[Discussion] Feminism and social justice, plus FAQ!

This thread is for discussing feminist issues--from the narrow meaning (a movement for social justice in terms of gender equality) to the broader meaning (a movement for social justice, period), and from the scope of issues in gaming and geek culture to kyriarchy in general.

Basic questions are allowed here for now, we will split out a Q&A thread should it become necessary.

Thanks for the truth bomb, Hyp. Once again, you took what I was thinking and explained it more eloquently and diplomatically than I would have. Yes, I noticed your f-bombs; I would have had many more in there.

How the frak are we supposed to work from the inside to make tech better for women if we're supposed to literally hide ourselves?

Also, the man who thinks women don't know about hiding their genders behind initials or male names has never heard of Rowling or Bronte. I think I mentioned that in the old feminism thread.

It would have been a lot different if the author had instead said "It is lamentable that people might need to use these tactics to gain employment". At that point the message changes and becomes "hey, guys, I am drawing your attention to the fact that this is bullsh*t, and that we should do something about the system that makes this something we're even talking about" and as an added bonus, if any non-man somehow hasn't gotten the memo, they're reminded of one more survival strategy to be used if they absolutely need it.

And a message from John Greathouse:

I apologize for the dreadful article I wrote in the WSJ.

I told women to endure the gender bias problem rather than acting to fix the problem. I hurt women and I utterly failed to help, which I wholly regret and I apologize for having done. Women have a tough enough time having their voices heard and my insensitive comments only made matters worse. I am truly sorry. - John

Good apology. 4/5. To make it the full 5/5 he should write an article on how to address intrinsic social biases when hiring as a straight white cis male.

Hypatian wrote:

One is the presumption that women haven't already known this for ages and need a man to explain it to us.

I think it is equally presumptive to claim that this is ingrained, common knowledge, and also presumptive that the author thinks this is new information to every woman reading the article. And I would argue the white cis men are exactly the people who are the end target of this advice. I agree that a man is probably not the best person to write an article like this in the first place, but he represents the norm when it comes to investors.

More important is that this is absolutely horrible. "In order to even get in the door, you should be prepared to hide who you are", which is effectively lying about who you are.

I never denied this, but people have chosen to do it and will continue to choose to do it for numerous reasons. His article may have been somewhat naïve, but I don't see it being completely useless, either.

Another issue is that while these tactics may help you get through the door, they won't help you once you're through it, and they may even hurt.

If someone is openly and inherently sexist, sure it is. But what we are talking about is unconscious bias. And it turns out that in the tech industry at least, companies that implement "anonymizing" practices for the screening process do end up hiring that more diverse workforce in the end.

If implicit bias on the basis of applicants' names and photos are problems, then what the industry ought to be doing is instituting practices that conceal that information for as long as possible during evaluation. The people doing the hiring need to be making this extra effort, and not off-loading it on the people trying to be hired who are already fighting with plenty of bullsh*t.

I agree with this entirely, but when we're talking about a start-up or entrepreneurship appealing to tech investors - usually done entirely through direct outreach - this is a much tougher thing to implement.

Telling people to hide their face for fear of offending those in power is never okay.

I never said it was okay, I said it was the harsh reality, and I feel like there is a vast chasm between an all-or-nothing mentality in twitter rants, and when it comes to selling your pitch to a white guy who thinks he already is enlightened and progressive.

Just to check: you're still not a girl, right? Because if that's the case, I hope you realize that you are mansplaining at this point, and should probably slow down.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this is some "all-or-nothing" thing. This is a matter of "this article is awful for these reasons, which the author clearly did not realize" (but now does).

People reacted to call out the piece—and they were not friendly and polite about it because this kind of ham-handedness happens all the time, and it is in fact a big deal. Because politely saying "hey, you might want to re-think that" ends up all too often with the person who messed up thinking that they did nothing wrong, and that people aren't actually hurt or upset by what they did. And worse, with other people who see the offending behavior but not the polite complaint imagining that no one has any complaints at all.

My post was to explain all of the ways in which Greathouse's post was harmful. I believe it accomplished that task.

And as for the response to Greathouse... that seems to have served its intended purpose as well, because Greathouse realized that he screwed up and apologized for it. The incident was visible, so people besides Greathouse will also learn from it.

And that's the whole point.

Finally, some comments on your specific responses:

kuddles wrote:

I think it is equally presumptive to claim that this is ingrained, common knowledge, and also presumptive that the author thinks this is new information to every woman reading the article. And I would argue the white cis men are exactly the people who are the end target of this advice. I agree that a man is probably not the best person to write an article like this in the first place, but he represents the norm when it comes to investors.

He was not giving advice to white cis men, nor was he giving advice to investors. He was giving advice to women seeking employment and investment in the technology industry. And as a woman in tech who knows many many women in tech: trust me, I'm not presuming anything. I'm not sure why you think you'd have a better idea than I do about this.

kuddles wrote:
Another issue is that while these tactics may help you get through the door, they won't help you once you're through it, and they may even hurt.

If someone is openly and inherently sexist, sure it is. But what we are talking about is unconscious bias. And it turns out that in the tech industry at least, companies that implement "anonymizing" practices for the screening process do end up hiring that more diverse workforce in the end.

No, this is true even with unconscious bias. Unconscious and systemic discrimination do in fact still exist even when they are invisible. And honestly, it is far more common for blatant sexism to happen in tech than I think any of us would like.

Anonymizing processes as part of the process don't put an onus of "you hid who you are, so you must not be trustworthy" on applicants the way that applicants choosing measures to conceal aspects of their identity will. The biases of the people reviewing applicants will still kick in for those people, but they won't be fed by assumptions of deceptiveness. (This is particularly noteworthy for trans people, because a lot of the bigotry we face is founded in cultural assumptions that we are somehow inherently deceptive.)

kuddles wrote:

I never said it was okay, I said it was the harsh reality, and I feel like there is a vast chasm between an all-or-nothing mentality in twitter rants, and when it comes to selling your pitch to a white guy who thinks he already is enlightened and progressive.

I think perhaps you have mistakenly assumed that I was addressing you? I was addressing the room. There seemed to be some confusion about what was wrong with Greathouse's piece, and my intention was explaining why what Greathouse wrote was not okay. That's it.

Honestly, I didn't read any of the previous posts in great details. I scanned, got the gist of "some people don't seem to understand why this is a problem", facepalmed, and wrote up an impassioned explanation of why it was a problem.

(This post, on the other hand, is a direct reply to yours.)

I have a question!

So I understand that my name reads as masculine and white. Is it, in the broader project of feminism, valuable for me to refer to myself in ways that obscure that (for example, using my initials instead of given name on a job application)?

wordsmythe wrote:

I have a question!

So I understand that my name reads as masculine and white. Is it, in the broader project of feminism, valuable for me to refer to myself in ways that obscure that (for example, using my initials instead of given name on a job application)?

How does that help achieve the goals of "the broader project of feminism"? I'm struggling to come up with anything.

I guess in taking steps to mitigate the effects of my privilege, I move the dial 0.00001% closer to fair?

Like, if I'm one of 20 job applicants, and I know that names that gloss as traditionally WASPy and masculine are statistically more likely to be chosen, due to implicit or explicit bias, then listing myself as "E." rather than "Erik" means a more fair chance (probably?) for the other 19 applicants.

Granted, that doesn't take into account the dozens of other ways I'm benefitting from privilege in that moment, or the decades of privilege that lead to my résumé being what it is.

wordsmythe wrote:

I guess in taking steps to mitigate the effects of my privilege, I move the dial 0.00001% closer to fair?

Like, if I'm one of 20 job applicants, and I know that names that gloss as traditionally WASPy and masculine are statistically more likely to be chosen, due to implicit or explicit bias, then listing myself as "E." rather than "Erik" means a more fair chance (probably?) for the other 19 applicants.

Granted, that doesn't take into account the dozens of other ways I'm benefitting from privilege in that moment, or the decades of privilege that lead to my résumé being what it is.

OK, I see what you're saying. I don't agree that it's useful, but I understand.

Your point that is probably means a more fair chance for the other 19 applicants sounds bogus. All it does is move you from the "biased positive" bucket to the "baised negative" one.

Everyone else in the "biased positive" bucket, with their WASP-y names, are still benefiting from that privilege - you haven't made their chance more fair (if anything, you've made it less fair, as there's fewer other WASPs for them to contend with), and you haven't made those folk in the "negative bias" bucket any better off - they're still going to have to overcome the same bias, just now they have another competitor at their level of privilege (a competitor who, once your WASP-y nature is revealed, may well leapfrog them in the application process).

Still seems like an extremely ineffectual way to effect systemic change, which is really is closer to the goal of the "broader project of feminism" though.

EDIT - Your idea would totally hold water, if you were the one doing the hiring. Insisting that all resumes are submitted to you with initials only instead of names would provide the level playing field you're wanting to create, but unable to as an applicant.

I'd say that the key thing is that you should act in appropriate ways.

Don't worry about revealing who you are--yes, it might give you a leg up, but nobody should feel they need to do that.

Do take affirmative steps to combat bias. Watch yourself and avoid making unjustified assumptions, as interviewer or interviewee. When you're in a position to interview, make sure not to let bias influence you choices and encourage others to do the same. If you're in a position to influence the hiring process more broadly, encourage your organization to make sure that the pool of applicants who are considered for the position is diverse--to spend effort to discover and change things that cause the pool to be biased.

As a prospective part of an organization, ask questions about prospective employers' commitment to diversity. And as much as you can afford to, care about the answers they give, and factor them into your decisions. Ask whether health care is inclusive of trans people. Ask about maternity and paternity benefits. Ask what provisions they make for employees with various physical or mental limitations.

As a part of an organization, also care about these things and ask questions if you don't think that your organization measures up. Encourage other people to be more thoughtful and to care about all of these things, and more.

Don't hide who you are. Just be the best self you can.

Some thing I look at as an interviewer:
Examine your interviewing style for bias.
Remember women are conditioned to equivocate more in a work environment so come across less confident than men in the same situation.
Reject any metric that favours traditional masculine traits.
If you ever find yourself saying someone would be a poor "cultural fit", fix your workplace culture.

Maq wrote:

If you ever find yourself saying someone would be a poor "cultural fit", fix your workplace culture.

This is the "that game was interesting" of interview feedback.
It's meaningless trash that I wish people would stop saying.
Stupid silly culture fit.

Maq wrote:

If you ever find yourself saying someone would be a poor "cultural fit", fix your workplace culture.

On the one hand, yes.

On the other hand, if I'm interviewing someone with nazi tattoos, I'm just fine with sending them on their way for being a poor cultural fit.

Jonman wrote:
Maq wrote:

If you ever find yourself saying someone would be a poor "cultural fit", fix your workplace culture.

On the one hand, yes.

On the other hand, if I'm interviewing someone with nazi tattoos, I'm just fine with sending them on their way for being a poor cultural fit.

If it's just swastikas, I'd first ask them how their religious journey of self-discovery to India went before kicking them out the door

Maq wrote:

If you ever find yourself saying someone would be a poor "cultural fit", fix your workplace culture.

EDIT: Pretty sure I'm trying to say #notallpoorculturalfitcritiques . I stand by it, but only as a blip, not necessarily as something that needs discussion.

Honestly, part of me wishes someone had at least mentioned to me that I might be a poor cultural fit when I was interviewing here. I'm an extrovert in a silent office.

Oh! I totally forgot I was going to mention this.

This is a TV ad for a UK toy store chain Smyths....caught me by surprise the other day.

Wow, awesome!

Feminist Frequency's new series on "#ordinarywomen' is super interesting.

A poignant piece from huffington post; The Thing All Women Do That You Don’t Know About

History of the development of the birth control pill.

Discusses connections between birth control and mood, the development of informed consent requirements for medical procedures, and a broad overview of the history of the development of the birth control pill.

Totally forgot to tag this thread after the migration from P&C to D&D.
I couldn't quite decide whether to post this in the Rape Culture thread or here, to tell the truth. Last night, a friend passed this along to me. He thought it was hilarious because it's ridiculous. I found it slightly terrifying.
Why do these straight men want nothing to do with women (Narratively)

It's about a movement called Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). Alongside lovely quotes like "feminism is a refuge for a woman's sexual failure" you also have:

“MGTOW are the Viet Cong of the gender war. The men’s rights activists don’t like us because, while we agree with them on some things, we won’t be their cannon fodder in a war we know they can’t win. Pickup artists hate us because they can’t make money off us. Feminists hate us because we won’t fight them. And women hate us because we won’t give them what they want.”

Yep. Gender relations are all about men...

They all look in the mirror and think they see Batman staring back at them? Right?

MGTOW, somehow topping even MRAs in stupidity and arrogance when it comes to gender relations.

And women hate us because we won’t give them what they want.”

I'm assuming that entire list of What Women Want And Aren't Getting From MGTOWs looks a little like this.

  • To be treated respectfully as fully self-actualized autonomous individuals with complex inner lives.

MGTOW and other pundits like to compare themselves to herbivore men from Japan. It'd be interesting to see what you folks have to say about that. I think the comparison doesn't fly but it would be interesting to hear other opinions.

Herbivore men are a movement that also rejects male norms, which is fairly radical in a strongly ordered and patriarchal society like Japan.