My life as a woman in tech, told in three beverages

The reason she's pissed isn't because they think she's a secretary, it's because they apparently didn't consider it a possibility that she was anything else. The fact that she's a woman is likely the cause of that. I can't imagine that they considered that she might be the hiring manager or potential team member and then decided to go straight to asking them to do stuff instead of asking what their role is first. They also then go on to presume that she might not even be able to explain what the company does (which seems like it would be insulting to someone who is an actual receptionist).

I'm shocked people assume anyone's roles. It's not like it's uncommon to send down the hiring manager, first interviewer, potential teammate, etc to pick up interviewees.

Huh? These are stories about specific men doing specifically shitty things. The generalization is yours.

I figured as much, and just skimmed to catch the title beverages, but it didn't sit well with somebody.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27024130

Also, sibling poster with "Huh?": how can you be that clueless?

Most women actually downplay a lot of crap just to try to survive. It's often far worse than what gets reported or the stories that get told.

One time me and a female colleague needed to have one of the salespeople sign a form and he blurted out to her: "Maybe you want my digits too, wink, wink!" So yeah, I do believe her.

"I'm not trying to invalidate this woman's experiences, but <attempts to invalidate this woman's experiences>"

It happens, given enough time. Even today.

I will never understand this logic. It doesn't matter how friendly someone is if they can't code, but even if someone is difficult to work with (as many smart computer programmers are) they can still be hugely important to a team's success. Obviously there are limits to both of these, but technical ability is the requirement and "being fun to work with" is the nice-to-have. I think highly socialized people tend to complain about non-social people much more than the reverse.

I don't know... I feel like putting her into that position exposed her to a lot of negative energy that she may not have necessarily received in the first place.

If I personally was the brunt of all that crap, it would definitely get to me personally - so while I appreciate the company's approach ideologically I think emotionally it might've done more psychological damage to her in the long run.

> focusing on the men-enabling-men problem will have the widest societal impact for women

Eh, are you sure? I’ve never read an exposition of a dysfunctional abusive company that wasn’t full of women in powerful positions also enabling terrible behavior.

But those aholes are sooo useful.

A company has a interior and a endoplasmatic reticulum, and while the interior can be a nice place, the parts closer to the skin get continuously more ahole. Which makes it a intersting question if Dick was a ahole to everyone equally.

Some people in there have to be the mean guys, stopping cash from hemorrhaging outwards, be the grave digger for eternal projects, who everybody wants to "save" since the founding of the company. Being a Machiavellian brute when it comes to negotiation, with other Machiavellian brutes.

A company is like a spaceship in a hostile environment, and you need ass-tronauts to climb out and weld the holes shut, that the universe punches into it. And if you life dangerously, you will want to "measure" up with all other guys, who of course claim "to life dangerously too", but might run on first sign of trouble. Dick might actually regard her much higher for hitting him, than a lot of his colleagues. Very neanderthal, but that is how it is.

And then there are sexist aholes, who should be beaten to death with a baseball bat. Like that Thuna guy. Makes me ashamed to be part of the species. Seriously, should be fired, with a public declaration of why, so he never will ever be hired by anyone again.

I was often the only girl in my comp sci classes, though not always. I always thought it was interesting to see how my fellow female peers handled the extra attention. Some of them leaned into it and were always surrounded by mediocre male peers eager to "help" them. They would pretty much always defer to their posse of helpers and get praise for being a team player.

My strategy was pretty much the polar opposite though. I found that if I could one-up my male peers early in the course, most of the annoying ones would be too intimidated to bother me. It worked out pretty well too. The ones who weren't intimidated tended to be better at the coursework anyhow. So when I needed to partner up, I would pick one of them - and I wouldn't have to worry about them not respecting me or anything. If it was a random pairing with one of the ones who was uncomfortable around me, that actually worked fine too. They usually let me take the leadership role, and I didn't mind that either. I didn't get points for being agreeable, but nobody doubted my competency - and that was all I really wanted.

I can definitely see how women who aren't comfortable doing either of the things described above would transfer away.

> I would have guessed that the person who greeted me, showed me where to sit, and asked if I needed anything before leaving was a receptionist regardless of gender. That seems like an unfair strike/test.

I had the exact same thought and then immediately realized it was bullshit. If it was a man I think I would question their role and I think that’s true of most people. It’s hard to say after the fact.

Some people don’t have these biases but most people who think they don’t are just full of shit.

Just for your information: indenting a comment like this renders the indented text as block of code. It might look formatted or more readable on desktop but on mobile it looks broken and requires horizontal scrolling. Maybe there is a different way of structuring the comment that you might like as well?

Its quite a world we live in isn't it? The things that people accuse me of sometimes baffle me. And then I have to remember, oh yeah that's the kind of world that they live in, filled with malicious intent , backstabbing, jealousy etc.

Likewise, with an attitude like this:

> Before I begin the infamous “cola punching” story, I should point out that I am quite short, and sport curly ringlets atop my short head. It’s been a constant battle to be taken seriously in the workplace; I detest the word “cute,” and woe betide anyone who perceives me as such.

...she's just setting herself up for disappointment- repeatedly. I'm also rather short and baby-faced and clients and coworkers are often surprised when I tell them I'm nearing 30 when I could just as easily be the fresh intern not a day older than 18. People aren't necessarily going to be malicious with behaviors like those. Could it be internalized misogyny/ageism or something along those lines and that no matter what it'd be out of the line? Maybe, but it wouldn't come from a place of genuine malice.

> it's also obvious that a receptionist will have input on the hiring process.

That's a stretch.

The author has legit gripes but the one about the greeter is just playing gotcha and it’s immature not of the woman as much as the org.

A more professional organization will send the candidate a schedule with the people they’ll speak with and their titles to avoid stupid guessing games.

If you aren't provided with a schedule, ask for one.

I'm disappointed the best she could do summing up her 20-year experience as a woman in tech is high baseline agression, cynicism, two examples of violence on her part, one genuinely off-colour remark and one piece of unacceptable behaviour by a colleague.

I would have preferred to see some analysis of how she has had to and did adjust to the way men think, some tips for colleagues welcoming women, something she appreciated in working with men, some area she uniquely shone because she was a woman in a male environment, etc.

What we got was a thinly veiled foregone conclusion of "anything I don't like is discrimination because I'm a woman" and "the problem is men". As usual, she is merely the victim, has no agency and no interest in a non-gynocentric perspective. As it stands, there is little to be gained from her post besides discouraging women from joining up and demonising men.

It's important to keep things fact based and be very specific about the behavior you want corrected. I would get things in writing as well so that you have email to back you up in case things go south.

The situation you are describing is, unfortunately, not a male/female issue. It is a pattern for a certain type of low performer.

p.s., You might think about why you use the word "girl" as opposed to "woman" BTW. That's a touchy point for a lot of women, as it diminishes their seniority. It may or may not be relevant to the conversations you describe. This is not intended as criticism; I know nothing of the situation beyond what you wrote.

I must highlight a false assumption in your story:

> With a male dev it would not be possible, but when a woman accuses a man of harassment or bullying at work the man is considered guilty by default

I guarantee you that it is absolutely possible for men to be emotionally manipulative to cover for professional lapses in an employment setting. Typically they go for "dude, we're bros, why can't you let it slide" rather than "dude, why are you being mean to me", but at the end of the day, the reaction is exactly the same. You report the claim of harassment or bullying to HR, you recuse yourself from its handling, and you openly participate in the process and present your case that you believe manipulation is occurring.

So, since I've seen male devs do this and I've seen male devs get fired for doing this, how would I handle this if she were a he, behaving in this same manner?

I would, presumably, by the guidance of my HR department and manager training, have already been collecting written proof of failure to deliver, with independent assessments by others affirming the failure to deliver. I would have sought review and affirmation that the instructions were clear and that they agreed and affirmed to those instructions, and that they then failed to deliver what was promised.

So, then, you need to: Compile concrete (written, recorded, anything but verbal-off-the-record) evidence demonstrating failure to perform to the stated expectations. Have the expectations vetted to ensure that they're reasonable and appropriate. Have the work output vetted to ensure that it's deficient and lacking. Validate the evidence you've collected as sufficient with your manager and HR team. Then, fire them.

ps. It seems like you're assuming that a male dev would not claim harassment by a male manager, but that's actually a much more effective inflammatory technique for someone who's trying to manipulate their way out of failure to deliver, especially in conservative regions where being accused of being gay can be a career-ending experience. I encourage you to reconsider this potential blind spot in your expectations before someone takes advantage of it someday.

It's human nature to use whatever leverage you have, this kind of thing is going to happen. In my experience one of the best balancing forces for this overshoot is to ensure that you're putting as much effort into developing diverse leads as you are hiring diverse ICs.

I mean... this sounds like the exact job that "git blame" is made for. Does your company not have some kind of version control?

I don't get how the dev's gender factors into the story. Everyone of us have dealt with colleagues that don't handle criticism well and/or are poor performers. That your conclusion is that it is because she is a woman (don't call them girls) may indicate that you have some learning to do.

Calling a woman a girl, while calling a man a man, might be why you find it hard to form positive rapport with her.

Wouldnt you know?

That's not quite what the author was getting at. She was making an important point that I support wholeheartedly.

Any candidate who is a jerk to the person who shows them to the meeting room and provides coffee pretty much guarantees they will not be joining my company. It's a good sieve for people who won't work out on a team because they lack basic consideration for others.

OK, ok, I read the article, it was actually fun and witty and couched in a happy-hour tone with "adult beverages" mentioned both in the introduction and conclusion.

She seems smart and righteous and tougher than she probably looks. I would rather work with her than be one of those guys trying to explain why he isn't pressing charges for assault and/or battery.

If only I could use those tactics when facing up with challenging coworkers, I would have a different set of battle stories.

Be brave. What's your actual problem with the above? Have I tacitly condoned a false equivalency? You're appalled at rude words, but cheering for physical violence? Is it the unscientific supplement recommendation? Gender war stories have a fixed plot?

There might be a better way.