Feeling excluded from traditional incubators, entrepreneurs create their own
theglobeandmail.com
theglobeandmail.com
That is probably the real take away, the gung-ho startup collectives are way more energetic than someone trying to fix process management flow in government.
But using a racists angle in the article, that whites exclude people of color, is rather annoying. I've worked tech for over 30 years, in groups where I was the only white guy, racism and sexism is out there, but not even to the point these people say it is. Political bigotry is the real issue now. Lets leave that stuff at home, and just make businesses where everyone profits. Crazy I know.
Yet, somehow, when it's suggested that the SMEs on what it's like to be a woman software engineer would be women software engineers, or to be a woman founder in tech would be women founders in tech, suddenly "hey, I'm a man who's been in tech for a long time and I've never seen it" is good enough.
To me, it seems intuitively obvious that they may have insight into the challenges they face that you and I don't, and when we hear multiple women founders in tech talk about the sexism they faced that you and I by definition would not, we should consider the possibility that they know what they're talking about.
Crazy, I know.
In the GP's case, even though he was the only white male in the room, evidently the others didn't make him feel unwelcome. That's nice, but it doesn't prove that such things never happen. I find the place I work to be very inclusive too, as far as I can tell being a white male, but I don't doubt that some places are worse, and a few are much worse.
>“I didn’t feel welcome and included. I never saw anyone who looked different, ”
>I had to deal with a lot of microaggressions, from being ignored to … realizing [some people were] not willing to help.”
This is probably the quickest way to turn perceived racism into real racism. Make a huge deal about how different you are from everyone else, and blame every sleight on the white men for simply being over represented in a voluntary gathering.
Ironically, the apparent solution to incidental exclusion is purposeful exclusion. This is growing increasingly ridiculous.
On a related note, how far backwards are we to bend to accommodate for others? I once shook hands with a Muslim woman, before she noted that she was not allowed to shake hands with men. Why stop there? Why not segregate women and have them wear facial coverings to be inclusive of Muslim men[0]? Business has its own culture, without which it would function less efficiently, and the people writing articles like these don't seem to care, prizing diversity over actual function or merit.
[0]I don't mean to target Islam specifically, this is a general problem of cultural clash that only white people in the US are apparently supposed to be shamed for.
As a woman, I've certainly experienced this but I would also posit, don't most men? Tech circles: we're not known to be the most gregarious, un-myopic bunch.
The remainder of the article makes more sense: social outreach and less restrictions on acceptance in programs, being almost like an incubator for businesses not ready to join incubators.
I had to bite the bullet as a founder myself and accept that I don't look or sound the same as others around me at the funding/marketing/sale table: I've learned to use that to my advantage however. Over time, I've found those I do business with respect me for my fairness, consistency, and interest in them as people (which may have come from my socialisation as a woman): asking business associates how they and their family are goes a long way to building long-term relationships.
As a man I can confirm that there are people who I'd like to have help me who aren't willing to help me.
More cynically/controversially, I wonder where she got the impression that it's normal for people to help her with things just because it would be advantageous to her. I think it's possibly the case that people are more willing to help women than men in general life[0], and if that is less so the case in tech, then it could feel like deliberate exclusion. "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.", as the saying goes. On the other hand, it very much could be the case that people are treating her worse than others. There's not one "tech", and while I've had a great experience, I'm mostly familiar with the "small dev shop" scene in a small, laid-back, non-US country so I really shouldn't generalise.
That said, I'm glad people are going and solving the problems they're facing. Good on them, and I wish them luck!
[0]: Whether that's due to attraction, sexist views regarding their competence, gender roles, or something else entirely I wouldn't venture to guess.
Thanks for pointing that out. When I read the article, I succumbed to my annoyance with the neologism "microaggression" that I essentially glossed over the statement.
This is actually the root of my annoyance, which is that if an aggression is so "micro", then it's actually unremarkable, so having a word for it is downright paradoxical.
I'm sure men experience such borderline-hostile indifference from others, as well, especially, as you say, in the technical fields. I'm also sure it's a highly subjective experience, for both participants, which makes it so hard to measure, let alone discuss.
Welcome to you from those of us in the great unwashed--congratulations, nobody gives a crap about you.
As a side effect of aging, several of the women in my social circle have recently commented about the same thing: "I'm happy that I don't get all the sexual harassment now, but being completely invisible isn't exactly an improvement."
What does this mean?
Over time, I realize that no one needs to do anything wrong for unfortunate things to happen. Even though I didn't do anything wrong and didn't mean anyone harm, the unfortunate lack of females at conference still happens. It happens because of historical accidents like home video games that introduced more boys to technology, for example.
So nowadays I try not to interpret complains about diversity as a complaint about me personally. (And I try to remind my feminist friends not to appear like they are complaining about men personally.)
I also no longer get upset about women-only events and organizations. They are free to gather and support one another, just like we have association of business owners, school alumni, even guys named Smith! They are building each other up instead of tearing other groups down, so there's nothing wrong about that.
I've have to admit I've never tried[0], but I don't imagine a men-only event or organization would be particularly well received. Even your guys-named-Smith group would probably be frowned upon if it ever got big enough to attract notice (assuming you're using "guys" in a gendered sense here).
The systemising/simple-consistent-rules part of me is irked by that, I'm not going to lie. I understand real life is never that simple, but maybe we could please pick one of "Explicitly gender-filtered groups are OK" or "are not OK"? My personal vote is "Are OK, but I will have no part of them".
[0]: And it would be a little silly to, since I'd probably have to exclude myself.