11–20 of 77 posts
While this is an interesting article, I have a minor quibble with the title - does the author really mean that her team is "predominantly male", which has a very different meaning than "male dominated"? One just expresses a ratio of genders, whereas the other implies a distinct control and power dynamic.
Male dominated also means "predominantly male", though, in common usage.
She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak. > This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.…
How I wish that (at least for the remaining few conferences where you can submit a proposal without having to be a "silver sponsor"), submissions were "blind". No name submitted, you get a reference number back to confirm your submission.
Focus on merit, not gender/name recognition/budget.
She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak. > This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.…
If a manager hires a person who needs a bit more structure in order to stay focused, that person should be given a little more structure. Or in this case, if a manager hires someone who has been pushed down her whole life and has learned to fade into the background so as not to upset men around her, the manager should most definitely spend some time helping her get accustomed to speaking her mind and advocating for herself. It's just good managing.
This way, she'll be able to contribute much more to the team that she would if she was still worried about fitting in. And her knowledge can be spread to new female employees, which helps move the inequality further towards equality in the long run.
I don't see how this "special treatment" is in any way detrimental.
Bryana refers several times to a fear she has been chosen or favoured due to her gender, and because of the positive discrimination we have allowed to happen in our industry. Positive discrimination is not positive, because discrimination is never positive, no matter which group it favours. And here we see the consequences - a cohort of women who will suffer the paranoia of not knowing whether they were selected on m…
Unless you're hiring at random, a whole host of other value judgements are made per candidate on top of any kind of objective technical merit. If these judgements slant toward inclusionary I think the positive feedback in increasing diversity is worth a lot more than the negatives you mention (imposter syndrome is felt across the entire industry and ignoring the added value of diversity to placate the egos of misogynists has it's own delicious irony).
This is coming from a white male who is acutely aware he only has his job because he looks the part; imposter syndrome never stops being a bitch.
She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak. > This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.…
I agree with you that "special treatment" does not benefit anybody, but there is so much misogyny (aka "special treatment") that counter-treatment is not just desirable, but necessary.
She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak. > This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.…
She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak. > This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.…
What kind of manager treats every single employee the same, regardless of differences in talent, background, needs, etc? If a manager hires a person who needs a bit more structure in order to stay focused, that person should be given a little more structure. Or in this case, if a manager hires someone who has been pushed down her whole life and has learned to fade into the background so as not to upset men around her…
I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status.
In the very same article the author laments not knowing whether she is being offered more responsibility because she is a woman or if it's because she's seen as capable and competent. It's a completely valid assumption, because she's already been offered more responsibility because she is a woman.
She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak. > This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.…
But yes, I agree. It is sexist to push her to do things BECAUSE she is a woman. She should be pushed to do things regardless of her gender.
Any emphasis on sex is sexist. Any emphasis on race is racist. We aren't defined by the color of our skin or what we have between our legs. Unfortunately, people regularly do sexist and racist things in an attempt to be "anti-sexist" or "anti-racist", and it just doesn't do any long-term good.
I like to call it "moonwalking", because it gives the illusion that you're moving forward, but really you're just stealthily moving backward...
She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak. > This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.…
Encouraging and incentivizing a female employee to speak at a conference is not reverse sexism or sexism. It's simply providing a pathway to level the playing field. The cultural meme of reverse racism or reverse sexism is simply used to continue in our racist or sexist behaviors unapologetically. These are still cultural issues to deal with, despite the progress we have made on them, and therefore there is a real po…
Bryana refers several times to a fear she has been chosen or favoured due to her gender, and because of the positive discrimination we have allowed to happen in our industry. Positive discrimination is not positive, because discrimination is never positive, no matter which group it favours. And here we see the consequences - a cohort of women who will suffer the paranoia of not knowing whether they were selected on m…
Exactly. When an entity (i.e. a company, tech conference, etc.) chooses someone for any reason outside of merit, it's discrimination, and marginalizes the hard work of others.
Two more candidates, one again is more technically qualified but the second grew up in a market Im targeting for expansion. Again, I take the second because the circumstances of his birth are worth more to me than difference in developed ability.
Every choice made is a combination of hundreds of culminating value judgements and to pretend that we can create some objective score based on merit is intellectually dishonest; to pretend that we want to ignore the other factors is unhealthy.