“Start Showing Basic Sensitivity”
1 Like
If you are referring at all to her demeanor, I think you may be misinterpreting those sighs and pacing that other people also noted. One of the very first things (under #1) that Brianna mentioned (5:20ish) is that, “Talking about sexism in tech is deeply personal. It hurts to talk about. It embarrasses you to talk about.” She meant that is true for all women - not just her. The only difference is, she was doing it in front of crowd, and inviting attack. That’s not a calming situation to be in.
Other people have already noted the various suggestions made throughout the talk.
3 Likes
She doesn’t care what you think because she gave you the option to “leave the room”. She told live viewers what her demeanor would be like and why, and asked those present if they were okay with that (they were). You didn’t have to watch the video. You chose to do so - even though you’d been told that it would be like that right at the start. Welcome to a woman’s life in tech, where frequently the only option is to accept another’s behavior or leave the situation altogether.
4 Likes
Emulate the oppressor, got it.
1 Like
Not emulating really. You weren’t part of her original audience. You’re incidental. To them she actually did ask the question (at about 2:15 is when the subject comes up), “You guys want me to do the Oprahized version? Can you raise your hand for me? Does anybody? Okay, we’re about to get real.” She made a serious effort to ensure that she was delivering the talk they wanted to hear in the fashion they wanted to hear it.
I’m the one saying, “Welcome to a woman’s life in tech,” because you’re feeling all hurt by the fact that this woman hasn’t spoken to you in the manner you’d prefer. If this was most offices, and you were a woman saying that a guy had done that, well, someone would tell you to grow a pair.
6 Likes
What’s your objective with the pointless nitpicking here? You know exactly what she meant and you’re choosing to deliberately misinterpret it. What’s your point?
5 Likes
I’m not feeling hurt whatsoever. I welcome these perspectives because they’re so unfamiliar to me; based on my own experience most of the bad behaviour described is almost incomprehensibly foreign, so it’s a necessary and educational thing that people like me be made aware of the horrid shit going on, otherwise we’d have no idea there’s a problem at all.
My point was simply that leading with “I don’t care what you think” may not be the most productive way to communicate.
2 Likes
Yeah, right.
It’s also a pull quote from what she actually said.
She didn’t just say, “I don’t care what you think” or even the first quote you used, “I don’t really care what you think about my tone or my sighing.” (Neither of those is even the full sentence she wrote!) Since her entire talk hinges on men listening, it’s more than a little ironic that you haven’t even bothered to “listen” to her talking about the talk she gave. Instead, you only heard the bit you chose to, and then you decided to pass that along, as though she was being dismissive of you. In reality, she wasn’t at all. I don’t owe you this explanation (which you probably won’t read anyway), but it is worth putting out there for other people.
As I wrote before, you’re incidental, so she really doesn’t have to care at all about how you read the tone of her talk. You weren’t in her audience that day, and she asked for their approval. She also has been dealing with this particular issue long enough to know BS when she reads it, and she caught yours.
7 Likes
Mod note: stay on topic
2 Likes
Awesome, thanks!
1 Like
Thanks for the talk, and thanks for sharing your experience in a straightforward, honest way. When I was asking about the hostility of the video, I wasn’t really thinking about your talk- I thought your thoughtfulness and desire to say what’s true instead of whats easy was very apparent.
I was thinking about the audience, and the whole atmosphere in the video. I can remember like, 1 person clapping/responding positively during your talk, and almost all of the questions were people trying to explain their point of view instead of ask questions. That’s the part that feels “hostile” to me. Or maybe I’m just not used to seeing the sexism you face every day. Thanks again.
4 Likes
Thanks for saying that. It’s a hard subject to talk about. Part of what makes it difficult is, just bringing the subject up leads to people nitpicking everything about the presenter. Like, when Julie Ann Horvath brought up the GitHub gender based harassment thing, most people concentrated on her and not the issue she’s bringing up.
It’s unfortunately part and parcel of discussing this issue.
3 Likes
I think that the immediate need to attack a presenter discussing this subject (in near any format) is part of the denial that the behavior itself “isn’t that bad”. Sort of a case of calling out, “This one person over here is overreacting. Look at her, but don’t listen to her.” It’s all in an effort to make the speaker stop and prevent other women from ever speaking up.
It really doesn’t seem to matter where the subject is brought up - a speech, the internet, mixed friends, a party - someone will always react with antagonism. It’s to be expected, and worked through. Sometimes you can talk to a person, and explain to them that they aren’t hearing the personal attack they think they are. (Except, their behavior generally does mean you are talking about them, and the way they treat women.) There is no safe space for this subject, and it sorely needs discussion.
Women in all parts of tech deal with the same issues. It’s a male-dominated field, not because men are inherently better at tech, but because women are, truthfully, driven away from it - and it starts young. In another topic (Google’s Hiring Rates), I discussed how very important education is, and the fact that Google can’t be blamed for hiring from the available pool (they meet or exceed graduation percentages). They retain their female employees, and seem to present a positive workplace for them. They’re doing better than other companies. If we want women in tech, young boys and girls need to learn from an early age that they belong together in tech and science classes. Our society itself needs to change, and since computers are now pretty much everywhere - we can’t wait any longer. Women need to be tech savvy and men need to be comfortable with them in that environment.
3 Likes
Female butch is still obviously female, though. That’s the point. Also, when you’re kicking ass, you should look the part, and your clothing should look the part.
5 Likes
OK, let’s be realistic. Skyrim, Mass Effect 3, Half-Life 2, and Fallout 3 are all great examples of hugely popular and profitable combat-oriented games that avoid or subvert pretty much all sexist stereotypes and are played by men and women. Really.
Realistically, the notion that the reification you label “INDUSTRY” immediately and omnisciently responds to marketplace opportunities in real time as they appear is actually nothing but a superstition. It’s like believing in a literal invisible hand of the marketplace. Businesses (not “industries”) respond to market opportunities in a haphazard fashion and their (eventual) efficiency in doing looks a lot more like Darwinian evolution than Intelligent Design. There aren’t a bunch of MBAs hanging around in offices doing a cost/benefit analysis about whether the incipient sexism in the R&D department is costing them money yet.
6 Likes
From what you say, it sounds like there’s a lot of progress being made towards what the OP wants. Perhaps not as fast as some would like but social change rarely follows anyone’s schedule. I think we’re moving in the right direction.
Ms. Wu, thanks for showing up to discuss.
Serious Q for you (and for catgrin, who makes a similar point).
TL;DR version of the question
To follow your observation that it’s “part and parcel,” my question is: Why?
the long version follows…
last warning.
While the battle for disenfranchisement was won (less than 95 years ago!), clearly,the battle against microaggressive sexism continues to be a weekly, if not daily, topic. And, as technologies such as social media have helped to unite and bring revolutions (e.g., Arab Spring), tech is also uniting tech-savvy feminists to continue to push for equality in the more subtle exclusion of microagression. And, if you agree that few women are more tech-savvy than women who work in tech, then it follows that you and your peers are pushing the Overton window further towards equality.
Catgrin posits that denial plays a role.
Perhaps it’s denial.
Perhaps it’s also the fundamental attribution error, which wiki defines as " people’s tendency to place an undue emphasis on internal characteristics to explain someone else’s behavior in a given situation, rather than considering external factors. "
Or, let’s consider emotional intelligence (EQ), which wiki defines as " the ability to monitor one’s own and other people’s emotions, to discriminate between different emotions and label them appropriately, and to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior. " (emphasis added.) Following the observations of Dunning and Kruger, those who have low ability are less able to recognize the limits of their ability. Thus, people with low EQ would be less likely to recognize how microagressions affect others, and also lead them to be overly confident that they are right about that.
Perhaps the whole sea of 1000 papercuts is a combination of all of the above, and some others causes not mentioned.
I’m not fishing for you to endorse a pet-theory (though I am intrigued by the EQ - Dunning/Kruger combo), I’m just curious as to how you might characterize your lived experiences in regards to these social science framings. Because understanding the root causes of entrenched privilege might yield clues as to more effective interventions.
[Thanks / Sorry] for reading this far.
The oft-repeated argument is, “If girls want sexually fair games, they should design them themselves.” OK, fine. What is being said here is that the women who do actually get hired at mixed sex companies still often aren’t heard in office. Instead, their ideas are steamrollered, and that may not even be to the financial benefit of the company.
Misogyny and the Marketing Chick talks about falsely relegating a woman into a position that she doesn’t really occupy. Why? Because then you won’t have to listen to her. It also explains that the “marketing chick” isn’t even a real person, but a construct designed to make women seem less worthy in an office, and even inspire infighting among women (divide and conquer).
https://medium.com/about-work/misogyny-and-the-marketing-chick-aa49dffc975d
You may think that ideas like, “The marketing chick has all those soft skills that patriarchy has taught us are undesirable, less useful, less expensive, less valuable, women’s work.” are really over the top - but you shouldn’t. Instead, go take a look at my review of the website designs for UCSC’s Natural Sciences Department. Out of three possible degrees - Science Communication, Chemistry, and Computer Engineering - only Science Communication (a “soft” science) directly addresses women as possible students. Computer Engineering doesn’t even have a single photo of a woman you can find without hunting.
It should also be noted that women are making the effort - even though the walls are there. Here’s one more article: “Women Don’t Want to Work in Games and Other Myths”
1 Like
Wow. Where to begin…
You’ve managed to combine social science and political science in your references, so I’m not quite sure how you interpret this issue (socially or politically?). I will do my best to answer. In response to your short version, “Why?” (as in, “Why is animosity engendered by discussion of this topic?”)
I think I already answered that question with a hypothesis. I’ve noticed that most angry responses tend to come from men who at some point in their own statements deny the existence of sexism in tech (gaming) or their own bad behavior. Their anger is a part of their rebuttal, and usually it’s a blind meant to distract.
In response to your long version, I’ll deal with all three topics.
The Overton Window is actually a political idea - not a social one - and it has to do with manipulating public perception (currently the window is over the Right). Here’s the problem with trying to apply the Window to equality in the workplace. As the Window shifts, an idea becomes more accepted by society. It was in 1920 that women got the vote. During WWI, women went to work in droves, and after the war was the first time huge numbers of divorces occurred - because men wanted those women back in the home. In the 1970s, the Women’s Right Movement happened, and that’s when women working became policy. That’s your problem, this is already Policy.
- Unthinkable
- Radical
- Acceptable
- Sensible
- Popular
- Policy
Certain fields are still not equitable to women, and across the board women are directed toward lower-wage earning jobs. So, for true equality in the workplace (40 years later - long enough for you?) we need to fairly educate, fairly hire, and provide welcoming work environments. By welcoming, I am only saying treat women with the same respect that men get in the same positions.
I agree, in certain cases “fundamental attribution error” could make sense some part of the time, but it doesn’t explain rape threats, attacks on site, better qualified women passed over for advancement, women let go due to pregnancy, or even women who make suggestions for games styles in male-dominated offices and are then ignored - thus leaving the industry unchanged. Those are actual actions and results that are specific to sexism. As a graphic designer, I myself worked one job where I spent the entire first week with Anchorman playing on laptop aimed at me from the next desk. (I wore headphones all week, and that was just the start.) The only other two designers were male. I lasted the full nine months of that contract, and outlasted four receptionists. Tell me I was imagining things.
You’ve misunderstood EQ, and believe it excuses all men’s behavior. In fact, men whose EQs are high are actually those who are supposed to be more successful in employment (managers), so why is it that they still are having trouble communicating with women? That makes no sense at all.
Basically, it seems like you’re hunting excuses, and hoping that experts will back you up, but they don’t. While every encounter is an independent and unique encounter (so some will be misunderstandings), there are far too many genuine numbers and stories that back up the very real problem of women wanting to work in tech and finding it very, very difficult to do so.
3 Likes
It’s not that I deny you have an interesting question here - but literally the first point in my talk is, “This isn’t a fun hypothetical for us.” It’s our lives.
I’ll leave causality to the academics. I’m an engineer and I’m fundamentally more interested in answers than questions.
5 Likes
