She Who Must Be Obeyed

[jen]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

Jhina has "brogrammers", too.

I suppose I should consider myself lucky not to work with any.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

I suppose I should consider myself lucky not to work with any.

Yes, you should.

Honestly, "tech bros" may be even more annoying than "jock bros" or "Wall Street bros".

[mookie1995]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsXHVC8wM1M

Just keep your hands off my dog

Such a good movie

[dxmnkd316]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

Ok I have a complex question

The two women that planned and led this trip were both offended that none of the plants that we visited had any female engineers in the host teams. One said “so much for progressive Europe“. Being a man, I don’t always perceive these things. However, I really felt like each of the plants rolled out there most senior engineers possible. So I feel like it was just the set of circumstances we had.

I did notice that the oldest person who was with us was often addresssed first. He also happened to be a guy. He and I tried to stay at the back of the group so the hosts would address the women leaders first. I felt like this was borderline patronizing. I went with it because I wasn’t about to risk enflaming the situation. Even to the point where I felt my position as the incoming elected leader of the group was compromised. One of the European colleagues said he thought the woman who organized the trip was acting more like the leader.

Yesterday as the night was winding down, one of the women said that she expected better and thought women weren’t treated very well in Europe. She tried to clarify by saying it was just one plant, but she absolutely meant it was Europe in general. I attempted to give her an out but our very progressive Belgian colleagues were deeply offended already. And understandably so. They both said they don’t even see a man or woman when they are hiring. They see candidates and qualifications.

When I was talking the second of the women tonight, she also said she had talked to the other female colleague and that they had both noticed how poorly they were treated and the lack of other women at all of the plants.

She was also very disappointed that she didn’t see any minorities in the plants and that generally she was disappointed that our company didn’t hire more minorities. She told me she’s Hispanic, female, and engineer, and a mother of a special needs child so she feels isolated and it can be lonely at the company. Her exact words were that hiring women was supposed to be a global initiative. So she was disappointed that we only had two other women at this conference.

I tried to explain that we live in Minnesota and the employement base here is 90%+ white. So it makes sense that we have 90% white people in our division. But even that isn’t true. We have many people who identify with various groups. Way more than 10%. She brought up the fact that universities have plenty of diverse people more so even than the local population. “Why can’t we more reflect the university demographics?”

She’s very bright and has a progressive passion. But I’ve also noticed it’s about the issues that impact her. She is very passionate about the company being more accommodating to mothers. Which is fine, but am I wrong in that it is a life choice? She said that she thinks that women who are pregnant should be able to tell the company they don’t want to work in chemical plants. Why should a company bend over backwards for a woman who chooses to become a mother and one who doesn’t? What about men who are trying to become fathers? Chemicals can impact male reproductive systems just the same as a chemical can impact a woman. If a man or woman is attempting to have a child with their partner, I feel like they should be able to request some concessions, but not at the cost of the core function of his or her job.

I don’t know what to say to her. I think she’s being overly sensitive but at the same time, I know I’m a guy so I don’t perceive everything that a woman might. Especially one who identifies with all of the groups I mentioned above.

Ok, so now my question. How do you respond to this? She’s viewed as a leader in my division so I feel like I have to tiptoe through the tulips with her.

I agree we should have more women in the workforce, but I agree with my Belgian colleagues that we shouldn’t hire women because they’re women. We should hire the best candidates and see beyond gender and other identities as much as possible.

I don’t even see men or women in the workforce anymore. Not in my division. I see colleagues.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

Ok I have a complex question

The two women that planned and led this trip were both offended that none of the plants that we visited had any female engineers in the host teams. One said “so much for progressive Europe“. Being a man, I don’t always perceive these things. However, I really felt like each of the plants rolled out there most senior engineers possible. So I feel like it was just the set of circumstances we had.

I did notice that the oldest person who was with us was often addresssed first. He also happened to be a guy. He and I tried to stay at the back of the group so the hosts would address the women leaders first. I felt like this was borderline patronizing. I went with it because I wasn’t about to risk enflaming the situation. Even to the point where I felt my position as the incoming elected leader of the group was compromised. One of the European colleagues said he thought the woman who organized the trip was acting more like the leader.

Yesterday as the night was winding down, one of the women said that she expected better and thought women weren’t treated very well in Europe. She tried to clarify by saying it was just one plant, but she absolutely meant it was Europe in general. I attempted to give her an out but our very progressive Belgian colleagues were deeply offended already. And understandably so. They both said they don’t even see a man or woman when they are hiring. They see candidates and qualifications.

When I was talking the second of the women tonight, she also said she had talked to the other female colleague and that they had both noticed how poorly they were treated and the lack of other women at all of the plants.

She was also very disappointed that she didn’t see any minorities in the plants and that generally she was disappointed that our company didn’t hire more minorities. She told me she’s Hispanic, female, and engineer, and a mother of a special needs child so she feels isolated and it can be lonely at the company. Her exact words were that hiring women was supposed to be a global initiative. So she was disappointed that we only had two other women at this conference.

I tried to explain that we live in Minnesota and the employement base here is 90%+ white. So it makes sense that we have 90% white people in our division. But even that isn’t true. We have many people who identify with various groups. Way more than 10%. She brought up the fact that universities have plenty of diverse people more so even than the local population. “Why can’t we more reflect the university demographics?”

She’s very bright and has a progressive passion. But I’ve also noticed it’s about the issues that impact her. She is very passionate about the company being more accommodating to mothers. Which is fine, but am I wrong in that it is a life choice? She said that she thinks that women who are pregnant should be able to tell the company they don’t want to work in chemical plants. Why should a company bend over backwards for a woman who chooses to become a mother and one who doesn’t? What about men who are trying to become fathers? Chemicals can impact male reproductive systems just the same as a chemical can impact a woman. If a man or woman is attempting to have a child with their partner, I feel like they should be able to request some concessions, but not at the cost of the core function of his or her job.

I don’t know what to say to her. I think she’s being overly sensitive but at the same time, I know I’m a guy so I don’t perceive everything that a woman might. Especially one who identifies with all of the groups I mentioned above.

Ok, so now my question. How do you respond to this? She’s viewed as a leader in my division so I feel like I have to tiptoe through the tulips with her.

I agree we should have more women in the workforce, but I agree with my Belgian colleagues that we shouldn’t hire women because they’re women. We should hire the best candidates and see beyond gender and other identities as much as possible.

I don’t even see men or women in the workforce anymore. Not in my division. I see colleagues.

Those two women are sexist, and should be understood as such. Having women in a plant because of their gender is equally as bad as not having women there because of their gender. In addition, you deserve commendation for gender blindness, because THAT is the true message that is sought when it comes to gender equality. Both genders have opportunities regardless of how "the inside parts" are manufactured.

[Kepler]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

I don’t know what to say to her.

You don't say anything. This is one of those times when your opinion is not being sought and it is not your place to set her right. This is a politically sensitive topic and the bottom line is you're a member of the dominant group so you have to shut up and listen but not respond. You don't have to lie -- you don't have to agree -- but it helps nothing to voice an opinion that is contrary to the au currant ideology. That opinion will be interpreted as, at best, naive obliviousness to the problem -- and you will have been very, very lucky if it's not interpreted as more malicious than that.

Think of it this way: you understand you benefited from your gender and race in a million ways. Those benefits accrue every day and night, even as you sleep. People without those unearned advantages are p-ssed off, and they ought to be. It isn't your fault and they shouldn't blame you, personally, but it's human nature to do so. They will probably believe and say many things that are reasonable and a few things that are a crock. But there is no practical advantage in walking into that hornet's nest. It will pass -- in another few generations as people do in fact treat the genders and the races equally, those future people will bury not just the bigotries and condescension but also the knee-jerk reactions and over-generalizations. We aren't there yet. Suck it up and remember that it is still winning the privilege lottery to be a western white male.

[LynahFan]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

Plus Europe is sexist AF.

That works out well for the plant managers, since they don't have to worry about encountering qualified female candidates, since academia and internships weeded them all out well before they graduate from university. So they get to smugly say they pick the best candidate without ever bothering to wonder why the best candidates always just happen to look like themselves.

[unofan]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

I'm with Kep. You just let her rant and let it go.

As far as the pregnancy thing, be very careful. The laws vary by state, but pregnancy is a protected class in most to varying degrees. And not just in a "you must give maternity leave" manner. For instance, Iowa expects you (the employer) to bend over backwards to accommodate pregnancy related issues.

And as far as pregnancy being a choice, yes it is. But society can still have an overarching policy to encourage it since, you know, it's necessary to the survival of the species. And again, like abortion it's probably something to defer to women on since it only directly affects them.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

Appreciate the advice, all.

[mookie1995]

Appreciate the advice, all.

Mookie appreciates that you ask these questions since you are not yet married

[Kepler]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

Mookie appreciates that you ask these questions since you are not yet married

I must have a strange wife. (OK, I'll wait...)

Dr. Mrs. and I can talk about this stuff freely and openly even though she has very strong opinions about them. She will get p-ssed off sometimes when I don't seem to be paying sufficient respect to her (objectively) significantly greater education on gender. (We have a continuing battle as to whether the world as academics see it is passively discovered or actively created through their tools and mindset.)

But on the whole... she's pretty f-cking rational.

The frequency of stories to the contrary from married guys (per my friend the UPenn neurology student: "it's not a functioning brain in women, it's just a tangle of neurons") I either got really lucky or I've been doing some amazing self-selection, because every one of my GFs has been rational.

I mean, there is another explanation...

[joecct]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

There's a metaphor somewhere here.....

@FoxNews: Couple marries on 46-foot-high tightrope https://fxn.ws/2tefFR0

[joecct]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

Come on Dover! Move your bloomin' arse!!!!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/...-outfits-hats/

[mookie1995]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

English lesson for girl this morning.....

Shippers are coming so mookie moves the cars. Girl drives a stick. Mookie can’t drive a stick.

Mookie moves both cars from driveway to street this morning.

Girl is yelling cause mookie moves stick from driveway to street.... “you told me you can’t drive a stick!!”

- mookie can’t

“But it’s in the street”

-that’s not driving. That’s moving. Mookie can operate a stick, but can’t drive it

“What???”

[St. Clown]

Re: She Who Must Be Obeyed

-that’s not driving. That’s moving. Mookie can’t operate a stick, but can’t drive it

“What???”

Yeah, you lost me there, Nancy.

First, you can't drive a manual transmission, but then you throw out that sentence that not only contradicts what you said earlier, but contradicts itself. Did you eat paint chips as a child?