"If I had walked in, and baseball was showing on the television, it would be completely unthinkable for me to grab the remote and change it to Friends. If I had done that, the outcry would've been thundering. People would question my social skills."
I'm not sure whether you're serious or ironic. This is a social dynamic I've witnessed several times in my life, in male-only and mixed-gender groups. When someone acts against the groups collective will, he or she faces an "outcry". I don't condone this, but to call this out as a gender or diversity issue seems to be a bit of a stretch.
I feel like it is a diversity issue, albeit not of the usual kind, and it is not exclusive to groups whose identity is strongly linked to gender.
All groups will try and preserve their own identity, because if they don't, they stop existing. I'm merely making an observation here, not condoning the actions of groups. This kind of behaviour may seem harmless in some situations, but then also fuels some of the worst instances of discrimination humanity has seen.
This has nothing to do with identity, it's just common bullying. I imagine the thought process may be something like "We're the majority, we don't care, so we're not going to share the tv. "
I see where you're coming from but I disagree with the argument, because it only holds up under the assumption that they acted this way mainly to preserve the group identity. The simpler explanation is that the group made a democratic choice and she was unhappy with thre result.
You are right, it is just democracy at work, but I'm not sure that that is different from a group trying preserve its identity.
The interesting thing is that most people assume that democracy is inclusive, because everybody has a voice, but in this case, the inclusive thing to do would have been to watch something that only one person wanted to watch, to make them as a minority, comfortable, whereas the democratic thing to do is to ignore the opinion of the minority as not relevant to the views of the group.
Where the discussion becomes difficult, I guess, is when the dividing line between majority and minority coincides with that of privileged (PS. I hate what this word has come to mean) and unprivileged.
I agree with you on this. My point was that we should be charitable in our judgement of the group, especially if we lack other perspectives. Someone from the group might say she always wanted to get her will and alienated herself. We can't know. That's the problem with anecdotes.
Regardless, a small group of people has more room for compromise than a democratic state, and as I said, I don't condone the way these kind of situations are usually handled.
I feel that this part of the story might not be exclusive to work situations for a lot of women. But that was particularly creepy sounding compared to the TV.
I really don't want to make this sound like I'm diminishing OP's experience, because from the sounds of that the experience sounded awful. However I've experienced pretty much identical treatment over a very similar thing (music) and I'm a male software dev. Wanting to listen to something quiet because the loud commercial radio/adverts that always run are pretty distracting. I can completely relate to her experience as I get similar comments.
The all-male t-shirts, the work mentor being creepy, things like that are shocking to hear and ruffles my feathers as someone who was raised with very strong morals by my parents. However I tend to feel that bullying (on a more basic level) will happen to anyone if you give a group of people (in an stablished social clique) the chance.
I'd like to say though (if the blog OP is on here), massive effort sticking with the industry and not letting it get the better of you, good job.
That is annoying and distracting - I used to do that myself at my previous work and never thought it was annoying and distracting until someone pointed it out to me.
But now I think the author felt the first more strongly because it made her feel "not even worth consideration" rather than "merely" objectified, which presumably is something she might have more familiarity/ability to cope with.
That is not the point. She is complaining that they were 5 to 10 person watching a TV show, another guy comes in and wants to change the channel, not even considering asking the other people why they watched something different that day. Not about gender, not about sports, just shows total social incompetence.
"Touching me a lot in the process" was a bit ambiguous to me. It was a sports car, and I've ridden in a sports car with a male co-worker (and I'm male), and I had to reach around awkwardly to get the seatbelt in his small expensive sports car.
I wouldn't help another man out with a buckle, and I'd feel really weird if one helped me with one, but if that "uh, I don't want to reach toward my male co-worker in a confined space" thing wasn't there, I could totally imagine at least reaching over and grabbing the buckle and handing it to the person, and they might happen to brush against me in the process. This is potentially a "male-male interaction weirdness" kind of gender treatment difference. If the guy grew up with younger siblings he might even be in the habit of doing this kind of thing without thinking.
Again, that's where the ambiguity comes in. If, due to female anatomy, the back side of his arm happened to brush against her chest as he reached for a buckle in a confined space, that could be considered "touching her a lot", but is that the same as a grope?
Also, let's say he did have some intent to have some physical contact. She doesn't explicitly say where he "touched her a lot". Was it on the leg while he was buckling her, on her shoulder as he was reaching for the buckle? Maybe he was in fact trying to initiate some limited physical contact, known outside the work world in some circles as "kino". "Kino" from someone you're not attracted to is seen as creepy, whereas from someone you are attracted to isn't, and let's be honest here, we don't all explicitly say "may I brush against you as I reach for this buckle" or "may I kiss you" etc.
In a perfect world, unwanted touching wouldn't happen at all, but playing devil's advocate here... here's a guy with his female coworker (and work is where the most marriages happen outside of college, I've read) who agrees to take a ride in his sports car. Aside from explicit verbal discussion about it (which again doesn't happen 95% of the time when contact IS wanted) this guy had some reason to think she might be interested, and initiated some possibly very casual contact. Unless it was an outright grope, I don't know that I'd read so much negative intent into it. At some point people try to break the ice.
For example, at various jobs I've had male coworkers touch my arms or shoulders while speaking to me. Some people think that this helps establish more psychological closeness, although I often don't appreciate it, but I understand the intent. Unless someone were to go out of their way to grope on me, I tend to brush it off and move on with my day.
It's totally possible her experience was different than what I'm reading into it, but again, it was ambiguous enough that I can see other possible interpretations of that interaction.
This happens to both females and males. I've worked in toxic environments where normal things I do and like are ridiculed. I've had the COO of a company tell me that "my girlfriend sounds like my hand".
I've also worked in environments where everyone respects each other and their differences. This may have been happening simply because you were working with toxic people who simply didn't like you, and less because you were a female.
>Somebody just shared this post on Hacker News. Based on past behavior from the majority of its users I think you can look forward to being called a "feminazi" and being doxxed. You will definitely have a new "most alienating experience in tech" in your near future. Nobody on Hacker News is sexist and they are very good at understanding the difficulties of people who ain't exactly like them. They will call you every name in the book just to prove that.
Wow, if that's the most alienating experience she has had, I am envious. As a male engineer who does not like sports, I've had far worse experiences involving outright ridicule when I asked to watch something besides a game.
I didn't blog about it though, because I have real problems far more vexing than not having 100% compatibility with my coworkers.
I'm downvoting this comment for two reasons. First, while your sentiment about conforming is unfortunately close to the truth in a lot of cases, you present it in a very simplified way that doesn't represent a lot of nuances of team dynamic — and I hate it when complex things are oversimplified. Second, you predict getting downvotes — which is passive-aggressive behaviour that tends to create conflict in conversation out of nothing.
That's a very relaxed outcome... I agree however, sometimes you just need to suck it up and get on with things.
Every day I get treated like dirt. I've been in the industry nearly two decades, and everywhere you go there's arseholes. You've just got to rise above it, take that paycheque home and just think 'fuck em all'.
Out of interest, what did the CEO do? Sounds like a pretty bold thing for the other employee to say in front of the CEO. What was the context? Could that employee have equally said something as vile to another man without repercussion?
I'm a man, I changed my gender to see if it would stop the downvotes, it did.
He looked at the other guy told him to apologize while I had my fist in the air. We moved on.
Don't worry, you're free to change your opinion now that you know I'm a man. I mostly didn't care except for having to punch the guy out which was thankfully avoided by him retracting his statement.
This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil, which unfortunately you've done quite a few times before as well. We ban accounts that do that. To keep commenting here, please post civil, substantive comments only.
Worse, lying in a provocative way about an inflammatory topic ("me as a female engineer") is outright trolling. That's an abuse of this site, and if you do it again we will ban you.
Another retarded feminist cunt who instead of actually talking to her colleagues and addressing the issues is just sitting there quiet building hate and insane rage inside her and trying to find problems where there are none.
The fact that they didn't let you change the basketball to friends has nothing to do with you being a women but simply because majority of the office wanted to watch the basketball.
It's amazing how some of these bitches in the industry think that everyone should worship them and do everything like they demand and if there is even the slightest thing wrong it's always discrimination, "being a woman in <insert any engineering industry here>" etc.
> If I had walked in, and baseball was showing on the television, it would be completely unthinkable for me to grab the remote and change it to Friends.
Why?
I wonder if she ever tried, or just assumed it was unthinkable. I suspect it was less unthinkable than she thinks it was. From the rest of the story, it sounds like not only was it thinkable for people to try to change the channel, it was expected even. Otherwise the joke wouldn't work.
As people on imgur like to say: Do Thing. Maintain eye contact. Assert dominance.
You have to establish boundaries. If people are doing shit you don't want them to, stop them. As a general rule, people will treat you the way you let them treat you.
edit: I wonder how many people downvoting me are assuming I write this as a member of The In-Group. Okay I am a guy, but that's where the ingroupness stops for various reasons that would take a while to list.
Life doesn't just walk up to you and hand you opportunties because you grew up this way or that way, if you want to survive you fight. If you don't want to fight, get to the back of the line for resources.
IMO this is discrimination. You may get away with suggesting a specific role, maybe a negotiator, would need to have/develop this ability. As a very accepting and peaceful guy, I really feel bad (insecure, even) when people assert that I need to be dominant to be successful.
BTW, I'm not trying to explain why you are being down-voted as I didn't, wouldn't (and also can't) down-vote you.
You don't have to be dominant to be successful. But you can't be a pushover.
If something bothers you, you have to speak up. Immediately and decisively. The first time it happens. Not when it becomes the established social norm.
If you speak up, normal mature people will say something like "Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that bothered you. I'll be more careful.". They might push back, if they think you're pushing too far or too hard because of whatever pre-existing beliefs.
But it's a dynamic balance. Both sides have to push and pull. Without active participation from everyone, teams become imbalanced and less effective.
To summarize: Most of the team wants to watch progam A; watching program A during dinner is an established team ritual; author wants to change channel to program B, which is "met with incredulity and laughter". Some time later, program B is running; team members come in and want to change the channel to program A. And that latter event is the most alienating during her time at Microsoft.
Wat.
It gets better: Because program A is baseball, and program B is Friends, and since we all know that baseball is a man's program, and Friends is a woman's program, this is really about gender discrimination and sexism.
The implication is that the rest of the team felt comfortable enough in that environment that they could change the channel without even having to ask, while OP was loudly ridiculed for wanting to change the channel in a more polite way. The rest of the team felt comfortable with the team dynamic in a way that OP did not, and by ridiculing her, they made it clear that her desires were less important than theirs, thus proving that her sense of discomfort was justified.
To put it as clearly and simply as possible, as if we were examining the results of a double-blind clinical trial:
OP attempts to change the channel. OP is loudly ridiculed in an unpleasant way.
Rando teammate changes the channel. Everyone thinks it's a really funny joke.
What changed? Just the OP. It's pretty obvious the team doesn't like her the way it likes the rest of its members. Is this necessarily an example of sexism, like the seat-belt incident that OP also references? Not necessarily, but it's certainly quite alienating.
Also, while I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that there is a hierarchy of things that are better and things that are worse, how impactful an event is, is ultimately subjective and often not under any conscious control. The time I was mugged in San Francisco honestly made much less of an impression than the time my coworker said he hated all of us and refused to go out for lunch.
Yup, and it sucks and I would personally not be part of that kind of circle. Ofcourse in a work environment this is hard to avoid. That's why "Culture fit" is stressed so much in recruiting.
This is unrelated, but I don't really get why one would want to watch TV with colleagues. It's not like you're productive when doing it. The requirement for the infamous "culture fit" is lower if you don't require that all coworkers are 100% socially compatible with each other. Then again, I'm from Europe.
I think what's more unsettling to me about that part of her story is that there was only One Right Answer: the sports game. I'm accustomed to team dynamics with aggressively asserted opinions; but even within the group, those opinions generally differed by substance or degree. Faced with this kind of consensus, I'd feel alienated too; because I know this behaviour would be integral to my daily work interactions with those people . . .
Say you were on a baseball team for a couple of years. After every game, your team always goes out to Bob's Pretty Good Pizza for beers. What do you think would happen if you one day suggested that instead of Bob's, the team should go to Carl's Seafood Shack?
You'd probably get laughed at.
It wouldn't be because people thought seafood was dumb. It wouldn't be because you looked funny, or were female, or played poorly that day. It would be because you misunderstood why the team went to Bob's week after week. The team doesn't go to Bob's because they've got a taste for pizza, they go to Bob's because they want a comfortable routine, shared experiences, and customs to uniquely identify their group.
The suggestion of giving those comforts up because you had a taste for fish sticks instead of pepperoni would be funny to the people who really appreciate them.
> The implication is that the rest of the team felt comfortable enough in that environment that they could change the channel without even having to ask, while OP was loudly ridiculed for wanting to change the channel in a more polite way.
And not only once -- the single event of her requesting a switch to the different show was repeatedly ridiculed, as if this was a completely outrageous suggestion. This would have been quite okay if she asked "could we watch Friends today instead" and the other team members looked at each other and simply responded "Eh, we'd all really like to watch this game".
You have misrepresented the case, although I do agree that it's not overtly a male/female thing.
People are in a shared TV-viewing area. There is something being shown on TV. New person enters and decides to change the channel without asking.
This is the action of a total dickhead. I don't care what the established ritual is. If a group of people are clearly watching something else (and they must be, because here they are in the tv viewing area, and something else in being shown, and if they wanted to watch something else they'd have already changed the channel), to pick up the remote and change channel without asking is the action of a dickhead.
Possibly the action of someone on the aspergic scale, possibly the action of a sociopath who just doesn't care what other people want.
Coming in and changing the channel without asking is simply a massive dickhead thing.
I disagree with your assessment of my comment, but upon re-reading I can see that I was not clear enough.
I believe I suggested that this was the action of a dickhead, OR the action of someone who would have trouble understanding the social rules that suggest he shouldn't just change channel without asking (e.g. Aspergic, or a sociopath of some sort; probably not textbook psychopath, as they're often charming and quite able to abide by social rules in this sort of situation). If I had said "AND" rather than "OR", I would agree with you. I certainly intended to offer the Aspergic/sociopath option as an alternative rather than an additive.
You know what, the story also doesn't tell us that nobody was on fire at the moment.
When you walk into a shared TV viewing area with people in it, and there is something being shown on TV, even if it looks like nobody is looking at the screen at that moment, you should still ask before changing channel. Social fact. If it looks like nobody is watching it, you can soften it a little by framing the question as "Is anyone watching this, or can I change channel?"
But she was explicit in saying no one even asked if anyone was watching. Instead, each person in succession walked in, recoiled in horror, and decided to flip the channel without a word. One person doing this is unexceptional. Two? Less than chance, but possibly coincidence. Three or more, however, suggests a gestalt of in-group sports dickery existed around her.
"People are in a shared TV-viewing area. There is something being shown on TV. New person enters and decides to change the channel without asking.
This is the action of a total dickhead."
If it were a random situation, perhaps. If it is the established norm that a specific program is watched at a specific time, not so much.
I think she blogged about this because it's a very small incident, but it had a very powerful effect on her.
I worked at a womens' clothing store for a while and I often felt like my opinion wasn't valued. The staff was mostly made up of women and I was treated inappropriately in the form of sexual harassment and unprofessional workplace conversations. I tried my best to keep out of it but I must admit I made mistakes.
Anyway, in the morning we often had a 'ritual' that we'd all get coffee in the backroom and talk about anything the store needed that day. I really liked what seemed like a time for open communication in the beginning. Everyone would have their coffee mugs lined up next to the machine - but for some reason another gal always moved my mug to the other side - she'd often separate property by gender? It was strange, to say the least... I always just put my mug with the others, but I started noticing that she would separate them. Over time this began to really bother me simply because of how small and benign it should have been. I'd come in, glance over, see that my mug was off to the side by itself... and it was easy to feel like I wasn't part of the team.
It just felt like... after all the serious problems there had to be dumb small ones too. Like not being able to enjoy Friends after long day of working on Microsoft Flight Sim. Everything had to be a problem, no matter how small the thing was. A coffee mug. A favorite TV show.
I don't think it helps to say we can share much worse experiences. Sexism or whatever this is doesn't go away because by comparison she had it easier than others. It's clear she felt undervalued in her team and that's a problem - especially in terms of how her productivity (may) have suffered. Microsoft should be working to reduce dumb stuff like this so everyone can work at their peak productivity - with the side-benefit of feeling camaraderie among their colleagues.
Personally I'd just go buy my own damn TV and watch alone in my office? :p
> I think she blogged about this because it's a very small incident, but it had a very powerful effect on her.
If it's a very small incident, why is it such a big deal for her? Especially compared to the real harrassment by her mentor in the car?
> Over time this began to really bother me simply because of how small and benign it should have been.
Well, did you ask your coworker why she did that? Being an adult also means standing up for yourself (it doesn't have to be overly confrontational, just ask politely), especially since it apparently was just a single person, not bullying by your entire team.
When you reframe it, what she experienced with the TV is minor - but I'm saying the bigger issues seem even more serious when you deal with minor stuff too? It's like if you forgot to do a chore and you stub your toe while doing that chore?
As a followup to the thing I went through: I did confront my coworker. I spent a few weeks feeling like I couldn't bring it up because it's so small. This particular lady had always treated me funny so I didn't expect the conversation to go well. She said this was how they did it at her house (separating mugs) and I shouldn't care about it. I was the only dude on the staff so it just felt like I was being isolated from the group with mugs! I felt immature for even bringing it up. She stopped doing it for a while but when she switched shifts I'd get in the next day and see she'd done it again... it still makes me irrationally angry.
I completely accept that there IS sexism, especially in sectors that are dominated mainly by one gender, but this example is ill chosen.
In fact I feel discriminated against as a man. I'd much rather watch Friends that baseball, but apparently the author claims I'd much rather watch baseball because of my genes.
What does the TV story have to do with gender? I don't think gender adds anything. It would be no less rude if they were all die hard Firefly fans and watched re-runs every night, and author changed it to baseball.
Why is it so difficult to have the empathy to say: ok every n'th day we switch to program B for her? Because too many mens clubs lack empathy and respect. It's that dead simple. (I am male).
You might be right. But I argue that this is often highly more significant in nmen-1women then nmen-1men. Havn't there been studies here in hackernews or cited by Cherly Sandbergs book to prove this?!
Lots of males here providing shameful confirmation of the same thoughtless behavior the OP is calling out (finally after all these years). By focusing on specifics most commenters here seen to be missing the point that subtle marginalizing behaviors cause harm in unseen ways.
Does it matter at all if she's a female? She is just a minority in terms of preferences. If a male wanted to watch, say, football while the rest of the crowd settled on a baseball, things would not have been any different.
In the aircon control wars majority always wins, so why would it be different with a TV?
Christ there's some ugly comments down the bottom of this thread. I always thought Hacker News was a bit more professional than reddit, now it seems the only difference is the comments calling her a "feminist", "c--t", "retard" are downvoted below threshold here.
Imagine the same situation in UK, you are foreigner and everybody is watching cricket.
Cultural alienation is not somebody's fault. It happens when you are minority in a group that has different culture. In these kind of situations basic politeness and hospitality would lessen the effect. The solution is not to watch Friends sometimes to distribute boredom more equally.
People who have been born in monoculture are not usually aware of the work needed to have fun and inclusive social event. Outside the work those who are alienated leave. The "mandatory fun" in workplace may need work from the host to be inclusive.
Well, I'm male and I've been in the same exact situation multiple times. I do not like sports. I find watching sports on tv to be an absolute boring waste of time.
Try suggesting in Europe, that you don't want to watch a soccer match and instead would like to watch Friends (which I like incidentally). It'll be met with ridicule.
If there's something on the tv and soccer match is coming, you can be 100% sure that people will change it to the soccer game without even asking.
I don't think that's a question of sexism, it's just a question of shared culture and the fact that most people cannot imagine that there are people that do not like soccer. For some people, someone not liking soccer is as shocking as someone declaring himself an atheist during the times of the inquisition.
There are a lot of problems for women in tech but I think that in the case of sports, it's a behavior that touches equally men and women who do not like sports.
I think the way the community has reacted to this post is pretty disgusting and I think says way more than the actual post does about sexism in engineering
104 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadGood point. By the way, what a bunch of asholes!
All groups will try and preserve their own identity, because if they don't, they stop existing. I'm merely making an observation here, not condoning the actions of groups. This kind of behaviour may seem harmless in some situations, but then also fuels some of the worst instances of discrimination humanity has seen.
The interesting thing is that most people assume that democracy is inclusive, because everybody has a voice, but in this case, the inclusive thing to do would have been to watch something that only one person wanted to watch, to make them as a minority, comfortable, whereas the democratic thing to do is to ignore the opinion of the minority as not relevant to the views of the group.
Where the discussion becomes difficult, I guess, is when the dividing line between majority and minority coincides with that of privileged (PS. I hate what this word has come to mean) and unprivileged.
Regardless, a small group of people has more room for compromise than a democratic state, and as I said, I don't condone the way these kind of situations are usually handled.
Sounds like she still is socially retarded. Has she never heard of group dynamic?
If there is e.g. an 85+% majority for anything, the minority gets marginalized.
As an expat, I can relate to being in a minority of one and hearing comments that are just taboo back home.
(And personally, I wouldn't watch either.)
The all-male t-shirts, the work mentor being creepy, things like that are shocking to hear and ruffles my feathers as someone who was raised with very strong morals by my parents. However I tend to feel that bullying (on a more basic level) will happen to anyone if you give a group of people (in an stablished social clique) the chance.
I'd like to say though (if the blog OP is on here), massive effort sticking with the industry and not letting it get the better of you, good job.
That is annoying and distracting - I used to do that myself at my previous work and never thought it was annoying and distracting until someone pointed it out to me.
The inappropriate touching in car event was more worrying, I think.
But now I think the author felt the first more strongly because it made her feel "not even worth consideration" rather than "merely" objectified, which presumably is something she might have more familiarity/ability to cope with.
I wouldn't help another man out with a buckle, and I'd feel really weird if one helped me with one, but if that "uh, I don't want to reach toward my male co-worker in a confined space" thing wasn't there, I could totally imagine at least reaching over and grabbing the buckle and handing it to the person, and they might happen to brush against me in the process. This is potentially a "male-male interaction weirdness" kind of gender treatment difference. If the guy grew up with younger siblings he might even be in the habit of doing this kind of thing without thinking.
Again, that's where the ambiguity comes in. If, due to female anatomy, the back side of his arm happened to brush against her chest as he reached for a buckle in a confined space, that could be considered "touching her a lot", but is that the same as a grope?
Also, let's say he did have some intent to have some physical contact. She doesn't explicitly say where he "touched her a lot". Was it on the leg while he was buckling her, on her shoulder as he was reaching for the buckle? Maybe he was in fact trying to initiate some limited physical contact, known outside the work world in some circles as "kino". "Kino" from someone you're not attracted to is seen as creepy, whereas from someone you are attracted to isn't, and let's be honest here, we don't all explicitly say "may I brush against you as I reach for this buckle" or "may I kiss you" etc.
In a perfect world, unwanted touching wouldn't happen at all, but playing devil's advocate here... here's a guy with his female coworker (and work is where the most marriages happen outside of college, I've read) who agrees to take a ride in his sports car. Aside from explicit verbal discussion about it (which again doesn't happen 95% of the time when contact IS wanted) this guy had some reason to think she might be interested, and initiated some possibly very casual contact. Unless it was an outright grope, I don't know that I'd read so much negative intent into it. At some point people try to break the ice.
For example, at various jobs I've had male coworkers touch my arms or shoulders while speaking to me. Some people think that this helps establish more psychological closeness, although I often don't appreciate it, but I understand the intent. Unless someone were to go out of their way to grope on me, I tend to brush it off and move on with my day.
It's totally possible her experience was different than what I'm reading into it, but again, it was ambiguous enough that I can see other possible interpretations of that interaction.
I've also worked in environments where everyone respects each other and their differences. This may have been happening simply because you were working with toxic people who simply didn't like you, and less because you were a female.
>Somebody just shared this post on Hacker News. Based on past behavior from the majority of its users I think you can look forward to being called a "feminazi" and being doxxed. You will definitely have a new "most alienating experience in tech" in your near future. Nobody on Hacker News is sexist and they are very good at understanding the difficulties of people who ain't exactly like them. They will call you every name in the book just to prove that.
Ouch.
I didn't blog about it though, because I have real problems far more vexing than not having 100% compatibility with my coworkers.
Like the downvotes I will take for this post, I'd rather speak my mind than have more 1 bits on some server somewhere.
That one addition to your post turned it into a passive-aggressive rant. Well done speaking your mind, I guess?
Someone told me to suck their dick in front of the CEO. Suck it the fuck up buttercup.
Every day I get treated like dirt. I've been in the industry nearly two decades, and everywhere you go there's arseholes. You've just got to rise above it, take that paycheque home and just think 'fuck em all'.
Out of interest, what did the CEO do? Sounds like a pretty bold thing for the other employee to say in front of the CEO. What was the context? Could that employee have equally said something as vile to another man without repercussion?
He looked at the other guy told him to apologize while I had my fist in the air. We moved on.
Don't worry, you're free to change your opinion now that you know I'm a man. I mostly didn't care except for having to punch the guy out which was thankfully avoided by him retracting his statement.
Worse, lying in a provocative way about an inflammatory topic ("me as a female engineer") is outright trolling. That's an abuse of this site, and if you do it again we will ban you.
The fact that they didn't let you change the basketball to friends has nothing to do with you being a women but simply because majority of the office wanted to watch the basketball.
It's amazing how some of these bitches in the industry think that everyone should worship them and do everything like they demand and if there is even the slightest thing wrong it's always discrimination, "being a woman in <insert any engineering industry here>" etc.
Why?
I wonder if she ever tried, or just assumed it was unthinkable. I suspect it was less unthinkable than she thinks it was. From the rest of the story, it sounds like not only was it thinkable for people to try to change the channel, it was expected even. Otherwise the joke wouldn't work.
As people on imgur like to say: Do Thing. Maintain eye contact. Assert dominance.
You have to establish boundaries. If people are doing shit you don't want them to, stop them. As a general rule, people will treat you the way you let them treat you.
edit: I wonder how many people downvoting me are assuming I write this as a member of The In-Group. Okay I am a guy, but that's where the ingroupness stops for various reasons that would take a while to list.
Life doesn't just walk up to you and hand you opportunties because you grew up this way or that way, if you want to survive you fight. If you don't want to fight, get to the back of the line for resources.
IMO this is discrimination. You may get away with suggesting a specific role, maybe a negotiator, would need to have/develop this ability. As a very accepting and peaceful guy, I really feel bad (insecure, even) when people assert that I need to be dominant to be successful.
BTW, I'm not trying to explain why you are being down-voted as I didn't, wouldn't (and also can't) down-vote you.
You don't have to be dominant to be successful. But you can't be a pushover.
If something bothers you, you have to speak up. Immediately and decisively. The first time it happens. Not when it becomes the established social norm.
If you speak up, normal mature people will say something like "Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that bothered you. I'll be more careful.". They might push back, if they think you're pushing too far or too hard because of whatever pre-existing beliefs.
But it's a dynamic balance. Both sides have to push and pull. Without active participation from everyone, teams become imbalanced and less effective.
Wat.
It gets better: Because program A is baseball, and program B is Friends, and since we all know that baseball is a man's program, and Friends is a woman's program, this is really about gender discrimination and sexism.
> People would question my social skills.
I really do.
Yeah I don't get that part either. When I was a kid everyone watched Friends. We never realized it was supposed to be "for girls".
Hell, the main cast is 3 men and 3 women. Doesn't get more neutral than that.
To put it as clearly and simply as possible, as if we were examining the results of a double-blind clinical trial:
OP attempts to change the channel. OP is loudly ridiculed in an unpleasant way.
Rando teammate changes the channel. Everyone thinks it's a really funny joke.
What changed? Just the OP. It's pretty obvious the team doesn't like her the way it likes the rest of its members. Is this necessarily an example of sexism, like the seat-belt incident that OP also references? Not necessarily, but it's certainly quite alienating.
Also, while I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that there is a hierarchy of things that are better and things that are worse, how impactful an event is, is ultimately subjective and often not under any conscious control. The time I was mugged in San Francisco honestly made much less of an impression than the time my coworker said he hated all of us and refused to go out for lunch.
It's a simple fact that usually in groups the majority rules. The majority wanted to watch baseball, not Friends.
you may be thinking about a 'Republic', in which the rights of the minority are protected, but THIS is democracy in ACTION.
No. OP wanted to change the channel away from THE established channel.
Had OP been a male, and a woman changed the channel back to baseball, the situation would have been the same.
You'd probably get laughed at.
It wouldn't be because people thought seafood was dumb. It wouldn't be because you looked funny, or were female, or played poorly that day. It would be because you misunderstood why the team went to Bob's week after week. The team doesn't go to Bob's because they've got a taste for pizza, they go to Bob's because they want a comfortable routine, shared experiences, and customs to uniquely identify their group.
The suggestion of giving those comforts up because you had a taste for fish sticks instead of pepperoni would be funny to the people who really appreciate them.
And so it goes with baseball on the TV.
And not only once -- the single event of her requesting a switch to the different show was repeatedly ridiculed, as if this was a completely outrageous suggestion. This would have been quite okay if she asked "could we watch Friends today instead" and the other team members looked at each other and simply responded "Eh, we'd all really like to watch this game".
People are in a shared TV-viewing area. There is something being shown on TV. New person enters and decides to change the channel without asking.
This is the action of a total dickhead. I don't care what the established ritual is. If a group of people are clearly watching something else (and they must be, because here they are in the tv viewing area, and something else in being shown, and if they wanted to watch something else they'd have already changed the channel), to pick up the remote and change channel without asking is the action of a dickhead.
Possibly the action of someone on the aspergic scale, possibly the action of a sociopath who just doesn't care what other people want. Coming in and changing the channel without asking is simply a massive dickhead thing.
I think this is an example of the conjunction fallacy, or The Linda Problem.
Bob walks in and changes the channel even though other people are watching.
Is Bob an asshole, or is Bob and asshole and has Asperger's?
I believe I suggested that this was the action of a dickhead, OR the action of someone who would have trouble understanding the social rules that suggest he shouldn't just change channel without asking (e.g. Aspergic, or a sociopath of some sort; probably not textbook psychopath, as they're often charming and quite able to abide by social rules in this sort of situation). If I had said "AND" rather than "OR", I would agree with you. I certainly intended to offer the Aspergic/sociopath option as an alternative rather than an additive.
That doesn't mean they are going to kill you, it means they understand how social hierarchies work and are moving up the ladder.
For those unfamiliar with the Linda problem, Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow explains it.
There are far more assholes than there are people with Asperger's. Consequently Bob is probably an asshole, plain and simple.
When you walk into a shared TV viewing area with people in it, and there is something being shown on TV, even if it looks like nobody is looking at the screen at that moment, you should still ask before changing channel. Social fact. If it looks like nobody is watching it, you can soften it a little by framing the question as "Is anyone watching this, or can I change channel?"
If it were a random situation, perhaps. If it is the established norm that a specific program is watched at a specific time, not so much.
I worked at a womens' clothing store for a while and I often felt like my opinion wasn't valued. The staff was mostly made up of women and I was treated inappropriately in the form of sexual harassment and unprofessional workplace conversations. I tried my best to keep out of it but I must admit I made mistakes.
Anyway, in the morning we often had a 'ritual' that we'd all get coffee in the backroom and talk about anything the store needed that day. I really liked what seemed like a time for open communication in the beginning. Everyone would have their coffee mugs lined up next to the machine - but for some reason another gal always moved my mug to the other side - she'd often separate property by gender? It was strange, to say the least... I always just put my mug with the others, but I started noticing that she would separate them. Over time this began to really bother me simply because of how small and benign it should have been. I'd come in, glance over, see that my mug was off to the side by itself... and it was easy to feel like I wasn't part of the team.
It just felt like... after all the serious problems there had to be dumb small ones too. Like not being able to enjoy Friends after long day of working on Microsoft Flight Sim. Everything had to be a problem, no matter how small the thing was. A coffee mug. A favorite TV show.
I don't think it helps to say we can share much worse experiences. Sexism or whatever this is doesn't go away because by comparison she had it easier than others. It's clear she felt undervalued in her team and that's a problem - especially in terms of how her productivity (may) have suffered. Microsoft should be working to reduce dumb stuff like this so everyone can work at their peak productivity - with the side-benefit of feeling camaraderie among their colleagues.
Personally I'd just go buy my own damn TV and watch alone in my office? :p
Maybe I don't have social skills either. :-)
If it's a very small incident, why is it such a big deal for her? Especially compared to the real harrassment by her mentor in the car?
> Over time this began to really bother me simply because of how small and benign it should have been.
Well, did you ask your coworker why she did that? Being an adult also means standing up for yourself (it doesn't have to be overly confrontational, just ask politely), especially since it apparently was just a single person, not bullying by your entire team.
As a followup to the thing I went through: I did confront my coworker. I spent a few weeks feeling like I couldn't bring it up because it's so small. This particular lady had always treated me funny so I didn't expect the conversation to go well. She said this was how they did it at her house (separating mugs) and I shouldn't care about it. I was the only dude on the staff so it just felt like I was being isolated from the group with mugs! I felt immature for even bringing it up. She stopped doing it for a while but when she switched shifts I'd get in the next day and see she'd done it again... it still makes me irrationally angry.
Now I just don't drink coffee, haha. XD
I wonder though, how do groups of women solve that?
In fact I feel discriminated against as a man. I'd much rather watch Friends that baseball, but apparently the author claims I'd much rather watch baseball because of my genes.
"Cool story bro". Fistbump.
I won't defend the other anecdotes though.
Source: That was me.
How do you know they are males? Do you think that the main anecdote in the linked article is about sexism, and if so, why?
In the aircon control wars majority always wins, so why would it be different with a TV?
Cultural alienation is not somebody's fault. It happens when you are minority in a group that has different culture. In these kind of situations basic politeness and hospitality would lessen the effect. The solution is not to watch Friends sometimes to distribute boredom more equally.
People who have been born in monoculture are not usually aware of the work needed to have fun and inclusive social event. Outside the work those who are alienated leave. The "mandatory fun" in workplace may need work from the host to be inclusive.
Try suggesting in Europe, that you don't want to watch a soccer match and instead would like to watch Friends (which I like incidentally). It'll be met with ridicule.
If there's something on the tv and soccer match is coming, you can be 100% sure that people will change it to the soccer game without even asking.
I don't think that's a question of sexism, it's just a question of shared culture and the fact that most people cannot imagine that there are people that do not like soccer. For some people, someone not liking soccer is as shocking as someone declaring himself an atheist during the times of the inquisition.
There are a lot of problems for women in tech but I think that in the case of sports, it's a behavior that touches equally men and women who do not like sports.