The all-male t-shirts, the work mentor being creepy, things like that are shocking to hear and ruffles my feathers as someone who was raised with very strong morals by my parents. However I tend to feel that bullying (on a more basic level) will happen to anyone if you give a group of people (in an stablished social clique) the chance.
I'd like to say though (if the blog OP is on here), massive effort sticking with the industry and not letting it get the better of you, good job.
That is annoying and distracting - I used to do that myself at my previous work and never thought it was annoying and distracting until someone pointed it out to me.
I've also worked in environments where everyone respects each other and their differences. This may have been happening simply because you were working with toxic people who simply didn't like you, and less because you were a female.
The inappropriate touching in car event was more worrying, I think.
But now I think the author felt the first more strongly because it made her feel "not even worth consideration" rather than "merely" objectified, which presumably is something she might have more familiarity/ability to cope with.
I wouldn't help another man out with a buckle, and I'd feel really weird if one helped me with one, but if that "uh, I don't want to reach toward my male co-worker in a confined space" thing wasn't there, I could totally imagine at least reaching over and grabbing the buckle and handing it to the person, and they might happen to brush against me in the process. This is potentially a "male-male interaction weirdness" kind of gender treatment difference. If the guy grew up with younger siblings he might even be in the habit of doing this kind of thing without thinking.
Again, that's where the ambiguity comes in. If, due to female anatomy, the back side of his arm happened to brush against her chest as he reached for a buckle in a confined space, that could be considered "touching her a lot", but is that the same as a grope?
Also, let's say he did have some intent to have some physical contact. She doesn't explicitly say where he "touched her a lot". Was it on the leg while he was buckling her, on her shoulder as he was reaching for the buckle? Maybe he was in fact trying to initiate some limited physical contact, known outside the work world in some circles as "kino". "Kino" from someone you're not attracted to is seen as creepy, whereas from someone you are attracted to isn't, and let's be honest here, we don't all explicitly say "may I brush against you as I reach for this buckle" or "may I kiss you" etc.
In a perfect world, unwanted touching wouldn't happen at all, but playing devil's advocate here... here's a guy with his female coworker (and work is where the most marriages happen outside of college, I've read) who agrees to take a ride in his sports car. Aside from explicit verbal discussion about it (which again doesn't happen 95% of the time when contact IS wanted) this guy had some reason to think she might be interested, and initiated some possibly very casual contact. Unless it was an outright grope, I don't know that I'd read so much negative intent into it. At some point people try to break the ice.
For example, at various jobs I've had male coworkers touch my arms or shoulders while speaking to me. Some people think that this helps establish more psychological closeness, although I often don't appreciate it, but I understand the intent. Unless someone were to go out of their way to grope on me, I tend to brush it off and move on with my day.
It's totally possible her experience was different than what I'm reading into it, but again, it was ambiguous enough that I can see other possible interpretations of that interaction.
Good point. By the way, what a bunch of asholes!
All groups will try and preserve their own identity, because if they don't, they stop existing. I'm merely making an observation here, not condoning the actions of groups. This kind of behaviour may seem harmless in some situations, but then also fuels some of the worst instances of discrimination humanity has seen.
I won't defend the other anecdotes though.
Then again, she comes across as rather passive, so I wouldn't be surprised if she's also uncomfortable with confrontation, so maybe this is her way of passive aggressively sticking it to the person in the car story? Who knows..
My advice: find a female power executive to serve as a mentor / career coach for a few months. Ideally a real hard-ass that pulls no punches when it comes to getting shit done, knows her shit and gives zero fucks whether an employee is male, female, penguin, or alien provided the work is done right, done well, and delivered on-schedule and most importantly, has no qualms about laying down the wrath of god on any employees slacking off and/or delivering shit quality work.
Seeing someone like that in action up-close and personal, while also benefiting from their input and guidance on her own situations encountered would I think pay huge dividends toward future career growth and happiness.
Try suggesting in Europe, that you don't want to watch a soccer match and instead would like to watch Friends (which I like incidentally). It'll be met with ridicule.
If there's something on the tv and soccer match is coming, you can be 100% sure that people will change it to the soccer game without even asking.
I don't think that's a question of sexism, it's just a question of shared culture and the fact that most people cannot imagine that there are people that do not like soccer. For some people, someone not liking soccer is as shocking as someone declaring himself an atheist during the times of the inquisition.
There are a lot of problems for women in tech but I think that in the case of sports, it's a behavior that touches equally men and women who do not like sports.
We go to college together and we always make fun of each other for our differing tastes in TV shows. He likes pokemon, which I think is for little kids or adults with developmental problems while I like game of thrones, which he thinks is a show only liked by people who enjoy watching penises on television as the show periodically flashes one into your face for no reason. We make fun of each other about this all the time because we're bros, in manspeak this means we're just close friends.
I've had worse pranks played on me by said bro. One day I left my computer unattended and unlocked. He took control of my computer, changed the background to a giant wet penis; Took a screenshot of the page; made that screenshot the background then proceeded to hide all the icons and menu bars on my desktop. The end result was essentially what appeared to be a frozen computer screen with the background replaced by a huge penis. I thought it was some crazy virus as even restarting my computer didn't work. I spent the next ten minutes trying to debug the situation all the while staring at a giant penis. Funniest thing ever, we both got a good laugh out of it.
I mean this prank could be interpreted as inappropriate depending on the situation and person, but the point is neither me nor my friend would be willing to treat each other so "inappropriately" if we didn't feel close.
So in short, both sides have made social errors. Their actions were immature and they failed take into regard your discomfort as a woman, while the OP misinterpreted their intentions as sexist.
The resolution to this situation is easy. Ask him to stop... or join in on the fun. Openly declare their tastes in baseball as stupid and mindless. How could any sport be more boring? Everyone would've definitely got a good laugh if you were the one who pulled off that remote control prank.
You must also keep in mind that you are still in a situation where majority rules and you must honor that situation as you're the only person who wants to watch friends, it would be disproportionately unfair if they catered to your tastes instead of the majority.
Whatever the OP chooses to do I honestly believe that her coworkers actions were not intentionally discriminatory.
Also some seat belts are non-obvious, especially in a fancy sports car, and people help other people with seat belts all the time. Perhaps the driver has given a lot of people rides in his fancy car and has seen many people struggle with it. Perhaps x seconds didn't seem long to her but to him, who knows how it works, it seemed like she was having a problem.
Cultural alienation is not somebody's fault. It happens when you are minority in a group that has different culture. In these kind of situations basic politeness and hospitality would lessen the effect. The solution is not to watch Friends sometimes to distribute boredom more equally.
People who have been born in monoculture are not usually aware of the work needed to have fun and inclusive social event. Outside the work those who are alienated leave. The "mandatory fun" in workplace may need work from the host to be inclusive.
And about Mike, the one that changed the channel for the joke, has she thought that he was well known for doing that kind of jokes and because of it he was confident doing them and people didn't mind at all?
Maybe OP got personal because of her own insecurities and didn't even bother to consider that her interpretation was wrong.
How do you know they are males? Do you think that the main anecdote in the linked article is about sexism, and if so, why?
Wat.
It gets better: Because program A is baseball, and program B is Friends, and since we all know that baseball is a man's program, and Friends is a woman's program, this is really about gender discrimination and sexism.
> People would question my social skills.
I really do.
To put it as clearly and simply as possible, as if we were examining the results of a double-blind clinical trial:
OP attempts to change the channel. OP is loudly ridiculed in an unpleasant way.
Rando teammate changes the channel. Everyone thinks it's a really funny joke.
What changed? Just the OP. It's pretty obvious the team doesn't like her the way it likes the rest of its members. Is this necessarily an example of sexism, like the seat-belt incident that OP also references? Not necessarily, but it's certainly quite alienating.
Also, while I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that there is a hierarchy of things that are better and things that are worse, how impactful an event is, is ultimately subjective and often not under any conscious control. The time I was mugged in San Francisco honestly made much less of an impression than the time my coworker said he hated all of us and refused to go out for lunch.
You'd probably get laughed at.
It wouldn't be because people thought seafood was dumb. It wouldn't be because you looked funny, or were female, or played poorly that day. It would be because you misunderstood why the team went to Bob's week after week. The team doesn't go to Bob's because they've got a taste for pizza, they go to Bob's because they want a comfortable routine, shared experiences, and customs to uniquely identify their group.
The suggestion of giving those comforts up because you had a taste for fish sticks instead of pepperoni would be funny to the people who really appreciate them.
And so it goes with baseball on the TV.
It's a simple fact that usually in groups the majority rules. The majority wanted to watch baseball, not Friends.
No. OP wanted to change the channel away from THE established channel.
Had OP been a male, and a woman changed the channel back to baseball, the situation would have been the same.
And not only once -- the single event of her requesting a switch to the different show was repeatedly ridiculed, as if this was a completely outrageous suggestion. This would have been quite okay if she asked "could we watch Friends today instead" and the other team members looked at each other and simply responded "Eh, we'd all really like to watch this game".
I worked at a womens' clothing store for a while and I often felt like my opinion wasn't valued. The staff was mostly made up of women and I was treated inappropriately in the form of sexual harassment and unprofessional workplace conversations. I tried my best to keep out of it but I must admit I made mistakes.
Anyway, in the morning we often had a 'ritual' that we'd all get coffee in the backroom and talk about anything the store needed that day. I really liked what seemed like a time for open communication in the beginning. Everyone would have their coffee mugs lined up next to the machine - but for some reason another gal always moved my mug to the other side - she'd often separate property by gender? It was strange, to say the least... I always just put my mug with the others, but I started noticing that she would separate them. Over time this began to really bother me simply because of how small and benign it should have been. I'd come in, glance over, see that my mug was off to the side by itself... and it was easy to feel like I wasn't part of the team.
It just felt like... after all the serious problems there had to be dumb small ones too. Like not being able to enjoy Friends after long day of working on Microsoft Flight Sim. Everything had to be a problem, no matter how small the thing was. A coffee mug. A favorite TV show.
I don't think it helps to say we can share much worse experiences. Sexism or whatever this is doesn't go away because by comparison she had it easier than others. It's clear she felt undervalued in her team and that's a problem - especially in terms of how her productivity (may) have suffered. Microsoft should be working to reduce dumb stuff like this so everyone can work at their peak productivity - with the side-benefit of feeling camaraderie among their colleagues.
Personally I'd just go buy my own damn TV and watch alone in my office? :p
Maybe I don't have social skills either. :-)
If it's a very small incident, why is it such a big deal for her? Especially compared to the real harrassment by her mentor in the car?
> Over time this began to really bother me simply because of how small and benign it should have been.
Well, did you ask your coworker why she did that? Being an adult also means standing up for yourself (it doesn't have to be overly confrontational, just ask politely), especially since it apparently was just a single person, not bullying by your entire team.
People are in a shared TV-viewing area. There is something being shown on TV. New person enters and decides to change the channel without asking.
This is the action of a total dickhead. I don't care what the established ritual is. If a group of people are clearly watching something else (and they must be, because here they are in the tv viewing area, and something else in being shown, and if they wanted to watch something else they'd have already changed the channel), to pick up the remote and change channel without asking is the action of a dickhead.
Possibly the action of someone on the aspergic scale, possibly the action of a sociopath who just doesn't care what other people want. Coming in and changing the channel without asking is simply a massive dickhead thing.
If it were a random situation, perhaps. If it is the established norm that a specific program is watched at a specific time, not so much.
I think this is an example of the conjunction fallacy, or The Linda Problem.
Bob walks in and changes the channel even though other people are watching.
Is Bob an asshole, or is Bob and asshole and has Asperger's?
In fact I feel discriminated against as a man. I'd much rather watch Friends that baseball, but apparently the author claims I'd much rather watch baseball because of my genes.
"Cool story bro". Fistbump.
Yeah I don't get that part either. When I was a kid everyone watched Friends. We never realized it was supposed to be "for girls".
Hell, the main cast is 3 men and 3 women. Doesn't get more neutral than that.
I wonder though, how do groups of women solve that?
I didn't blog about it though, because I have real problems far more vexing than not having 100% compatibility with my coworkers.
Like the downvotes I will take for this post, I'd rather speak my mind than have more 1 bits on some server somewhere.
That one addition to your post turned it into a passive-aggressive rant. Well done speaking your mind, I guess?
In the aircon control wars majority always wins, so why would it be different with a TV?
Source: That was me.
Why?
I wonder if she ever tried, or just assumed it was unthinkable. I suspect it was less unthinkable than she thinks it was. From the rest of the story, it sounds like not only was it thinkable for people to try to change the channel, it was expected even. Otherwise the joke wouldn't work.
As people on imgur like to say: Do Thing. Maintain eye contact. Assert dominance.
You have to establish boundaries. If people are doing shit you don't want them to, stop them. As a general rule, people will treat you the way you let them treat you.
edit: I wonder how many people downvoting me are assuming I write this as a member of The In-Group. Okay I am a guy, but that's where the ingroupness stops for various reasons that would take a while to list.
IMO this is discrimination. You may get away with suggesting a specific role, maybe a negotiator, would need to have/develop this ability. As a very accepting and peaceful guy, I really feel bad (insecure, even) when people assert that I need to be dominant to be successful.
BTW, I'm not trying to explain why you are being down-voted as I didn't, wouldn't (and also can't) down-vote you.
You don't have to be dominant to be successful. But you can't be a pushover.
If something bothers you, you have to speak up. Immediately and decisively. The first time it happens. Not when it becomes the established social norm.
If you speak up, normal mature people will say something like "Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that bothered you. I'll be more careful.". They might push back, if they think you're pushing too far or too hard because of whatever pre-existing beliefs.
But it's a dynamic balance. Both sides have to push and pull. Without active participation from everyone, teams become imbalanced and less effective.
Life doesn't just walk up to you and hand you opportunties because you grew up this way or that way, if you want to survive you fight. If you don't want to fight, get to the back of the line for resources.
