>I started not to take myself seriously after a few encounters of getting manterrupted, mansplained, hepeated, and other things that slowly led to that internal feeling of defeat.
I wish people would leave these terms out. It takes me from an emphatic reader to a reader who is suspicious about a hidden agenda. "I was interrupted and patronized" suffices.
While I understand being annoyed at these neologisms, they do add information: the writer didn't just didn't just feel interrupted and patronized, she felt interrupted and patronized in ways that fit into specific patterns of gendered behavior.
To be fair, the way that people in technical roles explain things to those with less technical knowledge can often feel condescending and 'mansplained' regardless of the gender roles in conversation. I ( male ) felt this in my first job out of college from everyone that was senior to me on the engineering team. When I was there, I worked with a girl that was both younger than I and more senior in many areas technically. She, albeit I think unintentionally, would effectively mansplain issues to me.
Point being, in technical roles and roles where you interact with technical people, you will undoubtedly have moments where you feel like information is being disseminated in a condescending fashion. Context is key here as it would be unfair to conflate the general 'prickliness' of many engineers with misogyny.
I personally dislike them for two reasons. The first is that they are inherently subjective; it assigns a motive to another person's actions, which the author almost certainly doesn't know. Maybe the motivations were sexist, maybe not.
The second is that those terms are untouchable in a sense. I skimmed it a bit and couldn't find anything more specific than using those terms. Unfortunately, that's generally acceptable today because questioning whether those terms actually apply gets an immediate response claiming that you are victim blaming. It cheapens the discourse to me, because the central premise of the article is held as unquestionable.
Then again, perhaps this category of writing just isn't for me. I don't disagree that her feelings are salient to her experience; but my interest isn't really in her experiences, it's in the knowledge that we can derive from her experiences. I.e. can her experiences reveal some insight into sexism amongst tech companies, or how victims are treated? However without a basis in objective facts, I fear there's not much knowledge to derive beyond her experiences in and of themselves.
It’s pretty rude, stupid, petty, immature, etc. but one experience I enjoyed was when a critical mass of those interrupting patronizing guys left the team, leaving one behind. He would continue trying to talk over me etc., but since he had no backup, I could just talk over him talking over me. This seemed to drive him insane.
Yikes. This comes across as really arrogant, and speaks to the author's point. What led you to believe anyone needed or wanted your empathy or approval?
Just because someone shares their perspective on a personal experience they had doesn't mean it's an invitation, and doesn't mean they want or need any input.
I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. He's not sharing a personal experience, but rather replying to someone else's with unsolicited advice on how to better go about getting something that was never asked for in the first place.
Ironically (or maybe not), he's recursively "mansplanined" why "mansplaining" is a term that makes him feel insecure. And I say insecure because of the false dichotomy between having empathy and being "suspicious about a hidden agenda" -- that screams "I feel threatened, so let me explain to you why your approach is wrong".
I don't know that you can call it "unsolicited" when the author published this piece to a blog that has a comment section. "Comment" doesn't exclude advice any more than "Comment" excludes praise, sympathy, or any other message that is in compliance with site guidelines (of which, hers has none).
I have trouble understanding what that was really about. It seemed like she just didn't like the job because she didn't have a clear idea of what she was supposed to do and didn't feel important enough.
This part stood out to me a bit
>due to the fact that I had less technical experience, it was hard for me to garner the confidence to ask questions.
When I feel like I don't know what I'm doing, that's when I ask the most questions and I sit there and let whoever I'm asking mansplain the hell out of it to me.
From what I could tell, she didn't like the lack of direction from her managers, but also didn't like having things explained to her. She wanted constant feedback about what she was supposed to be doing, yet wouldn't ask questions and didn't like to have things explained to her. How do you accommodate someone like that? It's too bad her job didn't work out, but it sounds more like, she didn't like her job and the way the company was run.
I started making 6 figures a few weeks after my 18th birthday, over 20 years ago. I've worked with hundreds, if not thousands of people in their teens, or under 23, who made 6 figures. That's the industry, it's not even worth mentioning.
These posts are always just lame humble brags with a contrite anecdote or two and a weak inspirational ending. yawn.
Well, I can tell this was written by a young person and someone in California. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that she has a lot of expectations that are going to be really hard for any company to meet.
It's awesome if you happen to get hired by a great company that walks the walk, but for the most part the things students/graduates get sold on as "normal" for white collar employment don't happen, or only happen in certain circumstances in a limited way. Examples:
>Flag 1: I did not have a thorough understanding of the role, and I don’t think management did either.
Not even unusual. Sometimes all a company knows (especially a small company) is that they need something done and need a person to do it. These are actually great opportunities if you know the work... it's a chance to write your own ticket. If you expect everything to be laid out for you when you're hired, you're not going to grow much or get paid the way you want.
>Flag 4: Push your manager to provide a clear description and/or breakdown of your role. You should know what you own, what your day to day or week to week looks like, and how with your position you will add value to the team that ideally aligns with a larger team goal or mission.
Wow. I think in my whole career I've had only 1-2 managers who could tell you in full how my role "aligns with a larger team goal or mission". Most of the time it's just "Our business runs on computers, and you know how they work". It's great if you have a visionary boss, but most people don't. If when you're hired your manager can tell you exactly what you're going to be doing and what success looks like, you've gotten an easy job... that again won't pay as much as you want nor help you to grow.
Uncertainty is normal.
>Flag 5: I didn’t have an ally or sponsor in the workplace. This stemmed from me not feeling like there was someone that I could reach out to, and not feeling comfortable in the work environment.
Most workplaces you don't have someone to hold your hand except maybe your boss or (if you're an intern or trainee) your mentor. That's not a normal thing to have, your employer is running a business, not an adult daycare. If you want support, join a women in business org or a fraternal organization.
>Flag 6:A good manager will work with you to identify your strengths, and provide you work opportunities to learn the skills that will allow you to advance in your career, and help you take it in the direction you want.
...and the other 90% of managers are doing well if they get all the work done on time and under budget and don't accidentally murder or grope their employees.
I'm sure the business environment is different in Cali, especially in the valley, but the author's expectations are rather high here.
20 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 49.4 ms ] threadI wish people would leave these terms out. It takes me from an emphatic reader to a reader who is suspicious about a hidden agenda. "I was interrupted and patronized" suffices.
That is highly salient to her experience.
Point being, in technical roles and roles where you interact with technical people, you will undoubtedly have moments where you feel like information is being disseminated in a condescending fashion. Context is key here as it would be unfair to conflate the general 'prickliness' of many engineers with misogyny.
The second is that those terms are untouchable in a sense. I skimmed it a bit and couldn't find anything more specific than using those terms. Unfortunately, that's generally acceptable today because questioning whether those terms actually apply gets an immediate response claiming that you are victim blaming. It cheapens the discourse to me, because the central premise of the article is held as unquestionable.
Then again, perhaps this category of writing just isn't for me. I don't disagree that her feelings are salient to her experience; but my interest isn't really in her experiences, it's in the knowledge that we can derive from her experiences. I.e. can her experiences reveal some insight into sexism amongst tech companies, or how victims are treated? However without a basis in objective facts, I fear there's not much knowledge to derive beyond her experiences in and of themselves.
Just because someone shares their perspective on a personal experience they had doesn't mean it's an invitation, and doesn't mean they want or need any input.
Ironically (or maybe not), he's recursively "mansplanined" why "mansplaining" is a term that makes him feel insecure. And I say insecure because of the false dichotomy between having empathy and being "suspicious about a hidden agenda" -- that screams "I feel threatened, so let me explain to you why your approach is wrong".
This part stood out to me a bit
>due to the fact that I had less technical experience, it was hard for me to garner the confidence to ask questions.
When I feel like I don't know what I'm doing, that's when I ask the most questions and I sit there and let whoever I'm asking mansplain the hell out of it to me.
From what I could tell, she didn't like the lack of direction from her managers, but also didn't like having things explained to her. She wanted constant feedback about what she was supposed to be doing, yet wouldn't ask questions and didn't like to have things explained to her. How do you accommodate someone like that? It's too bad her job didn't work out, but it sounds more like, she didn't like her job and the way the company was run.
I started making 6 figures a few weeks after my 18th birthday, over 20 years ago. I've worked with hundreds, if not thousands of people in their teens, or under 23, who made 6 figures. That's the industry, it's not even worth mentioning.
These posts are always just lame humble brags with a contrite anecdote or two and a weak inspirational ending. yawn.
But I agree that for the last ~7 years, making six figures in tech hasn't been anything notable.
This formulaic post is just sad. It's almost as bad as reading Oleg's posts on LinkedIN. I hired a FELON!
It's awesome if you happen to get hired by a great company that walks the walk, but for the most part the things students/graduates get sold on as "normal" for white collar employment don't happen, or only happen in certain circumstances in a limited way. Examples:
>Flag 1: I did not have a thorough understanding of the role, and I don’t think management did either.
Not even unusual. Sometimes all a company knows (especially a small company) is that they need something done and need a person to do it. These are actually great opportunities if you know the work... it's a chance to write your own ticket. If you expect everything to be laid out for you when you're hired, you're not going to grow much or get paid the way you want.
>Flag 4: Push your manager to provide a clear description and/or breakdown of your role. You should know what you own, what your day to day or week to week looks like, and how with your position you will add value to the team that ideally aligns with a larger team goal or mission.
Wow. I think in my whole career I've had only 1-2 managers who could tell you in full how my role "aligns with a larger team goal or mission". Most of the time it's just "Our business runs on computers, and you know how they work". It's great if you have a visionary boss, but most people don't. If when you're hired your manager can tell you exactly what you're going to be doing and what success looks like, you've gotten an easy job... that again won't pay as much as you want nor help you to grow.
Uncertainty is normal.
>Flag 5: I didn’t have an ally or sponsor in the workplace. This stemmed from me not feeling like there was someone that I could reach out to, and not feeling comfortable in the work environment.
Most workplaces you don't have someone to hold your hand except maybe your boss or (if you're an intern or trainee) your mentor. That's not a normal thing to have, your employer is running a business, not an adult daycare. If you want support, join a women in business org or a fraternal organization.
>Flag 6:A good manager will work with you to identify your strengths, and provide you work opportunities to learn the skills that will allow you to advance in your career, and help you take it in the direction you want.
...and the other 90% of managers are doing well if they get all the work done on time and under budget and don't accidentally murder or grope their employees.
I'm sure the business environment is different in Cali, especially in the valley, but the author's expectations are rather high here.
This is very confusing to me. Why ask in the first place?