That would assume people are aware of their predispositions on a general basis.
Some of those are simple, "stop being X to Y people because you think they are Z" is much easier to notice a pattern of than the sub-conscious effects of "for some reason I don't like people who act in these ways."
Anybody who isn't making meaningful contributions in favor of being self-serving is an asshole, regardless of gender. I expect collaboration from the people I work with, something that this article would consider "feminine." Fuck that.
And the most competent person I work with is a chick, but she's a freak of nature for her talent level.
I'm not too impressed with this article. If we replaced women in this article with any other underrepresented group in the software business and asked that group to conform to a stereotype to get ahead, it would be considered offensive and rightly so.
Did you not like the post or the research in the article it's linking? The article is a link-bait with a title that tries to grab attention. This is typical, even The Economist does it.
However, I find the basic idea that "women may be perceived as competent but unlikable or as likable but incompetent" in the workplace to be completely true. This idea does not carry over to other underrepresented groups, I think. For example, would you say there is a similar double whammy for black people?
I'm objecting to the article rather than the research, and I agree that the 'double-bind' described does ring true. What I'm objecting to is the conclusion that women should conform to a stereotype in order to be accepted in the workplace.
I'm not saying that the situation is the same for every underrepresented group; I'm saying that if the article were to advise any other underrepresented group in a similar way it would be denounced as discriminatory.
EDIT: I have no idea why parent is being downvoted. He/she raises valid questions.
I'm OK with comment up/downvoting to reflect agreement. What I find immature is to downvote without raising a counterpoint. Look at the first comment for this post, it just labels the post as "shitty" without telling why. Same hasty approach.
As a black person (and a woman, ha!), I can say there is a similar double whammy for us. In addition to the competence double whammy, there's the one about being too assertive (for women)--the infamous "angry black woman."
I agree about the "angry black woman" prototype, it was leveled against Michelle Obama, too, among others.
My point was that I think the issues with women in technical workplace are somewhat different from those relating to minorities. You, of course are getting hit by both!
I don't think that this should be about women flirting or not. It's more about women not behaving like feminine behavior is something to frown upon and the fact that men are generally cautious around 'prudish' women because they tend to attract harassment lawsuits like bees to pollen.
Let's be real, men will always congregate around the water cooler to talk about life, work, vices, and women. The woman that can integrate into the "workplace community" is generally of the more liberal type and come's of as friendly toward the male population. What the feminist girl-power types don't get is that a smile, a high five, and jokes of the 'horse walks into a jewish bar' kind get you a lot farther down the road of being likable by your male peers. This also has the effect of toning down our male tendency of vile language when referring to women, which is off course a plus.
This reminds me of the Star Trek TNG episode where the first officer goes in a 'personnel exchange' to a Klingon ship and the female Klingons try to flirt with him.
"The choices then are these--work within the stereotypes or be careful in situations to not activate gender stereotypes."
Really? Those are the only choices? Wow. Forget about changing attitudes or anything like that, I guess. It's like the Y-chromosome-exclusive version of "publish or perish."
And notice how it's incumbent on women to figure out what to do. Men shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about it. It's just too much to ask for men to maybe examine their biases, conscious or unconscious.
And FWIW, I'm not exactly a fan of the article's conclusion ("work within stereotypes") that I should be flirting at work. In a work environment where you're one of two single women in a mostly married male environment, it's just not good form.
23 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 66.2 ms ] threadSome of those are simple, "stop being X to Y people because you think they are Z" is much easier to notice a pattern of than the sub-conscious effects of "for some reason I don't like people who act in these ways."
And the most competent person I work with is a chick, but she's a freak of nature for her talent level.
From the article: "... evaluators tend to make negative judgments about women who behave in masculine ways to fulfill the needs of their jobs."
(Oh, instant downmod for asking a question related to gender issues. Silly me, forgot what site I was on.)
It's not a gender issue, just happens that a lot of talented developers I've met have been women.
Replace <anyBullshit> with "Does she ship?"
Dave Thomas's keynote from Rubyconf comes to mind. http://confreaks.net/videos/368-rubyconf2010-keynote
However, I find the basic idea that "women may be perceived as competent but unlikable or as likable but incompetent" in the workplace to be completely true. This idea does not carry over to other underrepresented groups, I think. For example, would you say there is a similar double whammy for black people?
I'm not saying that the situation is the same for every underrepresented group; I'm saying that if the article were to advise any other underrepresented group in a similar way it would be denounced as discriminatory.
EDIT: I have no idea why parent is being downvoted. He/she raises valid questions.
My point was that I think the issues with women in technical workplace are somewhat different from those relating to minorities. You, of course are getting hit by both!
Let's be real, men will always congregate around the water cooler to talk about life, work, vices, and women. The woman that can integrate into the "workplace community" is generally of the more liberal type and come's of as friendly toward the male population. What the feminist girl-power types don't get is that a smile, a high five, and jokes of the 'horse walks into a jewish bar' kind get you a lot farther down the road of being likable by your male peers. This also has the effect of toning down our male tendency of vile language when referring to women, which is off course a plus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRrNVimz-F4
skip the first 3 minutes. bring your cringe goggles
"The choices then are these--work within the stereotypes or be careful in situations to not activate gender stereotypes."
Really? Those are the only choices? Wow. Forget about changing attitudes or anything like that, I guess. It's like the Y-chromosome-exclusive version of "publish or perish."
And notice how it's incumbent on women to figure out what to do. Men shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about it. It's just too much to ask for men to maybe examine their biases, conscious or unconscious.
And FWIW, I'm not exactly a fan of the article's conclusion ("work within stereotypes") that I should be flirting at work. In a work environment where you're one of two single women in a mostly married male environment, it's just not good form.
If the above doesn't sound good than women should just be competitive. It's equal opportunity. These articles take problems out of context.