167
My open letter to the tech industry on sexism, HR, and Linus Tech Tips
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
167 points (83.8% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
4214 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, if a behavior is not related to being discriminated based on gender, it's not sexism. It can be mobbing, it can be simply a toxic competitive environment, but that doesn't make it sexism, that is my point. "IF" being the keyword.
I totally agree, and this is why I do think that for someone shutting down a woman, because implicitly there is the though "this is a woman and therefore doesn't know what she is talking about", can be sexist, but that behavior is not inherently sexist. There are multiple (bad) reasons why people might do that. People might assume I am not competent, too young/too old to know better, too recent in the company, I went to the wrong university, and many other reason. This is not inherently linked to gender discrimination, that is my point. It can be ageism, hazing (hopefully the translation is accurate), classism or even racism, if not just the behavior of people who just want to gain advantages at expense of others (which is not a form of discrimination per se). All these exist in the workplace, and that's why I was challenging your conclusion that this is sexism by definition. Now if in your experience you think sexism was the root cause, sure, whatever. But if we want to move the conversation to a more generic "tech" environment, I think it's worth to expand the analysis.
Well, with this I guess I understand you are in bad faith. I did not try to disprove your experiences (in fact, I explicitly wrote that for one specific instance), I challenged some of the arguments you made. Trying to imply that I tried to disprove your experiences is extremely dishonest.
Are we not allowed to have different opinion? Do I exist in the workplace as well? Also, expressions such as "And men are just blessed with raises and promotions they didn’t even ask for" are hard to relate for me and for any other working class man who struggle in the workplace I know. I understand you were trying to get your point across, but if that's your perspective, then we simply live in two different worlds (which is totally possible, given that we probably live in very different places and companies).
I listened (well...read), and I questioned some of your conclusions. If this for you means "not listening to women", then I suppose we have different perspectives.
You keep insisting on this point. I am not doing any of that. I am challenging the generalization of the analysis of those episodes to the whole sector. I am not interested in discussing or disputing your personal experience.
From how you wrote it, I did not understand it was specifically a statement regarding your company. In general I think that's not the experience of most people especially in the last 2 years (given the layoffs), but obviously, if that's what happens in your particular company, I have no way to dispute it. It is not representative of the general environment though, I hope we can agree that people are not thrown promotions generally out of nothing, and that employers try to squeeze employees as much as possible, even if men.
I speak about these topics almost everyday, with colleagues and people in general. Not sure what are you trying to imply.
My comment has nothing to do with this argument. This is just a strawman that you are using to win internet points, falling back on cliches. My argument is "the workplace is a warzone, full of conflict and discrimination. Certain behaviors that you describe can be sexist bu can also not be, and instead be classist, ageist, racist and also the result of distorted incentives for workers that end up fighting each other". In fact, I would argue that ageism in tech is a problem as big as sexism, but apparently you are not interested in having this kind of conversation.
Research shows a lot of ageism in tech. So actually refusing to acknowledge that certain behavior can be the result of other form of discrimination as well or even not a result of discrimination at all, but the result of the way power structure is, seems to be contradicting research. My statement is far from being absolute. I am not saying that sexism does not exist in tech, I am not blind, I am saying that those two very specific common patterns that you described (and that I challenged) are not inherently sexist (but can be). My overall intention is to expand the critique to the toxic working culture in tech looking at it from multiple angles, but again, it seems you are not interested and you really want to only look at this through the lens of gender discrimination.
To me, this seems shortsighted, partial and, if I may, also oppressive towards the many who are discriminated in the very same way but from different reasons. It is detrimental to the overall effort that us -workers- should do to shape the culture in tech in another way, that should push for structural change that would drastically modify the incentives people have and so on.