If you want to convince someone who doubts the existence of the "cat food factory", these examples suck. Okay, the assuming the woman is from HR but that the guy is from Eng, yeah, we all believe that one. It hasn't happened to us guys, maybe we can imagine making that mistake (and regretting it), etc. But the other two stories? That shit happens to guys all the time.
Yeah, sometimes people won't believe you. And then they'll ask someone else. And eventually they'll believe someone else, maybe. And that someone else will probably be a guy.... because almost everyone in tech is a guy. I'm constantly getting ignored, and then some guy gets listened to (I'm a guy). And as for the "crack pipes" story, we don't really have enough details, but it's VERY easy to read that story and think "damn right you screwed up". And I've been ignored and talked over (I'm a loud guy). So, yeah, that stuff happens to men.
Of course, the real question is not "do these things happen to women and not men". That's like saying "[all] men are taller than [all] women", it's obviously false, because sometimes I meet women over 6' tall. But of course we know that both mean and median female heights are lower than male... the whole curve is offset by like 5" in the USA. It's totally plausible that the distribution of respect at technical skill discriminates in favour of males. It's plausible that it doesn't, or that the effect is pretty small. If you want to convince an unbeliever, a few examples of moderate disrespect are like pointing out a few examples of 5'6" guys (taller than the median US female). It's just not persuasive!
And, in fact, in my opinion, it's worse than non-persuasive. It gives the people who don't believe you (and don't want to) a straw man to fixate on. "That shit happened to me too [and it did!] and therefore her claim about privilege is wrong [wait, what]." If you want to advance a cause, you would do well to make sure you only emit Grade-A arguments.
I don't know whether there is a "cat food factory" chopping up "fish" in the tech industry. I would guess rachelbythebay knows better than me (she's closer to the issue, and IIRC she's logged more time in the industry), but I am skeptical about whether or not she really knows either. Maybe I'm wrong and she has attempted to do science on the subject. But if she has only her own experience (as I have only my own), then her interpretive bias will be a huge factor in her conclusions (as mine is in mine). Just as my ego benefits when I fool myself into believing that my privilege plays only a tiny role in my success (mock me here, please), her ego would benefit if she were to fool herself into overstating the benefits of the privilege that she does not have (and understating the benefits of the privileges she does have).
Yeah, sometimes people won't believe you. And then they'll ask someone else. And eventually they'll believe someone else, maybe. And that someone else will probably be a guy.... because almost everyone in tech is a guy. I'm constantly getting ignored, and then some guy gets listened to (I'm a guy). And as for the "crack pipes" story, we don't really have enough details, but it's VERY easy to read that story and think "damn right you screwed up". And I've been ignored and talked over (I'm a loud guy). So, yeah, that stuff happens to men.
Of course, the real question is not "do these things happen to women and not men". That's like saying "[all] men are taller than [all] women", it's obviously false, because sometimes I meet women over 6' tall. But of course we know that both mean and median female heights are lower than male... the whole curve is offset by like 5" in the USA. It's totally plausible that the distribution of respect at technical skill discriminates in favour of males. It's plausible that it doesn't, or that the effect is pretty small. If you want to convince an unbeliever, a few examples of moderate disrespect are like pointing out a few examples of 5'6" guys (taller than the median US female). It's just not persuasive!
And, in fact, in my opinion, it's worse than non-persuasive. It gives the people who don't believe you (and don't want to) a straw man to fixate on. "That shit happened to me too [and it did!] and therefore her claim about privilege is wrong [wait, what]." If you want to advance a cause, you would do well to make sure you only emit Grade-A arguments.
I don't know whether there is a "cat food factory" chopping up "fish" in the tech industry. I would guess rachelbythebay knows better than me (she's closer to the issue, and IIRC she's logged more time in the industry), but I am skeptical about whether or not she really knows either. Maybe I'm wrong and she has attempted to do science on the subject. But if she has only her own experience (as I have only my own), then her interpretive bias will be a huge factor in her conclusions (as mine is in mine). Just as my ego benefits when I fool myself into believing that my privilege plays only a tiny role in my success (mock me here, please), her ego would benefit if she were to fool herself into overstating the benefits of the privilege that she does not have (and understating the benefits of the privileges she does have).