Girl, Bye
doomcclanahan.tumblr.com
doomcclanahan.tumblr.com
Matt doesn’t feel comfortable around you. He’s worried that you either don’t like him for some reason, or you’re mad at him. He thinks maybe you’re upset about his recent promotion, because it means you’ll have to do more work to cover for his newfound absence on the team
to
What we’re really saying here is that your unreconcilable feelings toward my lack of enthusiasm for you as a person might distract you from getting your work done.
Seems like an enormous leap.
Here's some advice:
1. Take a breath. 2. Do not vent to your friends. They're your friends. Their job is to be your echo chamber, which is only going to heat you up instead of calming you down. 3. Take another breath. 4. Now try to come up with a rational, constructive way forward.
The simplest, most reasonable response to this little intervention by your manager is the most obvious: tell him you're surprised, that you have no problem with your co-worker's success, and that if there's concerns they're free to talk to you directly, as you didn't realize there was a problem in the first place.
Then move the hell on.
This is the other person's problem, not yours, and escalating it like this, turning it into some personal, angry vendetta, only makes things worse.
And before folks suggest I wouldn't offer this advice to a man in this situation, rest assured, I would. In fact, I've personally been on the other side of exchanges like this. It's incredibly easy to stew and vent and transform the exchange from a stupid misunderstanding into a personal vendetta, with them cast as villain and you cast as misunderstood victim. And god knows it feels good... how exhilarating is it to get self-righteously pissed off? It's very addictive. Dangerously so.
The solution, regardless of the genders involved, is to be mature, erring on the side of assuming it's a basic human misunderstanding.
It's part of being an adult in a world where not everyone else is.
But. But. Consider an alternative hypothesis; that the author really did experience a bit of nasty, petty sexism.
In that case, responses like yours at best sweep the problem under the rug, and at worst patronizingly pat the woman on the head and tell her not to be hysterical.
In other words, if this is a real problem, your undeniably good advice actually isn't constructive towards fixing the root issue. It's allowing it to perpetuate.
And raging on Tumblr is?
Look, if there's some deeply embedded injustice going on, here, it's not evident from this single exchange.
If this single exchange is part of a broader pattern with this person, that's something a manager and HR can help deal with, and you would be very well advised to keep cool in order to avoid escalating the situation further. Maintaining the moral high-ground isn't just about ideals, it's also practical advice for winning out in an exchange like this.
If this exchange is part of a larger, company-wide or societal trend, speaking about it rationally is still the better course as, right now, it's very hard to take this person seriously. Without additional context, this just looks like an insecure 20-something who's just struggling with their first workplace confrontation.
To some up: I can think of no scenario where behaving as this person has done will improve the situation, whether it's a one-off, or something systemic.
Edit:
Incidentally, it's entirely possible that this person raged out on their blog as part of processing this whole thing, then stepped back and started looking for a constructive path forward.
If that's the case, great.
Everything I've written, here, presumes that this post represents their definitive reaction to the situation, which may be entirely unfair.
Look, I don't know what the truth is here. To some extent I don't care. But I do know that there is a pervasive problem with sexism in tech, and I know that every time you or I publicly comment on it, we take a side.
If you show support, you're sending the message to everyone that that discrimination is not cool.
If you publicly undermine the reliability or emotional state of the reporter, you are actively re-affirming the status quo and denying that there is a problem. If you doubt the reliability of someone, do it privately. Don't comment at all. As it is, I can only assume that you actively oppose the growing movement to try and solve this problem.
Speech acts matter. Even online.
Where did I say she should do that?
I said she should be mature and maintain the moral high ground. I didn't say she should shut up.
Perhaps you're reading more into my words than is actually there?
If you publicly undermine the reliability or emotional state of the reporter, you are actively re-affirming the status quo and denying that there is a problem.
If you assume all workplace confrontations between man and woman represent some form of sexism, you diminish the actual struggles of women everywhere.
----
As a related aside, Dr. King had a few words to say along these lines, including:
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.
It would seem you would've told King he should keep his observations to himself.
Negating and ignoring the subjective experience of women is very root of the problem in question. And that's exactly what you're doing!
Also, white males quoting MLK at minorities to get them to behave is so cliche, it's actually a pretty reliable signal of bad faith. I would advise you to avoid it in the future.
You do realize you can criticize someone of being a bad actor without aiding and abetting sexism.
Can't you?
Or would you have me believe that criticizing, say, the Black Panthers or the IRA for their actions is basically racist, too?
Also, white males quoting MLK at minorities to get them to behave is so cliche, it's actually a pretty reliable signal of bad faith.
And not learning anything from illuminating, historical analogies, and the wisdom of luminaries from those struggles, is evidence of willful ignorance.
The fact that you assume I'm a "white male", and therefore that my quoting a black man is "cliche" is also borderline racist... Would it have been better if I quoted Ghandi? Jesus? Which leaders espousing views of peace, justice, and understanding in the face of adversity would you prefer I'd have quoted, given your assumptions about my gender and ethnicity?
Stuff happens. Is your default assumption that the stuff is sexism in action?
Look, there is sexism. I don't deny it. You know it, I know it, and everyone who isn't actively in denial knows it.
But there are also honest misunderstandings. And there are personal, petty actions that are just because people are petty. Even if the recipient is female, it isn't always sexism.
So, when a situation happens, what is your default assumption? Do you immediately assume that it's sexism (or racism, or ageism, or whatever happens to best fit the identity of the recipient)?
I suggest that the default assumption should be that it's accidental and/or just pettiness. When a pattern develops (like, yes, this person is petty and vindictive, but only to females), then you can claim sexism. And then you should challenge it, rather than let it slide.
Do you have to believe every anecdote? Of course not. Should you let those women have a voice to air their perceived grievances, without stifling them in the name of "fairness" or "defaults"? To do any less is the very definition of institutional sexism.
I'm all for fighting sexism in tech, but I'm not interested in being an ideological robot.
> If you doubt the reliability of someone, do it privately. Don't comment at all. As it is, I can only assume that you actively oppose the growing movement to try and solve this problem.
You are advocating for HN to cease being a discussion forum and to become an instrument of political propaganda. No thanks.
If I wanted to effectively promote animal rights socially I would not affiliate myself with PETA. Champion the articles that have a clear message and reflect your values, not just any opportunity to cheer for your team.
You'll come cross as being a lot more trustworthy if you're honest about what you stand for.
> Speech acts matter. Even online.
To my point: every time the reader sees disinformation they lose a little more faith in your movement.
Actually, I'd say GPs advice is the right course of action, in part precisely because real sexism might be involved. In addition to providing a productive way forward if that is not the case, it also avoids an overreaction which provides an excuse for (and thus masks the sexism of) any adverse action in the future.
It doesn't sweep anything under the rug, in fact, it is the best approach for bringing what is actually happening out in the open (rather than escalating the one clear, undebatable problem in the situation under discussion, which is that people are acting based on unsubstantiated assumptions about others motivations.)
It frustrates me that this kind of stuff gets upvoted -- often far more than more even-handed writing that looks for a real path forward instead of someone to blame -- and then gets a lot of dismissive commentary. This only helps reinforce battle lines. It doesn't generally make men sympathetic to what women face; it doesn't propose an effective path forward; it doesn't provide new tools or mental models for genuinely improving things.
Men blame women for the fact that women feel crapped on. Women blame men for the fact that women feel crapped on. Neither of these positions gets us to a place where women stop feeling crapped on. Neither gives a new way to view the problem space so we can stop pointing fingers and start working together better.
If I were to nitpick, I'd say some interventions are appropriate, but only when adding context or information, and when the tone of the conversation makes them welcome.
(EDIT- spelling and clarity)
Here's a key example: "... most importantly and egregiously, pretend to accept and tolerate conversation and ideas that I find degrading, disgusting, and sexist."
Did such conversation actually happen with these specific coworkers, or does the writer just assume such by lumping all Heterosexual. White. Males. into one rotting bin? ?
Explicitly sexist (let alone "rapey") conversation in the workplace is actionable. There is very low tolerance for behavior contributing to a hostile workplace pretty much everywhere in the U.S. nowadays (for legal exposure, if nothing else) -- the author gives no indication that she ever initiated or pursued any report of inappropriate behavior to H.R. or superiors.
Anyway, a narrative riddled with comments like, "bro-bots", "rage-y, racist white dudes", "straight male rage against women", or "vast and exasperating patchwork of male insecurity" indicates zero interest in constructive, rational dialogue.
In closing, she includes, "I vented relentlessly to my girlfriends and my gay friends...". I found it unsurprising that she lacks straight male friends with whom she feels capable of candid conversation.
How is this person so sure of this? I have no idea what the orientation of anyone I work with is... I can eliminate "homosexual" or "heterosexual" for most of them, as they have mentioned ____friends, but certainly cannot eliminate "bisexual"...
I was once called into HR because I made someone feel uncomfortable by not saying hello to them that morning. I was intent on putting out a fire that was causing $1,000.00's worth of losses per minute. That was not important, because I made someone feel uncomfortable.
My discomfort was secondary in all situations that summer. If you think that sexism only works one way, think again. I wasn't part of the girls club. Many, certainly not all, of these women conducted their "locker room" talk in my presence.
There were inappropriate remarks, vulgar remarks, gentle teasing and even full blown harassment. Any man would lose a career over some of the things they'd talk about... or my ass they'd grab.
Professionalism is professionalism. One thing that stands out though, the women would continually accuse the men of the office of being sexist pigs, myself included.
The commenters that preceded me would do well to remember her article is a venting on Tumblr, and not the conversation she had with her co-workers or manager. Denigrating her tumblr post for being an inappropriate work attitude misses the point.
People probably think it's cliche because she uses the air conditioning is patriarchy argument.
And your response is another, classic example of the same problem; you're willing to give the guy in the story the benefit of the doubt while summarily dismissing the woman's complaint.
In other words, in a literal case of "he said, she said" you side with the male by default. Uncool.
In other words, when a woman writes an entire post about an experience: "I perceive sexism at my workplace", your immediate reaction is "your perception is invalid, given the facts!" even though you don't work there and don't know any of the people involved.
Sexism.
I apologize for the confrontational tone, but I am so frustrated by the casual misogyny among otherwise intelligent people on venues like HN.
This is true regardless of whether you find their rhetoric agreeable or not.
I am debating flagging this piece. I see no good coming of it and I am frustrated that this stuff gets upvoted and then verbally pissed on when better stuff gets ignored.
I actually think the company in question handled this really well. It will be interesting to see what they do next though, I would honestly have troubles with this person if I had to go back to work with them after this.
> men readily speak up to disagree with us, rarely speak up to agree, validate, genuinely encourage, etc.
There are men in this very thread stressing the importance of speaking up for women regardless of facts in all public conversation as a political action.
Aside from that, no one should expect anyone else to go to bat for them (and they should expect to get called out on their mistakes). It's the way the world works for men and women.
This is what I submitted today (yes, I wrote it -- not really relevant to why I am aggravated): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453412
It has one upvote and no comments. Meanwhile, plenty of people are happy to piss and moan about how this woman is Doing It Wrong, upvote this and fill it up with ugly comments.
I would like to see a great deal more focus on how to solve this. This is not it.
Having flagged this piece, I plan to move on. I think this does not help anyone.
I do agree with some of your points though. Focusing on (and talking to) women who are succeeding in tech would be much more productive than hostile, aggressive or "ironic" feminism. That would include this piece. I don't know how an author can talk about rapey bros then complain that someone uses the word "chicks". If anything her ad hominem is much worse.
I liked this from your post:
> We go looking for an obstacle to break through and fail to find it. We show up equipped with tools to destroy a barricade only to find there is no barricade and the people we are facing feel threatened by and unwelcoming of us because we are weirdly armed to the teeth for a battle that should not happen, and if it does happen, it harms the cause of women rather than helping women.
I would argue that this is what lukev is doing in this thread and like you say, it's not winning any converts.
I think the only thing I really disagree with in your stance is that you greatly over estimate the support system available to men. There's a reason women now outnumber men in higher education. While the stories of master/apprentice, captain/crew are nice, the reality is most men are extremely isolated and left to fend for themselves. Just like women.
I think there are important differences. I think I just have a lot more work to do to adequately convey them.
I notice it (my piece) still doesn't have more upvotes. So presumably you did not upvote it. Nor did you comment there. You commented on it here. I will suggest that keeps the focus on a piece you think is doing it wrong and does nothing to redirect focus to a piece that is at least trying to look for real answers.
Anyway, I have work to do.
Thank you for the comment. Take care.
I commented here because I strongly disagree that this type of public blasting of hr issues is appropriate.
Your piece is definitely sensible and well written even if I don't agree with it.
You aren't obligated to upvote it. But upvote does not denote agreement per se.
/pedantic
...
> You can upvote it to say "Yes, I would like to see more of this on HN."
I'd do a lot more of the latter if not for the former. Because HN uses the same mechanism for both I tend to avoid up-voting stories unless they are stories I want to bookmark for later reference. If they are just interesting but not something I think I'll need to refer to later I avoid up-voting so as to not clutter up my bookmarks.
I wish HN separated up-voting from bookmarking, like Reddit does.
You're drawing a false dichotomy. The third option (other than going to his manager or being a jerk) would have been to realize that not everyone at work is going to be his friend, and not complain about feeling uncomfortable because this woman wasn't acting towards him in the way he assumed she should.
A mature person would only complain to his manager about someone's behavior if it was clearly in violation of societal norms (hostile, racist, sexist, etc.). Feeling vaguely uncomfortable about somebody doesn't fall into that category.
The fact that there are so few female programmers shows that the problem is education and culture. Take kids' books - 95% of the time it's the boy who goes on adventure, and the girl just sits there waiting to be rescued or given by her father to the male hero. Then you go to toy store and the girl toys are all about makeup and nail polish, while the boys get to actually do stuff. I really don't understand how women can take this shit, and I say this as a white male.
This could play out exactly the same between two females or two males.
This is nothing more than a communication breakdown. "Matt thinks..." because Matt has to come to some plausible conclusion in his own mind. Nevermind if it's wrong, it's the best explanation he can find and we should respect that.
Now it's both of your responsibility, as social human beings wishing to maintain a professional relationship, to honestly convey your position to each other. If his accusation is blatantly false, don't use it to fuel your arguments, speak from your understanding of the situation. Now listen to his.
"Oh dear, aren't we silly, going off in tangents in our minds without any concrete evidence of these things actually being true." "I'm glad we talked."
Also, rattling off 100 ways in which you hate Matt is suspect. I don't like any of those things either, but I try to refrain from shit talking. If Matt wants to talk sports, I'll entertain it. Eventually he'll learn how shallow my interests are, maybe via body language or even a direct statement, and we'll discuss something else from then on.
The part where you offensively generalize what you think are typical male and female interests? There's the sexism.
I would feel uncomfortable around her too if she brought this attitude into the work place.
Side note: Please use contrast in your design choices if you're going to write multi paragraph essays. My eyes hurt!
Somebody so deadset against getting along with people and making friends probably shouldn't be surprised or angry that her coworker is concerned that they aren't getting along.
For me that would be exactly why I am uncomfortable with someone I work and spend time with every day.
That being said, many people actually prefer having that distance. For me I find that distance bothers me, and that may be a cultural thing.
Turning gray in 3, 2, 1...
Since when is liking sports a professional requirement?
From her description he seems to have that kind of attitude, including calling women "chicks".
But as she states in her article, she kept to herself. There is no indication that she share this point of view with him, and more indication that she did not. She specifically stated he knows nothing about her.
In that same paragraph she talked about his innapropriate and unprofessional behavior. If you had any sympathy for what it might be like being a woman, you might be a little more forgiving of her hyperbole, and less forgiving of his calling women "chicks". You might have been taken aback that he went to the manager because he felt "uncomfortable", pointing out that the person who is most justified in feeling uncomfortable was her.
She's looking for slights and grievances wherever she can find them. She should have gone to her manager if "chicks" truly upset her. It would have been much more professional than taking to Tumblr and making issue public before he or the company have a chance to respond.
Or do you specifically object to her use of the term "Rapey"? Even then I disagree with your characterization.
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/26/louisville-ba...
I have no problem with hating sports, I hate sports. She can hate sports too, great! Claiming that college sports are for rapists is extremely unnerving.
"I think the entire college sports organization is embarrassing, antiquated and Rapey with a capital 'R.'"
Organization, as in "institution."
"Tangentially, I think the entire college sports organization is embarrassing, antiquated and Rapey with a capital “R.” It drives tuitions up and gives a small niche of bumbling bro-bots the lifelong expectation that they will be able to skirt through life without brains, manners, or ever learning the idea of earned respect. “I can twirl a basketball on my finger, how dare you not want to fuck me.” And so on."
Based on this quote (and the rest of her essay), it does not surprise me at all that someone would feel uncomfortable around her. That person handled it maturely by going to management to mention it instead of trying to deal with it themselves.