unidentified103

What are the rebuttals?

The argument here was that being offered assistance is personally insulting. In this case, I think the "same exact logic" holds. Yes, the line of questioning is a bit of an abrasive way of putting someone on the defensive, but I wanted to have a clear and direct answer for why the ghetto comparison held.

Yeah, I can see how such an e-mail wouldn't exactly feel so welcoming if your participation was assumed and suddenly thrust upon you. But I don't necessarily think that it makes sense to believe that they wrote the e-mail that way because they thought you were helpless. Whoever wrote it could have been excited about the program and assumed everyone else would be too.

I don't know what reasons Microsoft had for making the program exclusive to women, because I think men would also benefit. Here's my guess: gender affects mentorship. An older man having a close working relationship with a young woman, inviting her out to lunch, and getting drinks after work carries implications that simply do not exist with a young man. Having these interactions take place within a socially sanctioned program helps everyone out because it clarifies the nature of the relationship to both the participants and the onlookers.

Yeah, it seems to me like such a program would be a great addition to the onboarding process at many companies.

Do you believe decisions like this are randomly made?

> "Why not offer everyone an 'intern buddy'"

Female interns could have complained about sexual harassment, female interns could have had lower rates of accepting return offers, etc.

> "Also, why change from opt-in to opt-out"

The program had been going on for a while. They could have had data that suggested that female interns would be interested in such a program but had fears about bringing it to the attention of their managers or had fears of the repercussions of being one of the few who accepted.

That's a confusing reaction to what I said and what I'm arguing against.

Edit: For the record, I'm a bisexual Mexican woman. Of course there are times when I perceive people as holding my hand too much and I know it can feel condescending. When I reflect on it, though, no, it's not the same brand of condescension that made my middle school teacher tell me I had no future in math. There's something strange about victimizing yourself out of fear that people are victimizing you.

An internship program for women at Microsoft isn't a ghetto; it can only come from a place of extreme privilege and ignorance to believe so.

So am I supposed to feel equally condescended to by the man in upper management who calls me "sweetie" and the woman who has organized some person to show me around the office and introduce me to people? Okay.

Why are you assuming that I'm a man? Either way, these kinds of programs are useful for certain people and there are lots of other articles in defense of them. Just because one person didn't want to participate doesn't mean that other people aren't happy that they exist.

Honestly, why take things like that personally? Why liken it to a ghetto? Is your pride really so hurt that someone wanted to help you out around the office that you refuse to believe that you could have learned anything useful from it? You can't even come out of it with another friend, a future business contact, an interpersonal skill, deeper knowledge of a workplace tool? It's great if some people don't think they need help overcoming sexist barriers in the office, some people do. No need to over-complicate it.

I don't quite understand how a corporate policy like an "intern buddy" can be compared to a ghetto or even how it remotely hurts you in the same way that an unspoken "boys club" office setting would. A corporate policy like that is pretty clearly an impersonal management-type fluff program that does not solve every problem that could possibly arise from sexism, but that serves a resource for a few people desperately in need of it (and pretending that there are not people desperately in need of it is part of the problem). Furthermore, refusing to participate in a program that could give you connections and special insight out of some misguided principle that we must maintain the appearance that everyone is treated equally is very strange to me. While you were refusing assistance out of principle, your colleagues were offered opportunities, encouraged into management, etc. at varying rates based on process that can in no way be described as meritocratic.

Most of the people who claim to be "not underrepresented" - i.e. they are in an underrepresented group but they do not lay claim to the title - still benefit from some of the support that is offered to them from being in that underrepresented group.

This really is a problem that cannot be fixed by pretending that it doesn't exist. Are you going to ignore the fact that by "forcing" identities, we are unable to behave in a way that makes identity irrelevant? The only way we can currently achieve the utopia in which gender, race, sexuality, class, attractiveness, etc don't matter is when we purposefully construct an environment where it all magically disappears. While it's great that internet communities give us the promise of a fully integrated society, these communities are built on a fragile and naive premise. That is, when people on IRC begin to link their Facebook profiles, nobody is going to be able to control the way that people begin to react to the ideas coming from the identities of the people on the other side of the screen. Social networks aren't the problem, they simply reveal the insidious nature of the problem.