No sympathy
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| linux4567 Apr 26, 2014 8:32 PM EDT |
I really don't understand why Caitlyn turned down this job, the fact that she got the job offer clearly shows that the company has no preconceptions about hiring women. Her 'chickening out' on the other hand shows that she has preconceptions about working with men. So Caitlyn seems to be the one with the prejudice here... |
| caitlyn Apr 26, 2014 8:59 PM EDT |
Thank you for so demonstrating the type of comment I predicted in the first paragraph of the article. I love it when a man proves he is part of the problem. I am NOT looking for sympathy. I am not a victim here. I'm not unemployed so, fortunately, I have choices. However, an IT department with 400 people and no women proves without any doubt that there is a huge problem at the company in terms of hiring and retaining women even if there is no discriminatory hiring policy at the moment. Note that I NEVER claimed there was such a policy. Add that the job has been open for months, they called me again on Thursday to try and get me to change my mind (the event which prompted this article), and that the position pays above market wages for it's location and yet it's still vacant. What does that tell you? It tells me there is a problem in management or corporate culture that drives qualified applicants away. In other words, there is a real problem with the company even if your own prejudices blind you to it. |
| linux4567 Apr 26, 2014 9:21 PM EDT |
You might be quite correct that there is a real problem with that company if they struggle to fill a position for months despite offering above average wage for that position, but it certainly doesn't mean that the problem is prejudice against women. After all if that was the issue they would have long filled the position with a man. |
| caitlyn Apr 26, 2014 10:34 PM EDT |
400 men, zero women, and yet you insist that it "doesn't mean that the problem is prejudice against women". Really? I'm speechless. |
| jdixon Apr 26, 2014 11:01 PM EDT |
> ...the fact that she got the job offer clearly shows that the company has no preconceptions about hiring women. Offering to hire women? No, they don't seem to have any problem with that. Actually hiring them and keeping them? Well, that's another matter. At the very least, keeping them seems to be a problem. |
| BernardSwiss Apr 26, 2014 11:23 PM EDT |
Well, going by Caitlyn's account, maybe their biggest problem is not so much the typical co-worker, as the IT department's management -- which would make any incipient problems around gender discrimination issues much greater than they would be otherwise? It's really hard to tell, 3rd hand. But it's not like Caitlyn is some sort of shrinking violet, nor a knee-jerk "gender-wars warrior", nor lacking corporate IT experience -- so if she sensed trouble, there's likely to be something off. Why don't we take her word for it, that there's at least a suspicious odor wafting from the general direction of Denmark? |
| jdixon Apr 26, 2014 11:50 PM EDT |
> Well, going by Caitlyn's account, maybe their biggest problem is not so much the typical co-worker, as the IT department's management... Caitlyn's account doesn't give us anywhere near enough information to determine where the problem is, only that there is almost certainly a problem. The statistical improbability of the situation she describes existing by chance is on par with my winning the MegaMillions lottery. > Why don't we take her word for it, For the same reason you normally don't take the word of single individuals involved in a situation. At best, they give you an incomplete picture. |
| kikinovak Apr 27, 2014 1:28 AM EDT |
"I am NOT looking for sympathy. I am not a victim here." Miss Martin would benefit from reading Sigmund Freud's text "Die Verneinung", where the inner workings of the categorical negation are demonstrated. Example: Therapist: "Who were you afraid of when you were young?" Patient: "Well, certainly NOT my father." |
| caitlyn Apr 27, 2014 2:54 AM EDT |
jdixon: My account doesn't give enough information to properly analyze the workplace environment because I really don't have enough information. However, I agree that something must be terribly wrong. I have been in IT since 1980. I have never seen an IT department with more than 5 people that didn't have at least one women. Never. That's in 34 years. BernardSwiss: Your analysis matches mine. I believe the problem emanates from management. Since management sets the tone for the entire department that would tend to poison the atmosphere. kikinovak: Freud? Really? Hey, why not pick perhaps the most sexist writer you can find in the field of psychology and throw that at me? Don't you need to be doing a Slackware commercial somewhere? |
| kikinovak Apr 27, 2014 3:01 AM EDT |
The example given in my previous post looks quite gender-agnostic to me. |
| dinotrac Apr 27, 2014 5:34 AM EDT |
There is exactly one and only one problem with Caitlyn's response -- and it's not a problem of her actions or those of any individual in the same position. It's this: Somebody looks at the IT department and says "Good god. We don't have a single woman working here. How did we do that? Sounds like we had better take a very serious look at the way we hire technical people." Sometime later: "OK. We've fixed a lot of problems around here guys, We have the names of 50 absolutely dynamite women and I am very psyched about putting this problem behind us." Each of 50 women: "Ya know, 400 men and no women. You must be doing something really wrong." |
| theBeez Apr 27, 2014 9:52 AM EDT |
@Caitlyn " I love it when a man proves he is part of the problem." Who says there's a problem? Are the products they produce no good? Is the company in financial problems? The only one having a problem is obviously Caitlyn and with a bout of illogic, she concludes that since she has a problem, everyone has a problem. Let me help you out: the only one having a problem is you. I'm fine. |
| jdixon Apr 27, 2014 11:47 AM EDT |
> My account doesn't give enough information to properly analyze the workplace environment because I really don't have enough information. I understand that Caitlyn. That's usually the case with a single person viewing a situation, as my second paragraph noted. I wasn't intending to imply anything negative about you or your story. > There is exactly one and only one problem with Caitlyn's response You are technically correct, Dino. However, in such a case it's only reasonable that the people doing to hiring make clear that there was a problem, the problem has been dealt with to the best of their ability, and the person being interviewed is looked at as part of the solution. This interviewer made no attempt to do that. Which makes the whole affair somewhat puzzling. |
| gus3 Apr 27, 2014 4:24 PM EDT |
Dino nails it. The company didn't make the effort to hire the best qualified candidates for long enough, that now some of the best candidates aren't interested in cleaning up the mess. |
| caitlyn Apr 27, 2014 5:03 PM EDT |
Clearly there is no sexism in IT and I misinterpreted everything. So did Julie Ann Horvath, right? http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes... |
| linux4567 Apr 27, 2014 5:43 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: I fail to find evidence of sexism in the link you posted. There are lots of allegations of improper behaviour (which is not uncommon in small start-ups where the owner is also the boss) but that's not the same as sexism. But this is a strawman argument, nobody said sexism doesn't exist, I only said your experience you wrote about doesn't appear to have anything to do with sexism. |
| theBeez Apr 28, 2014 4:18 AM EDT |
@caitlyn As I've stated many, many times before (and you can verify that anywhere you want) "proof by example" is no proof as all. They invented a science for that, it's called "statistics". |
| cabreh Apr 28, 2014 4:38 AM EDT |
Are women discriminated against in the workplace? Yes, absolutely. No possibility of argument against that fact. Now my question: So find yourself as a manager in a company. You have 400 employees under you and they are all male. You realize that this situation needs to change. That it's wrong. That you need to hire women. How do you do this without being portrayed as the company in the original article? For one thing there is no way you can be expected to know 400 employees. Sorry, no. So when asked about the possibility of a sexist environment you say you are against that and won't allow it. Sorry, you're guilty. You just proved it by stating it is your intention not to let it happen. Sounds to me like you can't change anything. You wouldn't be allowed to do so. |
| theBeez Apr 28, 2014 5:40 AM EDT |
@cabreh Lot's of assumptions not backed up by anything. "Sorry, you're guilty". Sorry, you need a whole lot more to backup that in court. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 28, 2014 9:03 AM EDT |
One of the reasons I really like telecommuting, it's easier to be in a position to judge people by the quality of their work, first. |
| mbaehrlxer Apr 28, 2014 10:59 AM EDT |
cabreh: for starters by clearly and openly stating that intent to the women you are hiring. that was obviously missing from caitlyns interviews. what to do next, i have no idea. maybe it would help to hire not just one woman as a leader but a bunch of them into lower ranks as well. surely a company with 400 IT staff can afford to hire 10 or 20 more people and create some female only or mixed teams. i don't know if that's a good approach, but i can't see any better alternatives. letting go of a whole lot of people to fill them with women instead surely is not going to go down well and create more resentment than helping anything. the discussion here is already proof of that, sadly. greetings, eMBee. |
| theBeez Apr 28, 2014 11:43 AM EDT |
@ mbaehrlxer Who's paying for that? As long as consumers run for the lowest bidder, companies are not going to put money in "hiring 10 or 20 more people and create some female only or mixed teams" unless there is a clear business case and a proper ROI. For arguments sake, let's say a well educated worker takes $50K a year, you're talking about a $1M investment. That's a lot of servers.. |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2014 12:51 PM EDT |
> As long as consumers run for the lowest bidder, companies are not going to put money in "hiring 10 or 20 more people and create some female only or mixed teams" unless there is a clear business case and a proper ROI. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the ROI is avoiding an EEOC investigation and subsequent lawsuit which will probably cost quite a bit more than $1M. |
| theBeez Apr 28, 2014 1:38 PM EDT |
@jdixon With a few percent females in Open Source and the jurisprudence on Sears I wouldn't worry too much, I think. |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2014 3:42 PM EDT |
> I wouldn't worry too much, I think. Thousands of business can only hope you're right. :( |
| dinotrac Apr 28, 2014 4:56 PM EDT |
"Jurisprudence on Sears" What have I missed? What is the case name? |
| theBeez Apr 29, 2014 12:25 AM EDT |
EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F. Supp. 1264 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (Sears II). |
| dinotrac Apr 29, 2014 12:57 AM EDT |
Beez -- Now that I've read it, I scratch my head. I am hard-pressed to see the significance of a 30 year old case, beyond clarifying the shifts in burden of proof and the conditions under which an appeals court can question the judgment of the trial court. |
| cabreh Apr 29, 2014 5:36 AM EDT |
@mbaehrixer Did I misread the article. The part where she asked him about the environment and the manager said he wouldn't allow a sexist environment? Or where the manager is offering a woman a job? If the company has a men-only attitude why was Caitlyn offered a job? Would it sound better to her if the manager said we have an unhealthy situation and we want you to be the first woman to help us change it? Would she? What if there is something about the work location or something other than "those nasty men" making it uninhabitable for a woman and no woman has actually applied for a job before. The thing is we don't know. And since the job offer was turned down because of what "might" be a problem we will never know for sure. |
| jdixon Apr 29, 2014 6:36 AM EDT |
> Would it sound better to her if the manager said we have an unhealthy situation and we want you to be the first woman to help us change it? That would have at least been truthful, so yes. > The thing is we don't know. Obviously. And even Caitlyn admits that her story doesn't give us enough information to know, and that she doesn't have enough information to know. What Caitlyn is doing is publicizing a potential problem. That's what journalists do. That lets the weight of societal forces do their work. |
| cabreh Apr 29, 2014 7:00 AM EDT |
@jdixon For the societal forces to work you need to know who to pressure. I don't recall the company being identified. So, just what have we accomplished with this article? To make a point about discrimination? Without specific information I could write anything I feel like to "prove" my point. And it wouldn't even have to be true. I'm not saying Caitlyn would do that. Just that I'm not sure I see the point in the article. All it says to me is that Caitlyn is very sensitive about the subject. Be it real or imagined. Of course we regular readers already knew that. |
| jdixon Apr 29, 2014 8:30 AM EDT |
> For the societal forces to work you need to know who to pressure. She's given enough clues that I'm sure the company could be identified if anyone chose to bother. > All it says to me is that Caitlyn is very sensitive about the subject. Be it real or imagined. Of course. She and TC have been working in IT for years. They've encountered the problems numerous times. They're going to be sensitive to it. We're all shaped (to one degree or another) by our experiences. |
| mbaehrlxer Apr 30, 2014 10:34 AM EDT |
cabreh wrote:Would it sound better to her if the manager said we have an unhealthy situation and we want you to be the first woman to help us change it? oh, yes, that is exactly what i meant with being open about the situation. there is a wide range from having a men-only attitude to having an environment that women would actually want to work in. as for the cost of hiring more women? well if diversity makes for more productive work, then that should soon pay for itself. greetings, eMBee. |
| theBeez Apr 30, 2014 11:50 AM EDT |
"if diversity makes for more productive work, then that should soon pay for itself." "IF" being the operative word here. |
| dinotrac Apr 30, 2014 2:18 PM EDT |
Beez -- There is no if about it. The problem lies in people who want to hire themselves over and over and over again. Great way to turn brainstorming into braindrizzling. |
| Fettoosh May 01, 2014 11:33 AM EDT |
@caitlyn, For the sake of us all, Please, go back to technical writing. |
| number6x May 01, 2014 12:40 PM EDT |
I've never worked for an employer where the entire IT staff was male. And I'm talking decades of work here. The smallest shop I was an employee in had three IT staff for the entire company of about 200 people. I have consulted to companies with no IT and been the only staff member while on contract, but that doesn't inform us of company policy. Even there we had 2 male and 1 female. That is the one case I've experienced where, statistically, it could have been all one sex or the other and not be unusual (because the total count is so low). I mean, when flipping a coin you can get three heads or three tails in a row quite often. Yes I know that the candidates are predominantly male which produces a certain bias. Hiring IT professionals is not like flipping a coin. But hundreds of flips and all the same side? Even starting off with a 70/30 split in the candidate pool to make hundreds of selections and to be nowhere near a 70/30 is very unusual. What ever the actual ratio is in the candidates, there should be a clear convergence on that ratio as the number of total selections increases. Sure there will be some wavering, but hundred of selections made and all M and no F? It will converge to the ratio in the candidate pool unless there is some other factor biasing the choice. Reading Caitlyn's article, it seems to say to me that she read the same thing in the tea leaves and declined the offer. Call the factor that is biasing the choice whatever you want: sexism, Factor X (or maybe Y would be more appropriate here, tee hee), it is clear something is biasing the selection. Unless the job is something like "Testing the comfort of new automated prostate exam instruments and techniques" I can't see a reason the bias on one sex over the other. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2014 5:10 PM EDT |
@6x -- I agree with you mostly. Yes I know that the candidates are predominantly male which produces a certain bias I don't know what the percentages are, but there are enough female IT types these days that "predominantly" is too strong a word. Which makes 400 to zip even more suspicious. |
| Ridcully May 01, 2014 5:44 PM EDT |
She didn't like the ambience....it tasted "wrong".......alarm bells went off in her "personal assessment of the business"......But whatever, it's caitlyn's choice, no-one else's, and with that perspective, I'm sure we would all agree. She shared her decision. Fine with me, and she gave me her full reasons on another thread. I'm happy with that too. This thread really is now looking for a reason for its own existence and is trying to feed on itself. Why don't we all just leave it at that ? And without any acrimony, call it a day, shake hands and go back to Linux. |
| theBeez May 02, 2014 4:51 AM EDT |
@Ridcully That's downplaying at its best - you should have been a spin doctor. No, it's just another bout in a constant line of flagrant misandry, directed at those who have a HOBBY - for Pete's sake - or just go to work every day with their boxed lunches in order to provide for their families. And it's presented here - over and over again - by uttering ever changing shots in the dark and wild accusations that we're just a bunch of rapists making it our job to degrade and put down the women we work with or make it impossible to work. If women want to change all this, then don't do "recreational management" as your PhD, but do computer science. Put down the 'Elle' and 'Vogue' and pick up 'My Raspberry Pi' or 'Populsar electronics'. Because that is the real cause. As long as some women resort to blaming others - for whatever personal reasons of experiences they might have - nothing will change. |
| Ridcully May 02, 2014 5:50 AM EDT |
QED.....there is nothing more to be said........except DO please read the second paragraph of my post above. |
| number6x May 02, 2014 7:56 AM EDT |
@dino... That's what I meant when I said what ever the actual ratio in the candidate pool is there should be convergence to that ratio. Caitlyn observed the workplace as it exists at the moment she was offered the position and made her choice based upon the state of that workplace. That decision was her choice, but the state of the workplace had nothing to do with Caitlyn. Presumably female candidates had been encountered before. Possibly female employees had been present. What had so radically biased the state of the workplace by the time Caitlyn had observed it? The common denominator is the workplace. To say that this example is due to Caitlyn's choice is not logical. Caitlyn's choice cannot 'go back in time' and create the bias in the workplace. Her choice was a consequence of the bias in the workplace being observed and interpreted to imply some bias that would cause her more negative than the position would offer in positives. Caitlyn's choice did not create the state of the workplace at the time of her choice, rather the state of the workplace created Caitlyn's choice. @Ridcully, yes wee seem to be far off topic. The Linux community seems to offer a great deal of opportunity for women and there seem to be a measurable number who are prominent in the community. Just compare the ratios of men to women journalists in 'PC' magazines vs 'Linux' oriented outlets. Yes it is still very male dominated, but Linux does seem to lead here. It could be that Linux, being community based, did not have the large existing structures and organizations to put barriers in the way of the smaller percentage of women who were interested in contributing and so they were able to contribute and rise to prominence. The 'Mac' world seems less biased in this measure, but the image there is more controlled and managed so I'm not sure if the appearance is real. I don't have enough experience having left the Apple world in the early 90's with the fall of the Apple II line. I think it would be interesting to develop some measures, but the best way forward is to encourage children to play and explore with things like the Raspberry Pi and with programming. Encourage all that show interest. My daughter has a very artistic and creative mind. She is still in grade school, but I am encouraging her to explore design and the mathematics of describing objects. Design engineering can be a very disciplined field. I'm encouraging her interest and trying to help her see that the technical stuff is just part of the whole, not a barrier to be overcome. Its amazing how she doesn't think of it as work when it is just a way to get some weekend art project done. Several times, while doing geometry in her math homework for example, she has said things like: 'Dad, did you know the other kids didn't know how to figure the area of a triangle?' We covered that one when we were making a teepee tent for her barbie dolls a few years before and needed to know how much fabric to get. I get inspiration for these things from the way Richard Feynman described his dad raised him. Not being part of the problem takes effort. |
| Ridcully May 02, 2014 8:30 AM EDT |
Thankyou "number6x".......this thread is now more suited to a society page or a psychological journal, not a site dedicated to Linux with all the best that technical experts and their comments offer. Couldn't we all agree to let this thing drop......PLEASE !!! |
| dinotrac May 02, 2014 12:18 PM EDT |
@Rid -- So, these father issues of yours. When do you think they first began to guide your posts, especially with regard to strong women? Perhaps you subconscious self is telling you to eat more fiber. Perhaps you know a raccoon with a death wish. Fear not, we WILL get to the root of your problems. Whoops! Hour's up. |
| theBeez May 03, 2014 5:49 AM EDT |
@dinotrac This is getting dangerously close to a "ad hominem" attack - don't go into that. Note it would be far to easy to get this into the discussion both ways - and whatever both sides may think of each other - I don't think this is the way we want to go. |
| Ridcully May 03, 2014 6:52 AM EDT |
I did not intend to add anything to this thread......I hoped it would quietly die a natural death. One is put in a very difficult position when one is an editor. You always, always want to see a great discussion, but you also know you have to consider and try to conform to the TOS concepts of LXer. Any of my posts on this thread have been from that perspective. Nothing else. Thankyou Beez. |
| dinotrac May 03, 2014 9:25 AM EDT |
@beez - I would never do that. Not only are some of my best friends hominids, some of my favorite words are homonyms. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!