It could be entirely the men's fault. However, the article struck me as odd. She presented the issues seemingly from a moral high ground and overly black and white. It's somehow always the other's fault (even her helpful coworker). I get the impression that she's a troublemaker. Visiting her Twitter profile, she is out and "smashing the patriarchy". I think it's important to hear the issues of women in the workplace, but we shouldn't let the extremists take over the conversation.
Reading about a patriarchy in the US makes me escpacially angry, because it belittles the suffering from women under actual patriarchies.
It could be entirely my fault. However, your comment struck me as odd. You presented the issues seemingly from a moral high ground and overly black and white. It's somehow always the other's fault. I get the impression that you're a troublemaker. Visiting your HN profile, you're out to convince people that having free speech implies that denying the Holocaust should be allowed. I think it's important to hear the issues of commenters such as you, but we shouldn't let the extremists take over the conversation.
Reading about a lack of a right to deny the Holocaust in Germany makes me especially angry, because it belittles the suffering and deaths of people who actually died in the Holocaust and other genocides.
You're conflating denying the Holocaust with the freedom to deny the Holocaust. I put this strawman away and note that you don't have a problem using millions of Nazi victims to make a point.
> Reading about a patriarchy in the US makes me escpacially angry, because it belittles the suffering from women under actual patriarchies.
Oppression isn't a contest. It takes different forms in different places, and all of them merit smashing. This is not an "extremist" view by any measure.
Patriarchy is a clearly defined term and most western societies don't have one. Much like Hitler comparisons, it only dillutes the term and makes the original concept look more harmless.
"patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it."
"Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. In the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.
Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[1] Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.[2]"
Women running the Boston Marathon were not recognized as completing it until 1972.
Abortion was illegal until 1973, and it has gone back to being quasi-illegal.
Women here didn't have the right to open a line of credit until 1974.
Until 1978, a woman could be fired for being pregnant.
Until 1980, you could be fired from your job for complaining about sexual harassment.
Marital rape was not criminalized until 1993.
In 1994, women were banned from serving in armed combat in the military. It was finally lifted in 2013.
Women were not allowed to breastfeed in public until 1999.
Women are generally not allowed, or severely frowned upon, joining male-dominated sports such as football.
Women are not allowed to show their nipples in public, except in a few states in a few designated places, and never on social media (well, except maybe Tumblr).
In many states, getting an abortion (read: having full control over your own body and the things that come out of it) is illegal, or so completely difficult as to make it impossible.
When it is legal, women may be forced to undergo a very painful procedure that has been compared to rape, for no medical reason whatsoever.
When it is quasi-legal, you might still not be able to get one, even if your own life is at risk by not getting one.
Or it may only be illegal to have the abortion if the fetus is intact. You may instead have the fetus cut up into little pieces inside you, and then removed, which would not be illegal. (Yes, this is a real federal law)
Since the 2010 midterm elections, over 240 restrictions on abortion have been adopted, mostly at the state level. There are charts to help understand what you can and cannot do with your body depending on the state and county you live in (because most states have over 50% of their counties with no facility to perform abortion, and 28 states have over 90% of their counties with no facilities to perform abortion).
If you can get one, you can afford it, and there is access to a facility, you may need a waiting period, a mandatory unnecessary vaginal ultrasound, counseling, at least one parent informed, and parental consent (even if your parent raped you).
Oh, and women still make 79 cents on the dollar to what men make. A 2015 World Economic Forum report predicted that global gender parity, or the economic and social equality of the sexes, would not arrive for 177 years. This time last year, the Institute for Women’s Policy made a similar assertion, arguing that American men would significantly out-earn American women until 2058.
I could go on, and on, and on, and on. Women are oppressed in this country, by men and the 'moral conservatives' who wish to continue dominating women. It is a patriarchal society because women are treated as second class citizens, and our laws and "free market" reflect that many, many times over.
Yea, sure. A country where not so long ago women couldn't vote or own property, no patriarchy there.. Suddenly things have drastically changed and women have complete parity with men in society. /s
She didn't say this was the case everywhere, but I wish it was surprising at all that she would have her experiences dismissed or excused. Seems like it would be easier to criticize that situation and wish it didn't happen again, but so many would rather insist it never did in the first place.
Its worth recognising that until the 1800s the US was a country where most people couldn't vote or own property -regardless of colour, creed or gender. Voting was restricted to landowners, and that was concentrated among quite a small minority.
Both sides really like to get all het up about whatever. Writing angry stuff gets more traffic. Statistics show this.
If you are reading this stuff and bitching about it instead of seeking out something more constructive, you are part of why this stuff keeps getting written, getting traffic, yadda. You are giving it the attention that helps keep it alive and thriving.
(I write about gender issues in a much more even-handed way. I get largely ignored and struggle to get any traffic. So I am not hugely sympathetic to your complaints.)
I'd think if you were actually concerned with those suffering from oppression, you wouldn't rank their suffering in order of severity to determine what any of us should focus on first (as if we can only think about one thing at a time... and if there are bigger problems, why aren't you naming them and offering possible solutions we can act on? They're big problems that we belittle with our own problems, right? What are you referring to here?).
Then it appears you dismiss her entirely just because her Twitter has feminist things in it. That makes her an extremist somehow.
The boss was right about the "experiment". It simply wasn't enough proof to show that sexism exists in the work place.
1. One experiment run.
2. Only two participants.
3. At least one of the participants had a bias from the start of the experiment.
I find it difficult to believe this happens like this, at least after my personal experience of women working on par to men. One notable point has always been that it was men working over time when the opportunity arose, other than that things were equal. We shared good jokes, we went toe to toe with work motive. I don't know where people keep finding these places - but I don't think I ever worked in one.
The whole point of the story is the guy who was her ally didn't even believe that she got treated differently, until he was mistaken for she. You will forever perceive there is no problem because you will never experience it first hand, and your lack of this personal experience feeds a confirmation bias.
Maybe, but I do actually talk to both sexed colleagues outside of the workplace and ask how they're finding work. I find it difficult to believe they would lie to me, especially the gruntles we do share.
I think we can assume that even if this is the case, it's not the case everywhere. It's going to not be standard across the globe.
Also, if they share a customer - she may just be bad at her job. It's entirely possible that she is treated badly because she isn't very good.
It's also entirely possible that this company has shitty customers. Perhaps an all male company attracts a certain type of customer, that doesn't represent how all women are treated.
Nobody's lying to you. But nobody's going to tell you every time they are harassed. If you know more than five women, one of them has been sexually assaulted, and if you know 10, at least one of them has has had to deal with inappropriate comments or unfair treatment at work. These are of course statistical generalizations but they usually hold true - in the USA, at least, I haven't studied other countries' figures.
It's easy to come up with examples of why this whole story might not be representative of a trend, but there is a trend of these stories, which gives them more credence when they are backed by the real names of people and their allies who corroborate them.
And whether a certain type of customer or company or employee/employer mix makes this happen more often or not is not important. It shouldn't happen in any situation, to anyone, and in order to reduce these instances, we have to continue to say that until people change their behavior. This is how social norms are adjusted - not by ignoring or working around a social problem, but by specifically speaking out against it publicly, time and again.
>Nobody's lying to you. But nobody's going to tell you every time they are harassed. If you know more than five women, one of them has been sexually assaulted, and if you know 10, at least one of them has has had to deal with inappropriate comments or unfair treatment at work. These are of course statistical generalizations but they usually hold true - in the USA, at least, I haven't studied other countries' figures.
No they wouldn't, but I would expect it to mentioned at least once? The 1 in 5 are probably not evenly distributed between each company - there's likely hotspots. From what I can tell, it doesn't hold true for the UK, at least the jobs I've been in.
>It's easy to come up with examples of why this whole story might not be representative of a trend, but there is a trend of these stories, which gives them more credence when they are backed by the real names of people and their allies who corroborate them.
Not necessarily, it stinks of jumping on the "bandwagon" because of their density in recent times. I don't understand why women would only just now be deciding that it's time to speak up. It could also be they now feel able to - but I couldn't imagine the women I know being anything other than vocal about mis-representation in the work place.
>And whether a certain type of customer or company or employee/employer mix makes this happen more often or not is not important. It shouldn't happen in any situation, to anyone, and in order to reduce these instances, we have to continue to say that until people change their behavior. This is how social norms are adjusted - not by ignoring or working around a social problem, but by specifically speaking out against it publicly, time and again.
I'm not saying it's right, it's just an offering as to why the results may be biased. That said, if somebody is doing something bad, expect to be treated badly. Respect is earned, not freely given. If I'm doing a bad job, I expect the consequences of that to follow. Not every place can be a safe space - sometimes some grit and honesty is needed to keep things moving.
So you think you'll just be sitting at lunch with your female coworker, and she'll say "Hey Ralph, did I tell you the funny story about last week when I was with a client going over a report and he told me my tits would look even better in a low-cut shirt? Pass the salt." Nobody wants to talk about being humiliated, especially by someone they work with. At the very least they're humiliated again by talking about it. At worst you actually make a fuss about it to someone and they may suffer consequences to having told about it.
Women have been speaking up for decades, at various times in various industries. This is not new. What is new is that women are starting to realize that a lot of men are bewildered when they learn what's been going on right under their noses, or that men are outright denying that it's happening. This pisses women off. So they have started to be more vocal, both inspired by their peers and as a rejection of the indifference of men.
Yes, it looks like bandwagoning, because it is a form of bandwagoning. Really it's a classical information cascade. These are very common, and the comment "Why would this change now?" is an indicator of one. The simplest way to explain it is that people feel more emboldened when they aren't going to be the only one in the street fighting for their cause. The more women that share their stories, the more women are inspired to tell theirs because they don't fear the humiliation and repercussions as much.
And nobody's saying you shouldn't be chewed out if you do a bad job. What they're saying is women have to work much harder to gain the same respect a man gets. It's a very old, common trope that i'm sure you've heard before. To put it in perspective, have you ever been asked if you had sex to get your position, or if you're single, or had someone comment on how you look? That is _one_ aspect. The others are the lower pay, the higher scrutiny of your work compared to your peers, the smaller representation in management positions and fewer opportunities to be promoted, and being talked over like you're invisible. If you don't think it's a common thing, ask all the women you know each of these things and tick off the boxes.
Why was this flagged? And how do I vote for it to be un-flagged?
The thing I find strange is she doesn't know why the boss would deny it's a problem even after addressed by multiple people (a man, even!) with actual evidence. Basically, accepting that the problem is real would imply negative, potentially painful things about the way he lives his life, treats others, and his self image, and so he has to cling to any possible excuse to dismiss the idea so his identity isn't challenged.
It's an ego response. When threatened, the ego shapes your conscious mind's reality to protect it. It's very similar to the defense mechanism that lets creationists believe the earth is 6,000 years old and jesus rode dinosaurs. Even actual evidence to the contrary doesn't phase them. Kind of like the men in this thread who ridicule the post and ignore the actual point of it that shows a man experiencing the behavior first hand.
It's flagged because these "personal issues" articles appear constantly on HN, and they're all kinda the same. "He said this, I did this, somebody said this, I didn't like when this happened". It's just noise at this point, it's the same story but with different actors.
(I get that that in itself is a problem - that the issue isn't going away, evidenced by the continual posting of this articles - it just becomes a bit much for a casual internet message board)
Articles on HN are routinely flagged for reasons independent of the substance of the article itself. You cannot judge the merit of an article, or even HN's opinion of its merit, from whether it's flagged.
And you don't find that important? Don't you think seeing these stories constantly is a necessary part of eventually ending them? If we flag them all and they disappear, will we have helped end oppression, or helped perpetuate it? ("Neither" is not an option because flagging is taking direct action)
Society is moving forward, it's happening. It's not something that's going to correct itself fully in a day, month, or year. It will take at least another generation to fully work out these problems, but it's happening.
There's a nice quote that I just read, but I forget the author: "It's easier to raise strong children than to fix broken adults". This is how we are going to fix sexism. Not by writing and reading huge personal diatribes. Not by protesting. Not by affirmative action. But by raising smart, empathetic children.
A human is more complex than that. Even with granola-eating compost-gardening flower child parents, you can still end up with a hitler youth. The opposite is true as well. Why? Because parents are not the only influence (thank Bob) on a developing person.
One of the strongest influences on a person is their peer group. Parents provide a model, but the peer group is where a lot of people get their core social values from. It's where you learn how to dress, how to talk, what sports to play, what music to listen to, and how to treat other people.
But to say "eh, things are getting better, don't worry about it", is completely antithetical to the idea of not writing personal stories, or protesting, or affirmative action. Things are getting better because of these things. You didn't grow up in the era of desegregation. You didn't grow up in the era of women's suffrage. These things took many, many generations to defeat, and they required long, protracted battles and getting in people's faces because most people didn't want things to get better.
Yes, we need to raise smart, empathetic children. And we need to bring them to protest rallies.
I feel sorry for her, and her story is probably an example of sexism at the workplace. That is when her boss says that Martin's style is feminine and that that is bad.
However, the linked Martin's story is not a good test of sexism, because the one customer example is anecdotal and sometimes if you pretend to swap customer reps, you end up with a better experience because the customer feels like they are "starting over".
The week-long experiment is also a bad example because it is not a double blind test. Martin could have acted differently than he normally does knowing that he signs as a female.
And even if they did do a double-blind test, another reason for more rude replies directed at female employees could be that social expectations are different. That is the same word choice by people of different genders/sexes can imply different things. This is not necessarily "bad".
I find it interesting that the author's male employee had such a terrible experience - but I'm a man named "Lyndsy", and I have never had such an experience.
You're getting pretty emotional in your writing over this thing that has nothing to do with you, dude. You're kind of a boy like that, getting worked up about the stuff you criticize others for despite you having no skin in the game in the first place.
Thats a big of an exaggeration. Some people in some industries are hostile to women - and it ahouls go without saying that those people need to be reprimanded.
But painting it as society actively fighting half of its population is a bit much.
It doesn't take all or even most of society to make things difficult or worse for some, it only takes a determined few combined with others being ambivalent.
Reading about a patriarchy in the US makes me escpacially angry, because it belittles the suffering from women under actual patriarchies.