Hacker News Reader

Comment by ny2ko | Hacker News Reader

The only grime I have to pick with this article is it's applicability to all groups. The ability to behave as a jerk or be unlikeable without experiencing retaliation (not simply push back) is a privilege that a lot of underrepresented minorities don't have

View on HN

> underrepresented minorities

To paraphrase Brene Brown, any conversation on privilege that excludes class is bullshit. The ability to be unlikable without it ruining your life (never mind using it to your advantage) is largely a privilege of class. No one in 2020 is immune to being "cancelled". But if you have money, it won't ruin your life.

The list of "non-cognitive" soft skills in one of yesterday's posts contains a substantial number that could be described as "being likeable", and I supposed that made them parochially targeted at children who will need to have a middle-class job: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23809211

As far as cancellation being a 2020 thing, Orwell observed in 1948 that: "As a rule, luckily, there is more than one group, but also at any given moment there is a dominant orthodoxy, to offend against which needs a thick skin and sometimes means cutting one's income in half for years on end."

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part50

Diogenes: eating lentils

Aristippus: You know, if you learned to be ingratiating to the king, you wouldn't have to continue eating lentils.

Diogenes: chewing If you learned to eat lentils, you wouldn't have to continue to ingratiate yourself to the king.

Fair enough. I was thinking on it from a work perspective and did make an incorrect assumption that the vast majority of people in the meeting rooms were in similar classes

Ehhh, it's specifically the case that the fall from middle-class to poor is steeper for Black folk for what should be obvious reasons. Most of our middle class comes from our working class rather than inheriting the position [0]

[0]https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/01...

What privileged people get away with being jerks without retaliation?

(IMHO) White men get away with being authoritarian jerks in much larger numbers than other categories.

This is not to say that all white men are jerks or that some who are are not also called out as such. Nor is this a suggestion that being an authoritarian jerk and being respected for it or getting away with it or given a pass for it is exclusive to white men.

This is going to be a tough claim to prove

I can accept that. I edited my post to indicate that it is my opinion.

That said, I think (again my opinion) that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the behaviors that are deemed to be bold, authoritative, disruptive and direct even bordering on hostile when displayed by men in the workplace are tolerated or even rewarded while such behavior displayed by women are not.

"He" will be the tolerated jerk, the lone wolf who plays be his own rules and get things done. "She" will be the office bitch who no one wants to work with. Again my opinion based on experience working with fortune 100 companies, public and private universities, and at a half-dozen startups.

Edited to Add:

I did a quick search and found this:

"Untangling the relationship between gender and leadership"

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/GM-09-20...

I'm imagine there are counter examples, but this study seems to confirm my personal observations:

"women leaders who go against the typical gender stereotype might be penalized"

> deemed to be bold, authoritative, disruptive and direct even bordering on hostile

Im not sure where any of that results in you being a jerk.

In your own words, its also just your perspective or "deemed" by you.

You know the lone wolf is just a moniker for office expeletive who no one wants to work with right?

Whether that behaviour is tolerated and condoned seems to have little to do with gender and more to do with your perception and yoyr employers willingness to keep either of these people around I'd want them both to walk.

Im all for introverts working in silos with infrequent checkins if thats how they perform but I have zero tolerance for people who lack basic empathy for others.

But thats a but off topic.

My point is those thigs dont make one a jerk. Abrasive maybe, but I wouldnt call it a "problem". Maybe something they can work on personally? But not something that deserves retaliation thats for sure.

I chose the terms specifically because those terms are most often used to shield and apologize for the office jerk.

I'm well aware that the lone wolf moniker is romanticized and applied to to such a person (if he is a man). As I said, there is a different dog based and clearly negative moniker that is applied to the exact same person should they be a woman.

I want to be clear this has NOTHING to do with introverts. I'm not sure where I gave you that impression but if I did I apologize.

This is an area where the concepts of 'proof' and 'truth' don't really apply since any two people observe fundamentally different realities. It's not about bashing each other over the head until one of us agrees the other was correct about the One True Reality all along, but about sharing our observed worlds with each other so we can build societal systems that serve everyone.

Well I think if youre going to single out a group of people and call them names you should probably have some form of proof.

This whole thread is just trying to label expression of masculinity as a being a jerk.

Maybe ya'll need to stop the white man whitch hunt until youre ready to prove something other than the fact I wont float.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com