Is there a hierarchy in online communities?
June 15th, 2007 by
Dianne
Gloria wrote an interesting article on barriers in tech communities. Her post made me think a lot about the communities that I participate in, and how people interact. I realized that the online communities that are technical in nature are, for the most part, mixed gender and predominantly male. I’m usually one of maybe 2 or 3 women that post there, and I haven’t witnessed dismissive attitudes or combative behavior. Have I just been lucky in my 20 years in the professional software development community? I went to a predominantly male university in the field of computer science. I have rarely worked with another female software developer. Have I just developed a thick skin?
Likewise, the “in real life” (IRL) communities that I am involved with, and the conferences I have attended are predominantly male (seriously, a handful of women), and again, I haven’t witnessed sexual undertones or combative behavior either at those events or in the online communities that have sprung up from them. In fact, I have been encouraged to positions of leadership for those organizations, by men who had NO interest in me. The mixed gender online communities in which I participate are not moderated, but there is clearly an understanding of who is running the community. Perhaps there is a respect for those people that keeps behavior in check (i.e., a hierarchy of its own)? Most of the mentors that I have had in this field have been men. They have given me insight, built my confidence, and treated me with respect, which perhaps has led others to follow their lead. Is this yet another form of the “hierarchy”?
On the other hand, I participate in some other non-technical online communities that are predominantly female and I have certainly witnessed nastiness in those. There is a pack mentality around the behavior where cliques of people “have your back” if you are their “friend”, often times even if criticism is warranted. There’s an apparent hierarchy involved where some people are “untouchable”. When the untouchables criticize another group member, the group doesn’t act against them. Rather, their comments are generally ignored or justifications are made. Granted, the reason that these people have exalted status in these communities is because they have a history for fair and even posts, with well thought-out criticisms, over a long period of time. OTOH, it’s disturbing to see one person (of lesser status) post something that is fair and justified and warranted, but directed at someone of “high status” and see her get blasted, while another person (of high status) posts nearly the same thing and it is ignored. Maybe this will make more sense in some pseudo code (taken from some typical behavior in a non-technical community in which I participate).
- A – person w/high status
- B – person w/high status
- C – person w/low or unknown status
- A criticizes actions of B (justified criticism)
- B ignores A’s comments
- C criticizes actions of B (same basic argument as A)
- B BLASTS C’s post, and many of B’s “friends” come to her defense, but no one says anything about A’s post.
- A realized the injustice and comes to the defense of C saying, “Hey, I said the same thing and you guys didn’t blast me. Leave C alone”
[unintended consequence: C may rise in the hierarchy because of apparent support by A].
OR
A ignores the injustice (or is oblivious to it) and C stays low on the totem pole, having been knocked down a notch.
So, in my experience, this idiotic and abusive behavior is not limited to tech communities, nor to being directed at women, and perhaps it’s even more pervasive in the non-technical boards. Of course, others have noted that it does happen in technical communities (and in workplaces as well).
All of this makes me wonder if perhaps it’s a power thing (and sadly, often women are perceived as having less stature, less power, and so perhaps are “easy targets”). To combat this, I think that those who have reached a “high status” have the responsibility to act fairly, to call members of the group on their behavior, and to support people who are being unfairly criticized. Step up if you see someone being criticized unfairly. The “I’ve got your back” mentality can be abused, or it can be used in solidarity. I think that we all bear this responsibility in online and IRL groups, not to form “cliques” but to call the injustices. When you do, other people who share your opinions may free themselves of lurking status in support.
I would really like to hear from devchix readers. It’s the hierarchy that I have witnessed (and the effect that it has on the community) that intrigues me.
- Have you experienced this hierarchical behavior in online (or IRL) communities in which you participate?
- Are there ways that you have come to the defense of others when you think that they have been unfairly criticized?
- Do you find it difficult to “break into” an online (or IRL) group? What holds you back, in lurking status? Fear of being criticized? Privacy concerns?
- If you participate in mixed-gender groups, do you find that one is worse than the other for this behavior?
Please speak up. This forum is here because there is a dedicated group of women software developers who care about the industry. I actually avoided gender-specific groups for quite a while, not seeing the need. When I walked into a high school CS classroom last year to do a talk and realized that there was ONE woman and 20+ men, I changed my tune a bit. And as I learn more and more about the declining numbers of women going into computer science, I worry about the lack of diversity in our field. I wonder WHY women aren’t willing to join the profession that I feel so passionately about, and I would really like to explore this issue.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:36 am
This article is great, thank you for opening this discussion in other directions.
The tone of my article is harsh. I have gotten so many thanks from women regarding the tone, because many of them find that if they politely try to state these things, over and agian, they’re not treated seriously.
If the tone upsets people, it at least got them reading and responding, which was my goal. I want to encourage, even spurn, discussion if necessary. I don’t want to walk on eggshells, or foster my polite side when discussing these issues. I want to bring them up directly, from the worst perspective, in a harsh manner, because so many women do experience them from this perspective.
I can’t tell you how many women thanked me for that, because it helped them release their own repressed anger/grief/disappointment in the lack of attention and discussions regarding these issues.
I also have to say that I find two common mindsets when dealing with responses to this article. One is the appreciation of the forthcoming nature of the article, and the other is the discomfort with the style of the forthcoming nature of the article. Some read it as assertive, firm in the right places, strong in a good and necessary way. Others read it as too abrasive, too strong, too firm in a single direction. Both men and women have been expressing these reactions, and it has been really interesting to observe.
Articles are like mirrors. All of the comments reflect back on myself and force me to take another good look at my own judgments and opinions. This is a great experience. I am finding that I am not adverse to disagreement, but I am having great difficulty with any response which trivializes the issues.
I feel as if one opinion trivializing/downplaying the issue should not have the power to dismiss the many people who experience these issues. I also feel that if I refer to the issues in ‘safe’ generic terms as ‘people’ experiencing these difficulties instead of ‘women’, I am downplaying the effect many of these issues have in stifling women’s participation in tech communities. It is real, it does affect many tech women, much of it is caused by some men, not all. These are real experiences, and to remove gender from these statements makes them ineffective, and not true to the experience.
Most of all this is difficult. I don’t have all of the answers, I am not going to give the best of responses, I will be offended by some comments. Like I said, I am learning from this experience. Thank you for the opportunity and the discussions.
Gloria
June 15th, 2007 at 10:58 am
A big yes to your points, Dianne. I have belonged to women-only groups which were clique-ish, or overly boorish. I have seen mixed-gender and male groups suffer similar fates. It really is not gender-specific at at all.
I just wonder how you draw attention to the issues without pointing out the extremes, which do exists, and are gender-specific. I tend to work from these points inward, since I know this is how to get people’s attention. One they’re thinking, reading, responding, then it’s easier/possible to work inward toward the bigger, more generic problem.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I’m a guy and these past couple articles just serve to really confuse me more. I’m a guy and I admit, I’m super clueless. Not by a lot, but by unimaginable amounts.
Personally, I’ve always seen much more demeaning behaviour between women than anything any man could dish out (even most forms of physical violence much to my surprise).
Here’s a few examples of things I do not understand. They are really lame examples, but perhaps will get my point across.
1. A bunch of guys (and one girl who we’ve known for a while) are sitting on a patio having a beer. Everything is great and the discussion is light hearted and everyone seems to be having fun. Later, a few girls arrive. As usual, they eventually go to the washroom together in pairs. But not always with the same person. I notice these things you see (and get called a pervert for looking at their asses, but such is a risk I’m willing to take).
Here’s the part that gets me. Invariably, one of the girls who is still sitting at the table will start talking really nasty stuff about the girls who have just gone to the washroom even though they went to the washrooms with either one not long ago. (I have zero interest and really get annoyed at this point. The day is effectively ruined.)
It’s a really stupid scenario, but it happens 100% of the time I see groups of girls together (parties, hanging out, even at work). Most girls have admitted to this behaviour and have confirmed that this does happen and that this is why many of them like to hang out with guys a lot of times to get away from this behaviour (not that men are immune). So this isn’t just my comment. It’s been confirmed time and again by the opposite sex. (Note that women also do not know how it’s like to not have women around. So although this comment is most certainly sexist, we can never explain to you what it’s like because you are one such woman and cannot eliminate yourself from the where you are at).
This talking-behind-the-back behaviour always finds its way in the workplace. Mainly, a problem isn’t tackled head-on and causes frustration with guys who aren’t used to the “I’m ignoring you, so figure out what you did wrong on your own even though I told everyone else” scenario.
2. I really don’t understand why women want to be equal. What the hell is up with that? When did women stop being proud of who they are? Why would they like to be more man-like (aka. equal)? If we were equal, there’d be no gender.
A while back, I used to have regular poker games. It was always men only. But that’s just the way it ended up. When a girl asked to play, she was shocked that we didn’t understand why she thought she couldn’t. This has happened quite a bit and I’ve found that women do like to play poker a lot. For some reason, I still find their fruit drinks amusing (or cute). I’m not sure why and this may indeed be sexist on my part.
The point being that you can join a poker game as a woman and NOT as one of the guys and still be fine. Why can’t women function in society as women and not as equals? Be proud of who you are and for God’s sake, stop this “equality” BS. There are real differences that should be cherished. These differences make humanity better.
Just FYI, guys do things because they want to. They set it up and do it. Women need to ask to join or start their own clubs, but not be insulted if a group does not want them in. That just confuses me even more with all these women-only groups or activities.
3. Why do some women act bitchy when they get in any position of authority? I don’t get this. It’s like their personality changes.
I used to work at this place (not going to say where, but it wasn’t tech), but the manager (female) would always sort of scream her orders around. I asked why she always shouted her orders? She said she was the manager and if I didn’t like it, I could work elsewhere. I said being a boss doesn’t give you carte-blanche for being disrespectful. I then asked her if I had given her any reason to think that I wouldn’t do what she asked if she just spoke to me normally. No answer.
Anyways, that “professional” relationship was somewhat strained, but she didn’t seem to change much or even remember that I said anything afterwards.
The thing is that I find (and I very could be wrong because I’m super ignorant) is that many women don’t understand that a position of authority is a job like any other. You may have more responsibilities and more rewards, but it’s just a job. The priviledge that comes with the abality to fire, make changes or give commands isn’t something that should be used at every opportunity. It’s used as a last resort when things start to go wrong. At all other times, do your job like you would any other. You can assign tasks without barking them out. Pretend you’re talking to a friend. See, simple.
Either a women gets this or they don’t. I’m not sure what cause each to get to that point though.
4. What’s up with the “ewww… gross” attitude even in adulthood? I don’t have a specific case. I just find it funny seeing grown women acts like 6 year olds. I find it as odd as how typical male US stars wear an unbuttoned shirt down to the stomach in many American TV shows. Peculiar and highly disturbing. Maybe these behaviours are linked haha Maybe chicks see Hasslehoff whenever they get hit on. Ewww… Gross!
5. And the main thing that I’m still trying to get better at is explaining something without the woman thinking it’s personal. I think I’m wasting my time and hers.
If a woman asks for something and I say no, it most likely has nothing to do with you, but with other factors. If my car is in the shop, the reason I can’t pick you up isn’t because I hate you. I think this is self-explanatory and is so common as to not deserve any more detailed example. Chix fight start this way. Usually combined with the talking behind the back scenario, but the other girls find out. HAHAHA!!! PPV worthy! So sweet!
—
Note the common theme in these examples. These are all examples of women’s behaviours to each other or expectations of what they thought men’s response would be. I just happened to be there at the time when a woman was being treated this way (for example, the bitchy boss was like that to male and female employees alike). It seems to me that women have a far longer road to go between each other than with men. I, as a male can vouch for a great many other men I know, and can tell you right now that we simply do not care what women do or want to do on their own most of the time. Go do it. Heck, we men will even help you if you wish. But when you start interfering in things that people have built up and expect an equal place without prior involvement (and think this has something to do with gender) or you treat each other badly, that’s just ignorant… like me.
Anonymous
BTW, I think I rock. I wish everyone would think they rocked as much as I do (rock, that is… because I do rock a lot). It saddens me when I hear that women want to be equal. I want women to think they rock regardless of what any other gender is or claims to be!
June 15th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Gloria, I don’t take issue with your article at all. While I personally have not felt objectified, dismissed, etc., I certainly know that others have. I have wondered if the “hierarchy” that I wrote of has contributed. Have I been “protected” by some people who have elevated me through their standing in the past? Have I simply ignored crap that happened? I don’t know.
I would really like to know what contributes to the problems that you described and if supporting others (men and women), can we reduce the impact of the issues that people face.
I definitely agree that starting discussions on these issues is important, and thanks for doing so!
– Dianne
June 15th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Anonymous, You’ve mentioned women seeking equality, I on the other hand would very well attribute it to seeking respect and perhaps that’s more than enough.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Anonymous,
Hmm, I can say that I don’t care about equal. I just care that I’m free to do the work that I enjoy doing without other people regarding my gender as part of it.
As for your experience with female friends and participants in your real life groups, man, you need new friends. I haven’t seen that sort of behavior in 20 years (I’m in my 40′s). Honestly, my friends have mostly been male, but certainly they come with wives and girlfriends, and honestly, I haven’t seen it. If you’re seeing this 100% of the time, I’m telling ya … new friends.
Poker game? I’ve been invited to the bar for cigar night. Not interested. I don’t go. Do I miss out on some fun that the guys are having? Sure, but I have no little tolerance for things that I don’t find enjoyable and inhaling cigar smoke is FAR from enjoyable. Poker, also on that list. Wouldn’t think of inviting myself, and don’t care when I’m not invited.
Golf? Downhill skiing? I’m bad at those and will go only if everyone says that it’s a social thing (and at their invitation), sometimes not even then. But if the guys are going mountain biking or cross country skiing, I sure hope that I’m welcome to go. I’ll be slower than some, faster than others. And if they don’t want me along, I’ll go by myself or scare up a group to go.
Equals? I’m not really sure what that even means. I learned long ago that life wasn’t “fair”, and I have no illusions that it’s even possible. But judge me on my work, please. That’s pretty much the unifying concept behind these two posts, I think.
– Dianne
June 17th, 2007 at 3:41 am
A bit of a response to this article itself, specifically on the whole group hierarchy thing:
There’s an old poker saying: “If you sit down at the table and you don’t see the sucker, get up, you’re the sucker”.
In groups, I think the same thing applies. If you don’t see a hierarchy, it’s because you’re either at the very top of it (and thus largely immune) or at the very bottom (simply unaware of it). I think this is just an emergent property of groups as a whole.
Online communities are no exception to this. Even among the blogging community, there’s the A-list, the B-list, etc. On forums, there’s the mods and admins, the well-respected old-timers, the newbies, the idiots, the trolls.
For a long time, a forum I run used what we affectionately called “ninja moderators”. We gave a small group of people moderator access, but didn’t make that group public or visible. The idea was to have moderators that could play their part and at the same time not be hounded by users sucking up to them all the time.
Even with the directive not to reveal their status, within 2 months of the inception of ninja-mod, the active community members had successfully identified 7 of the 9 moderators we had (the other two were largely inactive as posters at the time). It’s actually pretty easy to watch someone in a community over the span of a couple small conflicts and figure out where they see themselves in the pecking order by how they interact with those conflicts.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Hi,
One of the things that has taken me a lot of time is figuring out where the important online communities are. You mentioned that you are often one of 2 or 3 women posting there: could you share where, “there”, is? It would be really helpful! Thanks!
-Agent Ska-
June 18th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Actually, there was a study, here in Sweden, not long ago that came to the conclusion that women working in male dominated work places was more happy than women working in a female dominated or exclusively female work place.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Agent Ska … ah! GREAT point. You can find me on the following groups:
Java Posse (http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse)
CodeMash group (http://groups.google.com/group/codemash),
and occasionally on the TurboGears group
(http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears).
I’ve also participated in several of Bruce Eckel’s Open Spaces conferences and remain active in the (participants-only) communities that have sprung up from those gatherings. I have found that the personal relationships made at those events are invaluable, and that is a great credit to Bruce and his manner of being a welcoming host and facilitator.
I don’t know if these are “THE” important online communities, but the Java Posse, in particular, has been a wealth of information for me (and the Posse is a great group of people). CodeMash is a conference that I helped to organize in the Midwest (specifically, Ohio) last year and my involvement continues.
And to “Knbx” … that’s an interesting point. I obviously don’t have anything to compare it to. Was there a similar study about men in male dominated workplaces? Are they too happier in a mixed-gender environment?
June 18th, 2007 at 9:46 am
To complich8,
Thank you so much for directly addressing the hierarchy issue.
LOL, I must be quite arrogant, because I’m well aware of my A-list status on at least one online group (non-technical) that I frequent and I use that status in the way that you describe: to moderate conflicts. I have often thought it would be an interesting social experiment to secretly re-join the group as a newbie and see how many hard knocks I would take while others protected their status. But, I respect the other members of the community too much to play games with them like that. And your post has me thinking that I wouldn’t take hard knocks for too long, because my behavior (in moderating conflicts) would likely elevate me back up anyhow.
That’s interesting from a few different angles, and it definitely supports the notion of supporting others who are being unfairly targeted on a group. I’m hesitating on this because I feel like, to a certain extent, I’m feeding the “blame the victim” mentality, but that’s really not my point. Rather, I think that we CAN do something about the idiotic behavior that we often see demonstrated in online communities by being fair, level-headed, and supporting those who need some help. People who treat others badly should be marginalized at least, directly asked to leave at best.
But ARE there online communities where the elevated status isn’t achieved as a result of moderating conflicts and a measured voice? Are there communities where status is achieved by being a jerk? And if so, why are these communities frequented by other people? What do they gain by being there (other than jerk status or elevated blood pressure)? Won’t they just go away because people aren’t interested? Oh wait, if that were the case then the weirdo reality tv shows wouldn’t be on air either, right? LOL.
I guess, leave those to the idiots. For the same reasons that I don’t read the sensationalist press, I expect to get my technical information from reasonable people and if those other communities want to exist because people like to see other people getting beat up, then oh well.
Taking it a step further, do COMPANIES like that exist? And why would people work there? I would apply the same logic. I don’t expect to work in an environment like that, and I wouldn’t think that anyone, male or female, would. I’ve experienced my share of gender crap in my 20 years of professional experience, but I didn’t stick with those companies and I’m better off for not having done so (both personally and professionally). I would like to think it’s a bit of natural selection, in online communities, and in work places.
June 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Actually, one of my moderators tried the alternate-persona experiment. He didn’t get caught on to for a long time, but eventually stopped doing it because it was too much work maintaining two distinct personas and posting styles.
(this could lead to an interesting digression on race and multiculturalism, but I’ll just point at Bev Tatum’s “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria” and move on …)
Absolutely, and unfortunately. Consider, for example, troll groups like GNAA.
As a generally positive and creative person, it’s difficult to understand appeal, mechanics or even the simple existence of such a group. The thing is, you’re thinking of group membership as an exclusive entity … in other words, thinking of your groups as being in a vacuum. It’s not fun for you, as a positive person, to sabotage your own involvement in group X, because you’re in group X. But if you were in a troll group, you wouldn’t troll the group itself, you’d just have a community to brag to when you go out and troll other whole communities. You gain status in these communities specifically by being an ass to people who are trying to engage in positive or constructive interaction elsewhere.
To put it another way, Crips don’t build group status by killing other Crips, they build group status by killing Bloods, or by victimizing the law-abiding.
The appeal of those groups is small, but there’s a saying: there’s always someone with the same kink as you. There’s a lot of people who enjoy negatively defined groups… “we’re the people who troll slashdot” or “we’re the people who troll various tech community sites” or “we’re the people who aren’t mainstream”. You can think of them the way you’d think of Beatniks in the 1950′s, or the contemporary hipster culture… the rejection of expected and normal behaviors is the whole appeal in and of itself.
I don’t think companies like that can succeed though. A culture of negation is usually predicated on insincerity. If you don’t know whether your manager’s “good work” feedback is sincerity or sarcasm, it’s hard to stay motivated and keep doing a good job. I think it’s a sure-fire recipe for a failed company.
In terms of natural selection … well … it’s nice being a macro-organism, but we still have a LOT of viruses and harmful bacteria and parasites to think about.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:37 am
@ Diane:
I don’t visit that many different fora, but the ones that I’ve visited are usually rather tame and show not many hierarchical battles. Or maybe it’s like Complich8 said and I’m a lowly peon, aka “the sucker”.
One of the two does have occasional incidents where a member complains that moderators should remain impartial in any discussions. On the other hand this has raised the question whether mods should have two accounts: one as a mod and one to partake in discussions.
But aside from that I haven’t seen any struggles where people gang up on one victim on the lead of a high ranking member. Haven’t seen that behaviour since I left high school
@ Gloria:
I find it a bit lacking in style that you start a rather lengthy diatribe about your own article in the comments section of another one. The point Diana would like to make is not really related to your article.
June 19th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Complich8 …
Ah, yes. I have heard about the “Why are all the black kids …” book. I haven’t read it, but I will definitely put it on my reading list. And yes, that’s sort of what I was driving at. I don’t think that this is limited to gender, but rather to status quo.
I agree on how it would be a LOT of work to maintain two different personas. That’s what always amazes me about trolls. I KNOW that there are some trolls on one of the online communities that I belong to. I remain convinced that some of the regular posters are actually trolls with completely invented lives, in order to bring drama to the board. Honestly, I HOPE that I’m right about a few of them because if I’m not then their lives are truly miserable. For me to believe that they are trolls is easier than believing someone really puts up with the crap that these women do (is my head in the sand?).
In any case, I definitely see your point about the counter-culture of troll groups. They, themselves, are probably quite decent to one another (but still fall within their own hierarchy, yes?) even while going off beating up on others. Nice. Wow, it’s like gangs without guns. Interesting concept. Hmm, no, I don’t want to go there.
Cailin …
I think (hope) if high ranking members gang up on someone else, then they will lose their status, as people tend to realize that they are being insincere.
Thanks to both of you!
Dianne
June 21st, 2007 at 2:04 am
@Dianne
“I just care that I’m free to do the work that I enjoy doing without other people regarding my gender as part of it.”
Amen!
June 24th, 2007 at 10:30 am
“I just care that I’m free to do the work that I enjoy doing without other people regarding my gender as part of it.â€Â
There you go. ++1
Yes, hierarchies in groups that begin as flat discussions emerge as a side effect of the tone and types of interaction. Usually to improve the discussion or to maintain it in the face of circumstances created by some subset of the transactions (controls are emergent in bottom up systems). I note your own stepping forward in the context of this thread which itself has a larger context of bad behavior noted recently at O’Reilly etc.
It is interesting from a sociology standpoint to determine what patterns cause the emergence of controls and what types emerge.
len
May 11th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
If you want to witness the insanity of online communities primarily populated by women, drop by my site. It’s a surreal thing to observe. And highly entertaining. The way these women behave is certainly not how I condone behaving.
As for the gentleman saying women bitch each other out when the others are in the bathroom? I’ve witnessed men doing this too. Men can be just as bitchy as women. I’ve worked in male dominated industries and seen it many times over.