Let’s All Evolve Past This: The Barriers Women Face in Tech Communities
June 9th, 2007 by
gloriajw
Topics of this Article:
- Introduction
- The less obvious
- Why do women-only tech groups exist?
- The Community
- Communication Style
- Awareness of and accountability for behavior not found in mixed gender tech groups/gatherings.
- Men are generally very good at ignoring bad behavior.
- Protective behavior within the community.
- The few vocal, and many silent, members.
- Women during tech discussions
- Did you know?
- Suggestions for a more women-friendly community.
- Tips for communicating with Women in Tech environments.
This subject has been on the minds of many tech women for years. The issue is discussed regularly, almost cyclically at times, as we spin our collective wheels to try to find causes and solutions. I was reluctant to write about it, since I find the subject matter daunting, and the problem almost insurmountable at times. But three different sources approached me simultaneously, asking for this article. This article feels as if it is manifesting through me rather than from me, as a collective opinion and observation from the many tech women with whom I’ve worked and spoken. So many factors are in play when discussing this issue that I can only hope to address many of them without writing a tome.
My tendencies are to pick up on patterns, in human interaction, in data, in almost everything. I am a computer science/math major, and my brain loves to seek out the unobvious patterns in whatever I am observing. One of my favorite pastimes is to figure out broken elevator algorithms: what event causes the doors to close too quickly, how are the cars distributed amongst the people requesting the elevators, etc. One of the not-so-favorite puzzles my brain likes to do is to pick up on patterns of human behavior from both men and women which affect how tech women are treated both on and off the job. This article is all about the patterns I and other women have found in human interaction, office and online environments, which make them less conducive to tech women participation.
I won’t be addressing the more obvious problems affecting women in tech environments such as the pay scale gap between women and men, the blatantly inappropriate sexism and personal harassment that has taken place, and persists. My reasons are because I feel these issues have been properly and effectively addressed by other women in tech (they’re not resolved by any means, but at least public awareness is rising). With this article, I am attempting to address the less obvious or unobvious reasons why some tech environments are intolerable for many women.
The material for this article came about through my participation in both women-only and mixed gender groups of many kinds. When I wonder why tech groups aren’t tolerable for many women, I look at the inverse of the problem: What makes women-only tech groups more tolerable for women? My observations follow.
Why do women-only tech groups exist?
Over the years I had participated in many different types of women-only groups. Women-only drumming groups, women-only political groups, women-only tech groups, have all provided what women consider to be a “safe haven” to freely learn these arts, share ideas, expose each other to paid “gigs”, and help each other accomplish tasks. Women in these groups usually had nothing else in common except for the fact that they (1) were female, and (2) shared an interest and experience in drumming/politics/tech. Their professions, ages, skill levels, hobbies, sexual orientations, life experiences, marital status, children/grandchildren/no children, everything else about these women varied vastly.
My brain began to try and pick up on patterns which would explain why all of these different types of women feel as if they need a women-only group, and what such a group can provide that a mixed gender group cannot. Here are my observations.
Community plays an important and prevalent role in women-only/women-friendly groups.
No matter the group or the reason for gathering, _all_ of the women-only, and most of the successful women-friendly groups to which I have belonged had a strong sense of community. They make a tremendous effort to communicate well, to be fair with each other, and to provide support related to the groups goals, sometimes even extending outside of the groups goals.
This mindset is so common that women come to expect it when joining these groups, and foster it once they have joined. The implied message is that a strong, focused, collective effort will be spent to run things fairly and treat all members equally, and collective discussion happens when this is not accomplished. This is the lure to women-only groups.
Communication style is directly affected by this sense of community
I have never seen a woman harshly criticize another woman in these groups. Never have I seen or heard anything like “You suck”, “You’re wrong, idiot” when women in these groups communicate. Differences are usually discussed in a civilized manner. There is the occasional strong disagreement or ousting of a member now and again, but it happens after a discussion involving the entire group, and an effort to work out their differences. I am sure harsh criticism happens somewhere in some women’s groups. But I am also sure that it’s not tolerated for very long by other female members.
This style of communication is directly at odds with much of the harsh criticism and disdain found in predominantly male public comments, especially in most public online tech comment spaces, unfortunately.
Destructive criticism is the best way to keep a site predominantly male. It implies that there is no concern about whether a person can learn from a response or not, or whether they would find offense. It is an outward display of ego, a territorial “pissing rite” in which most women do not and will not participate.
That being said, there are many men who flock to women-only groups for the same reasons as women. They do not want to be subjected to the predominantly male style of communication where there is no sense of community, or even just simple accountability. They grow tired of the “pissing rite”, the absurd declarations of false boundaries, the outward display of insecurity through harsh criticism, implicit claims of “my way, my expertise, my right, never yours”, and poor display of ego. This mode of communication is an unproductive waste of time, and many men realize this as well. “I feel at home here because I really don’t want to deal with that male ego bullshit”, one male member of our political group stated to me.
Men who seek out women’s groups are usually welcome, or a splinter group is formed to accommodate these men, once it is determined that they do not seek membership for the wrong reasons. Some of the wrong reasons are:
(1) “I will be the only male member, and will therefore have my choice of ‘chicks’”. Nope. It’s not happening.
(2) “I will be the only male member, and I’ll guide/help/protect these lost/vulnerable/endangered women”. This is not only unnecessary, but laughable. Women find the implications of these assumptions both offensive and so primitive that it is hysterically funny.
(3) “I will infiltrate because I hate women, and want to try to dissolve the group in some way” This is very rare, but happens. The good news is that the motives of both men and women who attempt this become very obvious very quickly.
Women-only/women-friendly tech groups and gatherings offer a level of awareness of and accountability for behavior not found in most mixed gender tech groups/gatherings.
Awareness of and accountability for behavior in women’s groups means a lot more than just safety from sexual harassment, or discrimination. It means that if one is treated unfairly or harshly in any manner that a person finds offensive, the entire community will hear your claim. They will give you advice, opinions, and will collectively decide if action should be taken.
There has recently been a call for all public message board admins to get tougher about removing blatantly discriminatory, harassing, or sexually objectifying comments. This is a very necessary, damned good start. But to genuinely make an online tech community women-friendly, it needs even tighter moderation against harsh/demeaning criticism, elitist commentary, and exclusionist statements, the three most prevalent and women-unfriendly types of communication found in almost all moderated online tech message boards. There is no better way to give women a message that their comments are not welcome than implying that: (1) this is forbidden territory, women have no expertise here (2) your comments are stupid, wrong, or ridiculous, (3) we’re so much smarter than you.
Discussion, constructive criticism, even heated debate happens in women-only groups, but these methods of communication are avoided.
Both online and off, I have seen men who communicate this way with everyone, and men who only choose to communicate this way with women. I have also seen this behavior tolerated or ignored for the most part. Here are my observations on why this happens.
Men are generally very good at ignoring bad behavior.
This is both a blessing and a curse. In my most recent office environment, we had situations where a male colleague’s behavior was abrasive in one of these three ways mentioned. “That sucks, doesn’t it?” I asked another male colleague. “Yeah, but I just ignore it. That’s just the way he is. He is always like that” He responded. This is what I’ve seen as the general male way of coping with this poor communication style.
It’s a blessing that many men can ignore it, in the sense that most men do not get caught up in deep analysis of why this person said a specific thing, and what this person could have really meant, etc. When almost everything is taken at face value, and not overanalyzed, the ability to ignore communication issues makes it is easier to resolve the simple issues, and move on. I have seen some women in office environments do the over analysis, and take offense when there never was one given. I don’t see men do this very often, and it makes communication quicker and easier.
Ignoring communication issues is also a curse because one obnoxious person is allowed complete freedom to make excessive noise, be rude and disruptive, or explicitly offensive. Most men, online or in the office, will ignore it. Most women will notice it but not say or do anything about it, for a variety of reasons which are tangential to this article. The offender often thrives on the fact that no one told them to stop, so they continue. Sometimes the offender is not socially adept enough to pick up on the fact that ignoring implies intolerance at some level. They somehow missed the message most three year olds learn: I’m ignoring you because I don’t like your behavior, so they continue the intolerable behavior.
This is so prevalent in online tech communities that it is the primary reason why many women do not participate. The poor communication and behavior of even one boorish, ego-driven, elitist, socially inept geek is just simply intolerable for most women. Women generally tend to assume that everyone will be conscious of and annoyed by this behavior. Men tend to assume that everyone will ignore it. This causes problems in offices as well as in online communities, where women will complain about such behavior, and men will issue responses such as “toughen-up”, or “what’s the big deal?” because this is how they cope with the problem. A female-friendly group addresses and tries to resolve these issues, while the average group ignores it until/unless the person does something heinous.
The sense of community fosters a protective behavior within that community.
If you do something awful to one woman in a women-only community, all will hear and know about it, and you are ousted. Most of the time this is first discussed and voted on by many group members. Many times the women’s group will even make an effort to explain the offense to the oblivious offender. But if the offender is still oblivious and/or offending, the offender is out. This is done to protect the interests and goals of the group. Many male dominated online groups don’t run this way. Most if not all women’s groups run this way, whether online or off. This relates to the awareness and accountability mentioned before. It’s an essential element of all women-only groups, and seems necessary for women-friendly groups to draw women.
Women’s groups generally have a few vocal, and many silent, members
The vocal few express their opinions, and either gain support or do not gain support. The ones who gain support usually implicitly become the spokespeople for the silent many.
The silent many usually let the vocal few, with whom they agree, do the job of ousting, protecting the sense of community, and publicly representing the silent many. The silent many support the vocal few. The community in turn supports and protects the rights and privileges of the silent many.
Why this happens is again a dynamic which is tangential to this article. But it seems that many women in group participation give either their silent support or rejection, speaking up only occasionally. Because of this behavior, if a communication problem arises in any type of group, whether women-only or not, and there is not a vocal few who will attempt to resolve it, the silent many will often silently leave. The silent many often don’t want to complain, for fear of having to deal with the additional frustration of the unaware/unconcerned “toughen-up”, or “what problem?” type of responses. For the silent many, it’s easier and less frustrating to just leave. I think it is important for groups that want to advertise themselves as being women-friendly, to be aware of this pattern.
One of the challenges of any women-only/women-friendly group is encouraging the silent many to speak up. Many women deal with demeaning and discriminatory behavior so often in their lives that they are too emotionally exhausted to deal with even the possibility of an online onslaught of anonymous discriminatory and demeaning comments. Many women spend time observing online groups before deciding if they will participate, for this very reason. They want to ensure that they will not feel verbally attacked once speaking up, and that their issues, comments and contributions will be heard and handled fairly.
Women generally do not arm themselves for battle during tech discussions
Women generally do not work things out through verbal battle. By the time they
reach that point of wanting to argue, they are already so offended that they are in pure self-defense mode. Women treat the discussion of tech issues like the discussion of many other issues. It’s not competitive, and they wish to bi-directionally share information.
Many tech men envision a technical debate as a battle, and celebrate the supposed victory, exhibiting classic “Alpha Male” behavior. I have personally seen it so many times in my profession that I brace myself for it when discussing tech issues with new groups of men. So many of them arm themselves with weapons of aggression, demeaning comments, and behavior which encourage more of a filibuster than a healthy debate. The supposed tech discussion becomes a test of verbal and emotional endurance, where whomever can argue the hardest and last the longest wins.
They can shake hands afterwards and congratulate each other over a “good fight” after a technical debate. “I like the challenge of a good argument, which is why I do that” one male colleague explained to me. “I like a good technical debate too, but I don’t want to feel verbally or emotionally abused afterward. Women don’t fight for fun, they fight for personal issues.” I explained to my male colleague.
Unfortunately, the anonymity offered by many public wikis and message boards encourages the worst behavior in people. Even moderated tech chat areas and comment boards are rife with elitist, demeaning comments encouraging “the fight”. Some of it is due to oblivion, lack of knowledge that this is offensive to tech women. Some of it, unfortunately, is very intentional.
Apparently there are males online, in tech communities, who still believe that, like the cigar rooms of the Victorian Era, tech rooms should be male-only. Back then, the predominant purpose of smoking cigars in a common room was to have male-only space, and similarly today, the purpose of the demeaning and fight-provoking attempts is to maintain the male-only presence of some online tech spaces. I know for a fact this happens with intent in some online chat rooms and message boards. It is not simply an act of oblivion, but a concentrated, misogynistic effort between like-minded men to keep women out.
When I discuss this with people and we ask each other how this can be prevented, I feel overwhelmed. How do we stop any/all of the human behavior which prevents us from evolving further? I have no answer to this, but I am certain that if less of this behavior is tolerated online, we at least squeeze people who discriminate into their own, personal hidden online spaces. There is no reason why we need to be subjected to every single person’s beliefs or comments in the name of the First Amendment. We all have a right to remove from our lives anything and everything which holds us back in some way, even that which is subtly harmful or offensive. Web admins have a right to remove useless, demeaning, even subtly harmful comments in the best interest of an online community. The operative word here is “community”, and the appropriate questions is: Does your public comment space contribute to a community, or is it just an open toilet that everyone can vandalize and pollute?
Did you know?
When it was illegal for women to publish writing during various times in history throughout various countries, women published their work under male pseudonyms. Today, many tech women still use male pseudonyms when posting to lists or publishing tech articles. The reasons are to have their work read without bias, and to avoid misogynistic “hyper-scrutiny” of their work. I have experimented with this myself using a male pseudonym to post articles, and being told that the articles are informative, useful, great. Six months later I republish the exact same article, using a different title and a female pseudonym, and suddenly the article is horrible, technically incorrect, useless. It’s a fascinating study. I would love to see some prominent male techs publish under female pseudonyms, and watch the responses.
Women find it awkward to brag about their writing accomplishments published under male pseudonyms. For this reason, most of this work never gets credited to the correct person, and is never acknowledged on resumes or during job interviews. “How do I explain to a male ‘potential boss’ why I have chosen to use a male pseudonym, without bringing up the whole discrimination issue?” is what one female tech friend asked me. I had no answer for her. I have also let my work published under male pseudonyms fall between the cracks, into oblivion, not knowing what else to do.
To make an online community more women-friendly, try these suggestions:
(1) Monitor the public comments. Treat the public comments interface much like the
front door to your home. You don’t simply leave it open for any idiot to waltz in.
You can be selective regarding who comes in, and what they do once they’re in.
Useless comments get deleted as quickly as they appear. Any non-technical,
offensive, destructive, or off-topic comment is removed. This gives a clear
message about will and will not be tolerated. As useful comments accumulate,
useless ones are much less likely to appear.
(2) The technically correct but aggressive/demeaning/overly harsh comment gets returned
to the sender, asking the person to re-word using constructive criticism.
Sounds like overkill, but it’s not. The “You’re wrong, here’s the right answer”
type of response constitutes picking a battle that most women won’t fight, or won’t even bother dealing with.
(3) Treat your online space like a community. The web admin should act is if they’re on the board of chosen freeholders, voting on issues which affect themselves and the entire community. Don’t just throw up the comment space and leave it abandoned for vandals and other jerks. Maintain it according to the rules by which you want everyone to abide, and stick by your decisions. Have accountability for comments. Create a space where open discussion happens as if it were in an educational surrounding, not a seedy bar.
(4) Explicitly state that your site is women-friendly. Doing this will encourage the silent many to speak up. Kick out the jerks who don’t want your online space to take this direction.
For the men who care: Tips for communicating with women in Tech environments, online and Face-to-Face
(1) Tech women usually express great enthusiasm about their work. They do what they love, and they love what they do. When a woman gets enthusiastic about her work and shares that enthusiasm with you, it has absolutely nothing to do with you, or sex. I cannot tell you how often I have seen this. Some men mix up their incoming signals, and a women’s enthusiasm at work somehow translates to someone flirting with them at a bar. I have no idea how this happens, but it’s profoundly sad to see it happen again and again. If you’re lacking something in your life, please do not look to your female tech colleague to fill that niche. Do not even presume her mind is there even if yours is not, because hers is not, and your signal indicator needs serious recalibration.
(2) Leave your libido at the door. Please. Women tech colleagues want to be appreciated for their brains, their technical expertise, their contributions and accomplishments. Tech women do not give a flying shit about what their male colleagues think of their attire, their make-up or their body parts. Believe me when I say this is true. Women may give you a polite response, but on the inside they are offended, seething, and considering whether or not to go to their attorney. They will ask other women in the office or field if they too suffer from this problem, building an alliance against men in their company who do this. And soon you will have a legal problem. Leave it at the door, pick it up on your way out. No one else wants it.
(3) Some tech women dress up for work. It is NEVER for you. Many tech women wear clothing which makes them feel good. For some, comfort is paramount, if for example the tech female is crawling through the ceiling, moving dusty panels and running CAT5 cable. For other tech women who would not get their clothes ruined at work, they like to dress up. “It makes me feel confident. I look at myself in the mirror and I feel good.” my female colleague told me. For tech women at work, feeling “good” does not mean “sexy”, and it is not for you at all. It is entirely about self-confidence, self-encouragement, and giving one’s self the extra strength to prove they know their stuff in a technical environment. Note the emphasis on “self”: it is entirely for her, by her, and your reaction is entirely irrelevant.
I have heard males say horrible things in professional environments like “Well, you wore that dress, you do look great in it, that must be the reaction you wanted. Isn’t that why you wear that dress?” The answer is no, fool, get over yourself.
(4) Tech women are generally open-minded about what is commonly called “guy humor” and “guy socialization”. Guaranteed, many of them, myself included, have male friends with which they hang out on a regular basis, so this is far from a foreign concept to tech women. Chances are, the tech women of your group would enjoy your jokes and would like to be invited out for beers, as long as points (1) through (3) above are met. I personally enjoy and share many of my own raunchy or lewd jokes if I feel safe around the people with whom I’m joking. I enjoy hanging out afterwards over a beer or two, or going out late with “the guys” to a bar to welcome the “new guy”. These things could be fun for everyone if (1) through (3) are in order.
(5) To the men who do not do any of this: Thank you so much. We notice, and greatly appreciate this. I have been fortunate to work with some excellent men in tech, and I wanted to thank you and the many others for not being this way.
(6) No, women are not perfect. This article doesn’t imply or suggest that women are close to prefect and men are far from it. I know there are female stereotypes not mentioned in this article, mostly because I personally don’t find them in tech environments. Your experience may vary. All of these points can be applied to both genders. But the fact that I was asked by several different sources to write this article proves that there is a recognized gender divide in many tech spaces. All of what I have posted is what I and others have observed and experienced. None of it is fiction.
(7) Is someone making you feel uncomfortable? Speak up! If someone at work makes you feel uncomfortable, tell them so. If you feel discomfort coming from another person, and you think you’ve caused it inadvertently, say so. Make it clear and shove it out of the way as quickly as you can, so work can continue. This applies from/to men and women.
(8) But isn’t creating a women-only group, and using terms like ‘male behavior’ reverse sexism? Doesn’t this defeat the very goal you wish to achieve? My response is no, not if these tools/verbiage are used to try to ultimately achieve equality. If it’s used for mudslinging, or through some act of elitist exclusion, yes, it is reverse sexism.
Credits: Many thank yous to Carla Schroder for sharing her infinite wisdom and encouragement. A huge thank you to all of the women at LinuxChix.org for your tireless support of the cause over the years. Thank you to DevChix.com for giving my wayward articles a very worthy home. Thank you to the many readers who have left constructive criticism and comments.
June 10th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Gloria,
This is a great piece. Your points and tone are right on. Thanks for publishing it.
June 10th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
This was an incredibly insightful read, and well done for hitting many of the important points for both creating a positive and productive community as well as tips for not turning women off. It really does in online communities come down to community leadership through the people involved and useful tools like codes of conduct and such. It isn’t about women getting special favour, or treated better, but rather about not treating us different.
Nicely done.
June 10th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Kudos on a GREAT summation of the issues. You cast light, and no heat, which is welcome, given lots of tender feelings in many tech communities at the present time.
June 10th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Thank you for this well thought post.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Geeez, thank you. The information and material for this article has been spinning in my mind for several years now. I was hoping one day it would congeal, and finally it did.
This is an emotional topic for me, but I did my best to put it down and walk away from it when I found myself getting worked up. I made a _huge_ effort to remain unbiased and see this problem from all perspectives. It was a hell of a lot more difficult to write than the tech articles.
Thank you for the support and encouragement.
Gloria
June 10th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Wow, this was great! Point number 1 for men made me think of a very uncomfortable situation a little under two years ago. A conversation with a random person in a bookstore in the computer section resulted in a middle-aged man asking out 17-year-old (at the time) me. His reasoning was “I’ve never met a girl who knew about computers before.” Also doesn’t help that he was a customer where I worked. My manager said he’s pretty sure the guy was married, which adds extra to the creepy factor (you know, aside from “I met you 10 minutes ago,” over 20 year age gap, and me being total jailbait).
June 10th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
This is quite interesting. I sometimes go under the pseudonym “Amy Rose” and am treated differently–guys on IRC often assume I know nothing about Linux and hit on me, for example. I am a guy doesn’t fit in among other guys because I don’t understand other men. I only get along well with women. Your suggestions make a lot of sense.
Sadly, however, I don’t know how many guys are going to read those. :(
June 11th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Great article, Gloria! It really covers a lot of the things I’ve seen in a straightforward manner without being angry. That seems to be hard to do on some of those points, and I really appreciate the time you’ve put in to writing it this way.
The only thing I wish is that you could have a condensed version somewhere. I think a lot more people would make it through the whole article if there were a summary at the top detailing the highlights!
June 11th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
This is one of the best descriptions of the dynamic I’ve ever seen. I’m particularly taken by your coverage of “Women’s groups generally have a few vocal, and many silent, members” - a lot of things came together when you pointed that out.
Thank you Gloria!
June 11th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
You’ve made some very good observations. I had a few “ah-ha!” moments while reading the article when I realised that I’ve noticed the patterns before, and also some “uh oh” moments when I looked back on situations I probably could have handled better. I’ve certainly had some heated male ego pointed in my direction before, and it isn’t pleasant.
Thanks for writing a very insightful article.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:17 am
Good work on deconstructing the women-only community! I completely empathize with #3.
How do we fix that thing about using a male pseudonym? How can we slowly work to turn that tide of misogynistic high-scrutiny for tech articles that happen to be written by women?
June 12th, 2007 at 3:21 am
Great article. I was recently pondering something similar wrt the reasons why women are less represented in FLOSS than in the corporate world or academia. From you comments, I made a further refinement of my theory: it’s about ACTIVE enforcement of a community standard. In womens’ groups, any negative comments are responded with all members of the community using a similar standard of behavior. In non-female-friendly groups, the community standards that is enforced is ignoring a problem or minimizing its significance or the commenter. In corporate/academic environments, women have a method of enforcement that can lead to the person being fired or having a superior reprimand them. This threat of loss of employment/income is not valid for volunteer projects where you can not (usually) have your income affected. Also, corporate/academic environments have policies about harassment (now) that can be enforced whereas most FLOSS communities are testosterone-filled free-for-alls where verbal prowess and technical skill are all that matter. There are exceptions, of course. There is also the use of text-based, low-bandwidth communication where everyone is assumed to be male unless otherwise stated and most males are psychologically desensitized to peoples’ feeling in text-based communication because of the inherent limited ability to communicate feeling, emotions or body language.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Many of the same points were made in Andy Lester’s talk “Geek Culture Considered Harmful” http://www.petdance.com/perl/geek-culture/
June 12th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Thank you for a wonderful article. I have forwarded it to Feministing.com, and hope they pick up on it.
I am a champion of civility in technical discourse. There is never a reason for rudeness. The company or group that fosters a culture of incivility and disrespect does so to its detriment.
Baiting is also unacceptable. No matter what our views, we all share a society and must show a minimum mutual respect to make it work. I once declined an opportunity because the person I would’ve reported to engaged in testing behavior. He dropped a racist comment here, and a sexist one there, and watched how I’d react. I saw where this would lead–I would politely tolerate it until the day he crossed the line, when I’d roar at him to STFU; then he’d act all hurt: “Whaaah? Are we politically correct now?”–and I decided not to go there.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Thanks so much for this article. Just recently at JavaOne *many* of these things happened to me - and the lines that come up in normal tech dialogue that refer to something that should not be referred to never cease to amaze me. It’s like some people can’t even hold a civil conversation once they have a beer in them and they’re outside the normal constraints of their own work environment.
I think it’s great that you put this out there and let’s hope that those that need it take your advice! /LC
June 13th, 2007 at 12:06 am
I read it. This is really informative. Guys who let themselves get in the way of everyone’s lives are jerks. Good write–unfortunately the only people reading this are the people who already know it is.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:37 am
This is a great article - much needed and should be read as widely as possible.
You may have chosen to leave it out as it is a contentious issue and clearly you were concerned to avoid confrontation but there is another issue that it would be useful to discuss: the plight of the woman who challenges aggressive behaviour. From personal experience and from discussion with many other women who have had similar experiences, there is a double standard at play. Women on groups/lists (tech or otherwise) who finally snap at the sort of aggression which the men ignore from each other, and which you describe so well, will find that it is their own challenge which is characterised as aggressive while the ongoing male aggression gets totally ignored/justified/explained as ‘normal’ etc etc. In my case I was told by one man that the aggression was a necessary aspect of controlling contributions to the group but that I was merely being unpleasant myself. The challenging woman is typically treated with derision/suspicion/dislike and woe betide her if she dares to return fire in a comparable manner. Outraged male egos await her - most especially so from men who think themsleves clued up about gender/equality issues.
Men only groups (whether by default or design) are not intrinsically more worthwhile so we don’t need to feel ‘excluded’ in rejecting their aggresive working ethos where that occurs. We can do our own thing and have all the necessary authority to assign validity and relevance to it ourselves. But it does leave two questions outstanding: whether we are all losing out because of this widespread failure of mixed gender groups to function well and how we should support women who try to do something about it in the face of extreme hostility. If we dont come up with some effective way of supporting women in real life situations, a change of attitude is likely to be very slow. I fear that many men reading your article will fail to recognise that a lot of what you describe applies to them, for instance.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:54 am
To be honest, I think the article is very confused and makes the mistake of an absolute genderisation of behaviour. While agreeing that there is an awful lot of macho-geek behaviour in tech circles, some of the perpetrators are women and some (many!) of the victims are men.
One good example of where I think the article goes wrong is where it deals with men ignoring improper communications. According to the other masculine characteristics presented in the article, men are supposed to be more assertive and aggressive - how is this squared with this other characteristic of them letting bullies walk all over them? Answer is that it doesn’t. In most of the tech places that I’ve worked in, almost everybody allows bullies to get away with their thing - those who don’t are sometimes men, sometimes women, but it’s not a particularly genderised thing.
In summation, not every behaviour can be analysed as an expression of gender roles. Some people are just assholes and we unfortunately get assholes of all genders.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Sarah H, you make good points, but you misread the article, probably though your own experience.
This is not meant to be an absolute gender-labeling of all behavior. I personally do not believe, practice, or live by strong gender stereotypes. If you read this article as trying to portray all men as being too aggressive, you have read it through your own filtering. It is not expressed that way, not intended, and it is not my point. I know many _people_ who are aggressive, I know quite a few _people_ who are assholes, both men and women.
A good point to make is that female aggression is almost always read as bitchiness while male aggression is considered more palatable. Why is this so? Why is Hillary a ‘bitch’ because she’s running for president? Can people genuinely tell the difference between assertiveness and aggression? Are women in high profile roles still too much of a perceived threat to both men and women?
Mother Jones wrote about this a few issues back, and it was fascinating:
http://www.motherjones.com/toc/2007/01/index.html
I did avoid the bad female stereotypes which we all have seen: the catty coworker, the bitchy boss. It seems tangential to the point of the article.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
hehe - I don’t even know where to start with this. I’ve been totally sincere with women, trying to keep them involved in tech projects, and instead I get reactions of suspicion, distrust, and who knows what else… meanwhile, I would be ultra careful to not wink at them in some sort of flirtatious manner, or touch them - like even on the shoulder, or call them by some other term besides their actual name, and I’d still feel like I was being treated with suspicion. Half the time I don’t even get a chance to tell them that I have a girlfriend already, I’m just guilty of breaking some unwritten rule because I tried to encourage female participation.
It’s all very confusing and really I stopped caring. I joined an optical engineering society a couple years ago, and when it came time to renew my subscription, a journal called “Women in Optics” was offered for free. Since I am all for more nerd women, I thought I’d sign up to get the journal just to see what they’re writing/discussing. I’ve been reading anarchist websites for years that basically cover issues of gender equality, and figured I could learn something. At one point I was mailed a membership list for the Women in Optics group, and it turned out there were more men in Canada listed as members than there were women!!!
I guess in the closing of this comment, I’d like to point out a couple things. Yes - just because women get excited about a technical subject doesn’t necessarily translate into “I’m getting into this because I’m interested in you…”, which makes sense, hence the reason you’re involved in the first place. I’ve met many women who feign interest in a topic just to get closer to a guy, which is an effective way of getting into his pants. It usually becomes obvious that this is the case quite quickly though, and the faking stops.
And I’m sorry if some of us are actually interested in the appearance AND brains of a woman, like - is that so wrong?? Heck, I personally am more interested in the women that don’t dress up considerably, but are smart.
And how are guys supposed to show interest in nerd chicks without telling you in one way or another? If we say something hinting that we’re interested in something beyond being co-workers, just say “sorry bud - it ain’t happening.” if you really aren’t interested. Not every nerd guy wants a nerd girl, but the few of us that do, can you please cut us some slack. Otherwise we’ll just not show any interest at all, and settle down with someone who isn’t going to keep running away once a hint of interest is shown.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Nicholas, you’re missing a vital point to this article. This is not about how to pick up women at work. It’s about the need to turn off your interests in women at work, so that everyone can work together comfortably. This is not about dating at all. Get it?
W.R.T. the suspicion, ask a female geek one day over lunch if you’re doing something to cause that suspicion. She may feel comfortable telling you, then you will find out if it’s a body language issue, or some miscommunication. If you really don’t want to be interpreted this way, but you find that you repeatedly are, it is most likely something you’re doing unconsciously.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
This is a silly comment:
‘Never have I seen or heard anything like “You suckâ€Â, “You’re wrong†when women in these groups communicate.’
In most fields, but especially technical ones, it is very important to say “You’re wrong” anytime the situation warrants. Either your coworker tells you, or the laws of physics/computing will tell you (after you waste hours/weeks of work). Even worse, the customer will tell you.
Your feelings are less important than the business. Anyone who disagrees doesn’t belong in computing.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Hello,
Thank you for writing this. I always wondered how I could make my environment more women-friendly and now I have more tools. It is not just a matter of not making women feel bad but about not letting others make them feel bad.
I’ll be paying more attention and try to stand up if I see the behaviour you describe. Because actually I’ll be building a better environment for men too.
In other words I am disturbed by the same things that disturbs women and I end up being among the silent majority that just leaves. I’ll try not to do this anymore, you gave me a lot of tools.
Now, something that may be interesting but may be contradictory to the purpose is to make shorter version of this article, no more that 500 words, that can be read in little time, with a simple URL to point out to people that is hurting the community and making it less friendly for women. Like RTMF is said to those that ask instead of reading, something to say to those that insult or degrade other people instead of being civilized. YAHTC: You Are Hurting The Community; or something like that.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
One thing that I disagree with is that men consciously attempt to exclude women from groups. I won’t say it never happens, but I’ve never seen such a thing in an online programming-related community.
I will also say that while I do understand the reason for a male pseudonym, I wonder if it is actively hurting acceptance of females in such circles. Yes, men can be territorial jerks. It happens. However, saying that “women just can’t handle that” seems like a bit of a copout and avoids dealing with the issue. If you find yourself in such an environment, you’d do much better to point it out than simply walking away or starting to post as Bob Jones.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Yes I understand this isn’t about picking up women at work. But there’s these certain biological functions that keep ignoring these desired workplace habits, and maybe more helpful in explaining the alpha male tendency you encounter instead of thinking that we’re all assholes trying to make you feel awkward at work. You equally make us feel awkward leading us to do irrational things.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Tech Guy: Agreed. You’re taking this one line out of context. I realize that it may not be clear based on how it’s worded, so I fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out.
Feelings do matter if you’re offending each other in the name of better business. You have to spend 8 to 10 hours a day around people who you may be offending. Tell the truth, but in a civil manner, whether the customer is being civil or not. The truth does not offend, the tone does.
Nicholas, not all men are assholes. Also, not all men feel as if their hormones control their lives, they way you feel. If you’re telling us that you cannot control your behavior, maybe you need some counseling and/or the proper meds. I know for a fact that not all men share your experience at work.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Someone, please tell me how the comment, “you’re wrong” is harsh and uncivilized when accurate.
“There is no better way to give women a message that their comments are not welcome than implying that: …(2) your comments are stupid, wrong, or ridiculous,”
Not everything is hunky-dory with every post. Some comments are factually incorrect. Some are inane, or at least appear to be so. If you take a position, be prepared to defend it. You may be right. But I think you’re wrong.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
*sigh* I’m not describing myself this way. I’m saying that human behaviour has a biological basis for this. I can control myself almost too well.
And i don’t think any of this requires medication. Society has been sedated enough as it is.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
The point about not being able to ignore certain things was eye opening. I felt a great deal of sadness actually, about it.
I wonder though, whether a woman only group can gather specificially to create some piece of free software. As more of these groups form, awareness is raised and steps can be taken for a proper blending of both male and female perspectives to better accomodate each other.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Glad to hear that you are not describing yourself, Nicholas. Re: your point: Human behavior also has a biological basis for war and murder as well. But unlike wild animals, we have a well-developed frontal lobe, and the ability to reason. Like I said, let’s all evolve past this.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Pupeno, this is a great suggestion. Please feel free to create that 500 word cheat sheet. I am terrible at summarizing this article. I have tried and failed.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
There are a lot of good points in this, but I get the feeling that it suffers from a common fallacy that the way to get women more involved/interested/comfortable is to make all the men quit acting like men.
For example the stuff about competitiveness and arguments. Competitiveness isn’t strictly a male trait, but it’s more predominantly one. It’s the result of thousands of years of human development and biology, and it evolved that way because has been useful. It still is useful: men argue over tech issues because generally one answer to something actually is better than another, and it is to everyone’s benefit if which one it is can be figured out. Demonstrating a better understanding of the issue lends credence to your position, because the better your understanding, the more likely you have the better answer. So you compete over who is smarter on the given subject. Trying to force everyone not to be competitive will result in a stagnation of ideas.
So if you ascribe competitiveness as a male trait as you imply, then I’m afraid that just trying to make men stop being men is not a real answer.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Chris: agreed, and again, it’s about tone. Not every post is right. But this does not suddenly make the wrong person a punching bag. Truth matters, and tone matters. I think you have the right intent but express it incorrectly.
John: As I said, it is pointed out, only to then be flooded with responses like: “Toughen up”, “What problem? I don’t see a problem”, or “Hey baby…”
It’s so easy to comment on this problem when you’re not affected by it.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Thought-provoking article, even if I disagree with much of it. Likewise the comments! I’m glad you stuck to “the less obvious”, even if your “tips” section came back to the demon of sexual harassment.
I don’t know .. by these characteristics most of the (by circumstance, whatever) male-only or male-dominated tech groups I’ve been involved in over the years are very female. Community *always* plays a vital role. There is *always* a silent majority. The vocal few almost always deal with trolls in a manner such as you describe.
Honestly I often see two vocal majorities: one that communicates very aggressively, and another that tends to stay clear of the former’s discussions and contribute meaningfully when there’s a thread that’s not obviously going to degenerate. And I’ve seen women in the former group as well as men in the latter.
Also, sometimes ignoring bad behaviour is the best way to deal with it. RTFM on “internet trolls” and why you don’t feed them.
Maybe I’m a little defensive but I hate to see such false dichotomies between women and men. Especially when sexual harassment come into it you’re just confusing too many issues: I look forward to Pupeno’s efforts to summarise this article and extract the core points. Perhaps the terms “women” and “men” can remain but be better understood as abstractions that don’t neccessarily denote gender.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Interesting. Can I join? Hahahahaha.. just kidding. Most points made good reading. Though I do feel that you might have generalized quite a bit too much at times. No doubt men are built to be more aggressive than women, but then hey, give the nice guys some credit too. What say?
June 14th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Overall I like the article. But I think that the issue of dating in the workplace is a bit too quickly brushed over in the article and comments. You imply that it is simply not right to express attraction in the office at all under any circumstance. Men cannot make the first move, and cannot be trusted to interpret signals, so they must wait 100% passively until a woman asks them out.
Is that really what you’re saying?
June 14th, 2007 at 1:34 am
gloriajw, after reading ‘Never have I seen or heard anything like “You suckâ€Â, “You’re wrong, idiot†when women in these groups communicate’, I found my jaw dropping when I read two of your responses to people who have disagreed with you: your blunt insistence that Sarah H misread the article (are you sure the fault is hers?); and your direction that Nicholas seek therapy for his “problem”, which is precisely the meeting of an abstract disagreement with a personal slight that you seem to deem “male group” behaviour!
The fact of the matter is that both “male” and “female” group dynamics, as you characterise them - I recognise the styles, but would dispute the nomenclature - have horrid worst cases; whilst you characterise those of the former perfectly, the latter should be acknowledged too - the very “group protection” instinct that you describe can go horribly wrong - where dissent or divergence themselves become the enemies of the group. Your local high school would illustrate the worst cases of any gender grouping perfectly, of course. :)
The only real solution is that groups, whatever their gender distribution, are founded on a basis of genuine mutual respect and acceptance of difference; when this isn’t there from the beginning, the worst cases (in whichever style) develop until the group dies completely. Sentiments like “you suck”, “you’re an idiot” or “if you feel that way, perhaps you should avail yourself of therapy” all belong firmly on the outside of such a group; but statements such as “I fundamentally disagree with you”, “you have contradicted yourself” or “you have hurt someone” should always be acceptable, because they distinguish the person from their deeds, and show respect for the former whilst challenging the latter. Unfortunately, too many people confuse the two kinds of statements, both when making them and when hearing them, which causes an awful lot of bad behaviour; the nature of the bad behaviour might be broadly generalisable by gender, but the confusion itself is all too universal.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:17 am
This is a useful and interesing post.
However, I do think it’s a little bit one-sided.
The thing is, women have been conditioned by their culture to behave and interact in certain ways.
However, the culture that has done this is old-fashioned, traditionally sexist, and assumes that women have only a minor presence in the workplace.
Therefore, women’s cultural conditioning is, in effect, designed to make them ineffective in the workplace.
The article focuses on the many ways men should adapt themselves to women’s cultural conditioning.
However, it has to be a two-way process. Women also have to adapt themselves to overcome the cultural stereotypes designed to keep them compliant and subservient.
Women in the workplace have to become more assertive than traditional culture would like.
They have to be prepared to shoot down bad ideas quickly, rather than waste hours letting their owners down gently.
They have to be able to deal with (or “ignore”) minor unpleasant traits. In a workplace, everyone is there because they have a role: you can’t just “exclude” people for not fitting in.
In particular, I find these extracts pretty disturbing:
“Sometimes the offender is not socially adept enough to pick up on the fact that ignoring implies intolerance at some level. They somehow missed the message most three year olds learn: I’m ignoring you because I don’t like your behavior, so they continue the intolerable behavior.”
and:
“Many times the women’s group will even make an effort to explain the offense to the oblivious offender. But if the offender is still oblivious and/or offending, the offender is out.”
If you have a serious problem with someone’s behaviour in the workplace, you need to address it directly: come out and say it.
Instead, this article seems to suggest that the way to deal with it is to silently ostracize the offender without saying anything at all.
That may or may not be the way women have been conditioned to deal with these problems. But it’s simply not appropriate to try to deal with a workplace problem that way.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Saying “you’re wrong” is directly directed at the person. Never do that. If posible ignore the mistake. If ignoring is not posible then whatever you do, never embarrass the person who made the mistake.
Maybe you could thank them for their input? It takes courage to speak up. Praise them for that. Then use all the good parts of their comment and add the correct information as gentle as posible. More a clarification then a correction.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Great article, and summs up exactly why I like to join Women’s groups, although I think your ‘For men who care’ section went a bit too far - women do still have some of the responsibility! (I work with one who’s perfectly happy to flirt her way to promotion)
I spotted one spelling mistake while reading through:
“When most everything is taken at face value”
which should read either “When ‘most..” or “When almost..”.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:41 am
These are good points,everyone thank you.
Absolutely, women are to blame as well. They need to speak up, and stop tolerating behavior that holds them back. The women who use their good looks as superpowers to get what they want need to stop. The men who tolerate this need to stop. Lots of awful human behavior needs to stop.
Re: Ostracizing offensive people: I don’t recommend it unless it’s absolutely necessary. My only recommendations in this article are listed at the bottom of the article.
Re: Dating in the office, I know it happens, and I don’t address it here. The best way I’ve seen attraction handled in the office is one person asks if the other is interested. If the other say no, it’s done, never to be brought up again, and it’s not an issue.
gwenhwyfaer made a good point. I am not perfect at constructive criticism. I do have a male style of not being able to separate the person from the problem in some cases. I have my own bias and judgments I struggle with, and at times it’s take a superhuman effort to detach person from action. Thank you for pointing this out.
I’m going to add to the article based on reader’s comments. Thank you all for this learning experience.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:02 am
gmlk, what you cite as a preferable approach can actually come across as false and condescending - the phrase “thank you for your input” is already widely understood to mean precisely the opposite, probably because it’s used by too many people to mean “you’re wrong and you can’t cope with hearing it”. I agree that “you’re wrong” is too loaded a phrase for use in debate - but the problem I have with it isn’t that it is humiliating; it’s that it is judgemental and dismissive. It’s a phrase that concludes, rather than stimulates, debate.
It’s also easily avoided. If one disagrees, one can say “I disagree with … because …”; if one finds a factual error, or that someone’s conclusions do not follow from their bases, “Isn’t it really the case that…?” will suffice. Neither is condescending or dismissive; both communicate respect whilst also clearly stating the point of difference; both allow debate to continue rather than drawing it to a close. Even qualifying “you’re wrong” with “I think” renders it comparatively harmless.
Of course, if the other person responds to such a challenge as though you called them a horse’s arse, you’re probably free to stop worrying too much about their feelings. :) But my point is that mutual respect isn’t hard, even in the face of complete disagreement; but it grows not from how one regards anyone else’s opinions, but from how one approaches one’s own - and no amount of window dressing can fake it.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:16 am
gloriajw: at the risk of belabouring the point, when you say “I do have a male style of not being able to separate the person from the problem in some cases”, I must point out that I have seen that particular issue manifested equally in both styles of group interaction. I think it’s a universal human trait, which merely finds different expression in different people.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Could you please provide proof for your claim that you get different responses if you post under a male pseudonym? I don’t believe you. I for one rarely read the name of the poster of an article, and I don’t care about the sex if I do.
If someone is wrong you should tell him/her just that. If you’re not absolutely sure you should say something else. I prefer a helpful but harsh response to a kind but unhelpful response.
But please, don’t post a reply that explains why this person is wrong, mentioning all obvious details. An example:
Some person asks help because his code doesn’t work. Some other person tries to correct this code, but this person posts incorrect code too.
Now you can say this: “This code produces an error when you input X”, or you can explain that the code doesn’t work and tell this person that it isn’t his fault because it’s a hard problem and it was late when he posted that, you were trying to be helpful, etc. The second way may make some people (mostly women, maybe?) feel better, but it makes me feel worse. The first response only criticizes the code, but the second response indirectly tells you that you’re incompetent. I’d prefer someone saying “you’re incompetent; this code doesn’t work”, because this is a half-joke.
Say “don’t be such a jerk” or “I find your comment offending” if you think it’s offending. This is much better than just feeling offended.
I find your article offending, especially the last half.
Why aren’t there “men only” groups? I find “women only” groups slightly offending, a little like “whites only”.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:47 am
gwenhwyfaer, this is insightful. What is the correct way to tell someone they’re wrong without offending? I still haven’t figured this out. What if the person is wrong but persistent, even defensive? Doesn’t there reach a point where you tell them abrasively to stop, and that their wrong? I struggle with how to do this, irrespective of gender.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Gloria,
I came to this site from reddit. There was a link there to one of “Gloria’s” comment threads.
http://programming.reddit.com/info/1vqx2/comments
Is the above url one where you commented? It seems that there is nothing very gender specific about making dismissive comments, if the above is a valid example of your online “style”.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:22 am
“What if the person is wrong but persistent, even defensive? Doesn’t there reach a point where you tell them abrasively to stop, and that their wrong?”
Of course! the problem arises when such “abrasive” styles are identified as (emphasis mine) “I do have a ***male*** style of not being able to separate the person from the problem in some casesâ€Â.
Huh? “male style”? this is (reverse) sexism isn’t it?
June 14th, 2007 at 9:28 am
> What is the correct way to tell someone they’re wrong without offending?
“You’re wrong”. That’s only offensive to people who think they are immune to criticism.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Jules, if you’re offended, imagine how people who are subjected to this listed behavior very often, in many tech environments feel. They are profoundly offended. It is a shame that groups who suffer from discrimination feel the need to hide and form their own group, but what better solution is there, until people become enlightened, and discrimination ceases? Where else do you find the support for your ultimate goal of equality?
Ravi, you are correct, I am dismissive to people who seem to react rather than discuss my articles. I have been told by other people that this is a ‘male’ behavior. Many people seen to categorize it as such. I personally don’t practice strong gender stereotypes, nor not I cleanly fit into any male or female stereotype. So this labeling of my dismissive response to reactive, possibly fight-provoking comments comes from others, not me.
I don’t enjoy categorizing things as distinctly male or female. But I am (1) aware that so many other people do, and (2) there is no better terminology in my vocabulary. Some behavior really is more predominant in many men, some is more prevalent in many women, some is not. How do I address that without saying ‘male’ or ‘female’?
If you have a better way, show us.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Jules said ********
Now you can say this: “This code produces an error when you input Xâ€Â, or you can explain that the code doesn’t work and tell this person that it isn’t his fault
<snip>
I’d prefer someone saying “you’re incompetent; this code doesn’t workâ€Â, because this is a half-joke.
****************
Jules, I would much more prefer someone using the first response by telling me that the code produces an error when inputing X. I think it’s a lot more helpful than just saying the code doesn’t work and calling someone incompetent. I do not see anything joking about that, and it’s unnecessarily aggressive.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I can see partly where Nicholas is coming from. Work is not that different from any other social interaction. If you are looking for a relationship, whether you are male or female, you will evaluate other people for their romantic/sexual potential. You can’t turn off your reactions to other people just because you’re at work.
What you _can_ do, is be very careful about how you act on your feelings, and whether you are actually getting signals or not.
You have to bear in mind that as a place to meet people, work has distinct disadvantages. If you act on an attraction that isn’t mutual, you’re going to make both the other person and yourself uncomfortable for the rest of your working relationship.
A reasonable percentage of romantic relationships start at work though, because that’s where you meet and get to know people.
Gloria: I don’t intend what I just said as a contradiction of any of your article, which I thought was very good. Just that in the comments when you said “turn off your interests in women” you might be being a little unrealistic.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Jeff, I agree 100%, and the best way I’ve seen it handled is to just ask, and get it out of the way.
“Do you feel anything? No? OK, no problem, it will never come up again, and won’t be an issue.”
or
“I feel something coming from you that is making me uncomfortable. I don’t feel this way, can we please start over, without this vibe, so we can get work done?”
or the positive reaction, which is always so much easier to deal with, and not worth addressing.
These are great observations, thank you. What I failed to mention is that a lot of tech women experience these advances and vibes from married men, which is awkward and quite the mess. Yech.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Gloria, great article.
Comments:
(1) I’m sorry to hear that there are (still) so many guys out there who can’t look past gender in their co-workers. I actually think you should never make a pass at co-workers during work hours. Arrange a *social* occasion — lunch or a drink after work — if you are interested in them.
(2) You ask, “What is the correct way to tell someone they’re wrong without offending?”
I always think the best answer is, “I disagree, and here’s why: …” The worst answer is “You’re an idiot, and here’s why…”
One can become a constructive learning experience. The other is a personal attack.
(3) A big +++ to the comment by gwenhwyfaer about the fact that *both* communication styles have their drawbacks.
I have great sympathy for women who prefer to communicate in a masculine (direct and functional) way. Too often they end up being ostracized by other women precisely because they don’t embrace a participative, consensual style of communication — and they *still* get most of the male discrimination and sexualisation you talk about.
(4) Ravi said:
> Huh? “male style� this is (reverse) sexism isn’t it?
Well, say “masculine style” if you prefer, but the concept of “masculine” and “feminine” behaviors is well established.
The trick is to never *assume* that just because someone is male or female that they will exhibit the more common masculine or feminine of their gender.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:27 am
Gloria,
Your right. One should only give praise if one really feels it’s justified, and even then only if one is able to give praise in a sincere manner (this may take a lot of practice).
Like you pointed out, praise should never become an empty automatic gesture; That would indeed be demeaning. It’s always beter to keep silent than to give evidence that one is indeed insensitive.
My main point was that people should avoid language which could embarrass someone. Especially in a public forum. It should be more about maintaining a peaceable environment then to win an argument or to demonstrate how much we know more then others. We should leave our ego at the door.
June 15th, 2007 at 4:29 am
The “For the men who care: Tips for communicating with women in Tech environments, online and Face-to-Face” seems more like a rant about your
personal experiences with men in the office.
So you have very strong feelings about romance (or attempts at it) in the workplace, thats fine. You
have a right to your opinion, but i’m sure all other tech women have their own opinions to, which is why you shouldn’t make general, sweeping statements about their attitudes.
Another interesting thing is the over analysing of
comments you talked about. So if a woman has a
dress on or a nice new hairstyle that looks nice and i mention that, it automatically means i
think she did it all for me? Or if i show interest
in a woman its all because i thought she was flirting with me? Sometimes a man is just interseted because his interseted, not because he thinks you’re interested too, and sometimes a dress is nice because its nice, not beacuse i thought you put it on for me. Enough with the over-analysing already!
June 15th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Paul, the ‘rant’ comes form a collective, not just me.
I don’t hear any women here standing up and stating that this so-called rant is wrong. Hmm, that means something.
What does this mean? “Sometimes a man is just interseted because his interseted”? So women are supposed to be the ‘receptacle’ for all unwanted comments and affection? This is not looking too good for you, Paul.
June 15th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Very interesting article; gave me some new ways to think about this problem and I’ve been part of the IT community since 1970.
One thing you didn’t mention is women just being ignored. All the tech women I know who’ve been the only woman at a meeting have had the experience where they offer a solution early in a meeting that is simply ignored. Then later some male comes up with the same solution and is given the credit and the praise.
I’ve had this happen in online discussions as well.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:02 am
> I don’t hear any women here standing up and stating that this so-called rant is wrong. Hmm, that means something.
Gloria, the workplace is the most common place people meet their spouses.
I totally understand that sometimes you get unwanted attention at work. But the idea that male attention is *always* unwanted is simply false.
> What does this mean? “Sometimes a man is just interseted because his interseted� So women are supposed to be the ‘receptacle’ for all unwanted comments and affection?
No, that obviously wasn’t what he meant.
You were talking as if the only reason men are interested in women is because the men think the woman has deliberately provoked interest in some way - the way she dresses, for example.
Paul was pointing out that men can quite easily find a woman appealing without being under the impression that the woman is trying to seduce them.
I have to wonder if you would be so quick to assume that you’d react so negatively towards Paul’s opinion and misread him so much if he’d posted as “Polly” or “Pauline”. He was being completely reasonable and you’re making him out to be some kind of sexist pig.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am
OldLadyDeveloper: yes, you are right, I forgot this issue, even though I have been affected by it.
Paul’s meaning was not that obvious. There is something Jim’s statement implies with is one of the points I am trying to make, which is, many women do not want men to find them ‘appealing’ in the workplace. They want to be found to be intelligent, a valuable contributor to a project, and an asset to the company. ‘Appealing’ is not a compliment in the workplace, it is a problem. It doesn’t matter who started it, who caused it or didn’t cause it. It is an issue. I hope this clarifies.
Paul is not a sexist pig. He is assuming, like Jim, that women want men to find them ‘appealing’ at work. Most women don’t want this at work. Thinking that they do, makes your judgement look questionable. If you find a woman appealing, did you notice how smart, hard-working, or valuable she is to the company, or are you dwelling on the dress? This looks bad, not perverted. Understand the difference?
Women at work are not receptacles for unwanted attention. Find out if she wants that attention or not. Don’t assume she does. It is safer to ask, off premises, than assume at work.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:41 am
“I don’t hear any women here standing up and stating that this so-called rant is wrong. Hmm, that means something.”
Actually, because we’re disagreeing with much of it elsewhere. And hesitant to comment here because you don’t seem present a persona comfortable with disagreement.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Dear Gloria, I read your article with interest, and also the comments were very helpful. I consider myself fairly socially inept (and male), but keen on learning the ways, so please allow me a few questions.
On “women don’t dress up for you, just for themselves to feel good”: when I dress up, I generally do it for myself, to feel good. Why do I feel good in something that’s not as comfy as it could be? Because I get noticed and appreciated. The whole idea of “changing into something less comfortable”, as some movies put it, is to get noticed, for a number of reasons. If a woman wants to feel good because she likes what she sees in the mirror, she should not be surprised when others like it as well, especially in an office environment full of jeans or suits (depends).
Then there is the manner of expressing it, of course. “Yeah baby!” is not good, but why should “Nice dress!” or “You look good!” be bad? I’d say it on occasion to co-workers, both male and female. I’ve had it said to me, and it pleased me. Why is it that the females could get hurt by it? Or do you suggest it should simply be ignored? If I dressed up and was ignored, I’d be hurt.
And on the “women are often silent many and vocal few”: I’d put this differently, especially after reading the preceding comments.
It seems that in any situation, there are those who care and those who don’t. The latter can go away or be jerks, both to be ignored, or they can observe silently in case they’ll start to care. If they go away, it is not a signal of a bad situation. Those who care, on the other hand, should get involved. Involvement can be vocal and calm, articulated, respectful or even friendly. Involvement can be silent, expecting someone vocal to “be my spokesperson”, I could say. And involvement can be vocal and aggressive, expecting to win by being the loudest. Both the silent and aggressive sorts are wrong, though. If you have something to say, don’t present it as a fight. But if you do have something to say, for goodness’s sake, say it, don’t expect the others to read your mind (or expression, perhaps). And certainly leaving because things don’t go your way is also wrong, unless you honestly stopped caring.
And on “women don’t want to be found ‘appealing’ at work”: is it because they assume that once they are found appealing, they can’t be found smart, hard-working, or valuable? But to say “you’re appealing”, the usual way is to say something nice, like a compliment. To say “you’re smart, or hard-working, or valuable”, the usual way is to give a lot of respect; perhaps this is harder to pick up on the receiving end, so one could get overly focused on how many compliments one receives, as opposed to how much respect.
Btw, whatever it may look like (and my words often end up looking wrong), I mean this as a discussion piece, not criticism.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Shelly, please do not misread my forthcoming communication style as unaccepting. Explain the circumstances under which you’d like this attention at work, and the circumstances in which you would not. Clarity is a good thing, and I think this needs to be well understood, so I’d like to hear your opinion. Please post it here. Also, don’t be afraid to offend me. I am not the authority on these issues. I am simply a conscious observer stating my observations, in a purposeful manner. If you offend me, so what?
This raises another point not mentioned anywhere yet. Why are women afraid to offend each other, at the cost of expressing their opinion through discussion? I wish this would not happen.
Jacek, thank you, all good points. I don’t claim to have all of the answers. I also very hesitantly fail to mention that a lot of tech women I have spoken to are hit on by married men, or receive questionable comments, or maybe a bit too much attention from married men. This is a problem, the big problem I found unapproachable, the real one I was trying to address. It is still awkward for me to address this. It happens, many of us would like it to stop. That was my real point.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:51 am
> many women do not want men to find them ‘appealing’ in the workplace. They want to be found to be intelligent, a valuable contributor to a project, and an asset to the company.
Why do you think they are mutually exclusive? I can’t speak for anybody else, but I certainly don’t find stupid people attractive.
Just because a man finds a woman attractive, it doesn’t mean he thinks that they aren’t intelligent, a valuable contributor or an asset to the company.
I’ve heard some intelligent, attractive women complain that they find it hard to be judged on their own merits because the other *women* in their company assume that their attractiveness is what gets them ahead instead of their brains. Are you sure you aren’t unwittingly contributing to that by pushing this false dichotomy?
> Paul is not a sexist pig. He is assuming, like Jim, that women want men to find them ‘appealing’ at work.
Neither Paul nor I said that. Paul said nothing of the sort, and I said that *some* women want *some* men to find them attractive at work. I’m taking issue with the idea that it’s a black and white issue, that women are “seething” whenever any hint of attraction comes up.
If you really disagree with that, then how do you explain how common workplace romances are?
> Find out if she wants that attention or not. Don’t assume she does.
Please don’t assume that I need to be told that merely because I point out that workplace romance is not exclusively a male pursuit. Women have libidos too, they don’t suddenly become androids when they set foot in an office.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:22 am
“Shelly, please do not misread my forthcoming communication style as unaccepting. Explain the circumstances under which you’d like this attention at work, and the circumstances in which you would not.”
I felt like saluting with that last sentence. But here goes:
You put much emphasis that the primary problem facing women at work is sexual attraction. I’d say this is probably one of the least of the challenges facing women in technology. We don’t have any more problems in this regard than any other profession, so no, that’s not a particularly good area of focus when trying to figure out why more women aren’t in tech.
Do many women post using assumed male names? I’m not personally aware of any women who are, but I imagine there are some. However, most of the women I know post as themselves or a nickname based on their name.
As for discussion areas, you all have to find your comfort zone in your space, but I’ve never once had to ‘return a comment’ for editing in mine. I find the thought to be offensive — I assume my readers are adults, and treat them accordingly.
“Women do not work things out through verbal battle” — have you ever heard Hillary Clinton speak in debate? Women are just as effective and capable of strong debate, which I take your verbal battle to be. In fact, women are very capable of getting into a drag down knock out fight when it comes to that, too.
“this raises another point not mentioned anywhere yet. Why are women afraid to offend each other, at the cost of expressing their opinion through discussion? I wish this would not happen.”
“…affraid to offend each other…”, all I can say is, you don’t know me very well. Let’s just say that, no, this woman is not afraid of such.
I find I don’t agree with much of what you write, other than yes, I would believe that most women’s groups probably do have a strong sense of community. As for harsh words, I bet you’ll find that men in men’s group don’t typically exchange harsh words with each other, either. That’s one of the reasons most people join groups.
However, what women can have in women’s groups is a chance to speak and know that if people disagree, its typically because of what you say, not your sex. And to know we won’t be ignored, discounted, and disdained because of our sex.
You got people talking, and people noticing DevChix, and that’s good. It’s unfortunate, though, that this ended up being focused on sex and the office. As a gay tech wrote in comments in my space, rather a broad assumption to make that all men in an office are sexually interested in the women.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Jim, I understand where you’re coming from. Here is what’s bothering me:
“workplace romance is not exclusively a male pursuit”
Why is this a ‘pusuit’ for either men or women? If a relationship forms as a side-effect of working together, so be it. Friendships form this way too.
It is the ‘pursuit’ that makes many people, men and women, uncomfortable at work. It’s inappropriate. This is why so many companies have policies about dating others in the company. A lot of tech women would not like to be ‘pursued’, but instead respected for their brains, talents, etc. I hope this clarifies.
“Pusrsuit” is problematic, happenstance cannot be controlled.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Shelly, good points. Here are my observations:
(1) Many women are good are verbal battle, but usually only with each other, not male co-workers. It is profoundly difficult for many women to do the drag down knockout fight with a male co-worker. So many tech women face this problem, and spend lots of time talking about it, which makes it noteworthy. Hillary is awesome, and I admire her for her ability to do this.
(2) Women over the years have been ‘infiltrating’ predominantly male tech environments, often being one of the few or only females in the group. The issues that arise from tech women who infiltrate these once-male-only groups are openly discussed amongst ourselves, and this is what percolates to the top. It is by far not all-encompassing, but these are common enough to make them noteworthy.
(3) No piece of my article is meant to to be all-encompassing in any way. It brings up some suggestions to resolve the issues most talked about, most wrestled with by many tech women I have spoken to, in these specific environments.
I do not address sexual orientation discrimination, age discrimination, reverse gender bias, similarities to any/all other environments, so many things are purposely not covered by my article. It falls outside of the scope of the issues.
I assume no sexual preference of anyone. I only address the men who have heterosexual preference in my article, simply because these are the common complaints of many tech women.
As a reader, you can’t even assume you know my sexual preferences, because I haven’t stated them, and they may surprise you, you never know.
If anyone feels as if they were not addressed in this list of recommendations, it is a good thing. It means no one is complaining about your particular situation, preference or orientation. That is good.
Finally, your best point of all: “It’s unfortunate, though, that this ended up being focused on sex and the office.” Amen. Why do the majority of the complaints from tech women about tech environments narrow down to this? I have no clue and I find it hugely disappointing that these issues are the biggest ones.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Gloria,
Perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of words on my behalf. The word “pursuit” has multiple meanings; I was using the word in the sense of “endeavour”, not “chase”.
I agree that people shouldn’t be chasing others in the workplace, but I don’t think it’s feasible to expect people to avoid romance altogether, so long as they can take a hint when the feelings aren’t reciprocated.