You almost left tech because a bunch in tech are socially awkward weirdos who don't give a crap about other people. Period. It's not about being a woman... it's that the tech field is full of anti-social shit.
I'm sure those experiences can exist in this world, but data we have paints a picture that these "socially awkward weirdos" aren't so weird and special and snowflake. They're garden variety sexists of the most boring and hurtful sort.
Whether they were emulating the corresponding male behaviours to get ahead or are just awful human beings is inconsequential, but my vote was for, "Why not both?"
You have to challenge these people for your own mental well being. If it doesn't work out for your career prospects, oh well, at least you remain a content and happy human being.
I can see why gp wouldn't want to see it as a gender debate, because it negates the negative experience some men have around other toxic male engineers.
I can also see why you wouldn't want to deny the sexist element's existence, that would just seem counter-factual.
I also want to express a hesitation to reduce this to a gender issue, because I find it so often creates an US-vs-THEM mentality. Because I'm a guy, and I think many managers in engineering are abusive, and I don't think the fact that the abuse isn't throwing out the word "pussy" negates the severity of the situation.
Consider Japan, where stress at work has gotten so bad, the country has made a goal of reducing suicide rates. I think we need to unite around work standards before we get to that point, not as guys vs girls, but as workers vs investors.
Maybe if workplaces were not deliberately enforcing a men-at-the-expense-of-women social norm, this notion wouldn't exist.
> Consider Japan
No, I'd rather not. A reductive analysis of Japan's workplace dynamics isn't helpful here.
I don't understand on what basis you can discount the realities of alternative cultures.
Then you are perceptive. I have no interest in discussing the complex landscape of Japan's gender roles, historical context, current economic issues, their declining birthrate, and their intersection with the current prime minister.
We need not point to any of that to agree that this behavior reported in the article is indefensible.
Your first instinct upon hearing this is to say, "Yes, well, that seems inappropriate but really I think this isn't about how we treat women but how we treat engineers." Yet you follow through later in the thread with the contextually audacious claim that I'm overly dismissive?
Productivity here will be limited.
> Your first instinct upon hearing this is to say, "Yes, well, that seems inappropriate but really I think this isn't about how we treat women but how we treat engineers." Yet you follow through later in the thread with the contextually audacious claim that I'm overly dismissive?
I definitely did not say that. Perhaps you should reread what I did say: that we have a choice of how to interpret things like this. I'm sensing that you think if one doesn't interpret this as sexist that this is somehow an attack on women, because you seem really defensive.
I'd also challenge you to examine your own motivations, because if you think this short back-and-forth has furthered a cause it has only served to reinforce my caution in trying to intellectually engage on prickly topics [and make snarky "triggered" jokes amongst friends / reddit].