message (mostly.)  That statemen ...


I think your dogged determination to ONLY see it one way is what stands out as clumsy and destructive to the message.
 
2013-12-17 02:32:55 PM
A 20% female workplace is more than sufficient to guarantee that most jobs are going to be socially equitable, no one's going to be a dick to you just for being a woman in that kind of environment.

A lot of the problems seem to be that there's an expectation that female employees should be treated  better than employees in general, perhaps from an outsider's misunderstanding regarding how... well, kind of shiatty a lot of tech jobs can be, socially.  They're office labor, there's always going to be some sort of drama/dickery going on, whether you're a man or a woman.
 
2013-12-17 02:34:31 PM

Jim_Callahan: A 20% female workplace is more than sufficient to guarantee that most jobs are going to be socially equitable, no one's going to be a dick to you just for being a woman in that kind of environment.

A lot of the problems seem to be that there's an expectation that female employees should be treated  better than employees in general, perhaps from an outsider's misunderstanding regarding how... well, kind of shiatty a lot of tech jobs can be, socially.  They're office labor, there's always going to be some sort of drama/dickery going on, whether you're a man or a woman.


As noted above, men make up 9% of the nursing demographic, but this is not seen as a problem and many male nurses have horror stories to tell.
 
2013-12-17 02:35:14 PM

Jim_Callahan: A lot of the problems seem to be that there's an expectation that female employees should be treated  better than employees in general


You're on of a handful of people to claim this today, you wanna tell me what makes you say that?
 
2013-12-17 02:37:17 PM

Ant: Geeks never become sexist assholes?


I believe the point has been missed.  I'm saying that people are people and they're going to form cliques and social groups that exclude others.  It's pretty much the whole basis of society. :)  So, either rub the blue mud in your belly button to fit in, or go find something more comfortable to your own situation.  Alternatively, you can take most of it for empty posturing, blowing off steam, and/or trying to have a good time at work without worrying about someone else getting butthurt about it all the time.

I'm much more concerned about the other end of the equation, personally.  I'd much rather be hired because I'm the best person for a position rather than for owning a vagina and vaguely knowing the difference between a monitor and and actual CPU. :)  Luckily enough, the organization I currently work for has a lot of competent women working in the IT department, and only one individual seems to require the special treatment or considerations noted in the article.
 
2013-12-17 02:38:44 PM

ikanreed: That's what happens sometimes.  But seriously, it's not all the time, and you should maybe speak or read about the stories of women in tech.  It's not "sorta immature culture".  It's actual bigots driving the core of the problem.


Really? Please enlighten us.

When I hear stories of sexism in the technology industry, they're usually on the level of "The guy behind me can't get over the word dongle." I have rarely heard the story where, "I was denied a promotion unless I slept with my boss."

No one is saying that sexism doesn't exist in the tech industry, but we are saying that relative to other industries, there's nothing particularly sexist about it.

Way up at the top of this thread I pointed out that engineering fields have abysmal female representation, even compared to computer science. Aeronautical engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering are 7%, 5% and 5% female, respectively.

So what's the problem? Computer technology is something like 25% female, which puts it squarely "average" in the realm of female representation among all STEM fields. Considering that we're "average" where do you get off saying that we're so awful for women? Do we treat our women horribly or something? Do the women in computing have an awful quality of life?
 
2013-12-17 02:38:56 PM

ikanreed: Okay, you've identified an actual problem.  Congratulations.  But it's just some random woman's blog, in the end, and it's a subtle, minor mistake.


A) It's not a blog, it's some kind of yoga news site.
B) It wasn't that subtle, you're just on a rampage about sexism so you couldn't listen to the opposing point.

LasersHurt: I think your dogged determination to ONLY see it one way is what stands out as clumsy and destructive to the message.


Said by a guy who seems doggedly determined to ignore my point.
 
2013-12-17 02:42:05 PM

Telos: LasersHurt: I think your dogged determination to ONLY see it one way is what stands out as clumsy and destructive to the message.

Said by a guy who seems doggedly determined to ignore my point.


NO U is not an argument. And I don't agree with you because I don't think you've proven your argument, at all. Reading the source material, I just don't come off with the same interpretation you do.
 
2013-12-17 02:45:02 PM

LasersHurt: Jim_Callahan: A lot of the problems seem to be that there's an expectation that female employees should be treated  better than employees in general

You're on of a handful of people to claim this today, you wanna tell me what makes you say that?


As a field, computer technology employs an average number of women relative to other STEM fields.

Why is computing singled out in particular?

http://www.aauw.org/files/2010/03/Why-So-Few.pdf
 
2013-12-17 02:45:44 PM

Fubini: As a field, computer technology employs an average number of women relative to other STEM fields.

Why is computing singled out in particular?

http://www.aauw.org/files/2010/03/Why-So-Few.pdf


Sorry, figures 10 and 11 illustrate my point.
 
2013-12-17 02:46:02 PM

Fubini: LasersHurt: Jim_Callahan: A lot of the problems seem to be that there's an expectation that female employees should be treated  better than employees in general

You're on of a handful of people to claim this today, you wanna tell me what makes you say that?

As a field, computer technology employs an average number of women relative to other STEM fields.

Why is computing singled out in particular?

http://www.aauw.org/files/2010/03/Why-So-Few.pdf


This has nothing to do with the question I asked him?
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report