Backlash in Silicon Valley

[MadamMinacious]

A number of men in silicon valley believe the push for gender equality has gone too far and that women are just making a career out of 'complaining to HR'.

<a class="break-all" href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/technology/silicon-valley-men-backlash-gender-scandals.html?referer=www.google.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/technology/silicon-valley-men-backlash-gender-scandals.html?referer=www.google.com/

Some of these men have gone so far as to set up a website/forum to bemoan this (it is really a cesspit of purile hatred as far as I can tell from scanning it.) Men Going their own Way - I'm not linking to it here but a link is in the article above.

I read Faludi's Backlash many years ago and I've just started rereading it as it occurred to me we are going though one hell of a backlash against feminism right now. This article is just another facet of that.

"the anti-feminist backlash has been set off not by women's achievement of full equality but by the increased possibility that they might win it. It is a pre-emptive strike that stops women long before they reach the finish line" Susan Faludi

It is disheartening to see the backlash in full action but it may be worth our while on this board to keep track of it when we come across an obvious backlash.

the anti-feminist backlash has been set off not by women's achievement of full equality but by the increased possibility that they might win it. It is a pre-emptive strike that stops women long before they reach the finish line

Absolutely. It is interesting that this backlash is occurring on the internet, which allows women a voice that they never have had previously. I believe this online backlash is some terrified men desperately attempting to dominate a space in which their power will slowly slip away to women. It is also a result of de-industrialisation and the disintegration of the patriarchal family unit: men are simply not needed any more, and they know it.

I've read that article - it's a load of whiney nonsense and complaining that women have the temerity to ask men act professionally and not harass them.

I believe the phrase is, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. or in this case, if you can't manage to be professional, get out of the office - because I've been through it all, I'm old and senior now, and if you think any of my employees are going to go through what I and the very few other women went through when I was new and junior, you have another thing coming..

.....for people like James, a white man, to be put into a category of less desirable for promotion and advancement,

Welcome to our world Silicon Valley men.

The galling thing about the backlash is that these men are freaking out because they know how badly they've treated women and they are terrified that they'll be treated the same way. Because they are such misogynists themselves they can't envisage a situation where women and men simply work side by side and succeed on merit - that very idea doesn't occur to them. In their mind the only outcome is someone being top dog and they want to be top dog because in their world top dog stands on bottom dog's neck. They are very happy to dish out the discrimination but they are terrified of receiving it, because deep down most of them know they're not very good and if they were truly expected to succeed on merit they wouldn't have fucking chance.

The problem is Sparrowhawk that in a way the men are right: no one does succeed purely on the basis of merit in capitalist industries.

I just thought I'd let know you about how it was at my old company.

I worked as a Technical Architect for a large IT company, one of the largest in the world. We had a client who'd been with us for more than 15 years and our relationship was solid.

One day the Service Director in a meeting told me that he was very disappointed at the performance of the helpdesk. So you get an idea, more than 80% of IT related issues are resolved at the desk and more than 98% are reported to them. So the performance of the desk is critical.

I said to him, we'll discuss this internally before letting you know about our plans to restore the performance of the desk.

I then spoke to the Manager of the Helpdesk department about it and said is there any reason for the drop in performance? I was expecting an answer like, we've had to make 20% cuts, or we've got more new clients and can't keep up. But the answer was incredible.

Due to a scheme that the company had brought in, the ratio of new starters at the desk had to be 50-50. Whereas traditionally it's probably been 95-5. He said that less qualified and less technically skilled women were being recruited ahead of male competition.

It comes as no surprise that the whole scheme was scrapped within 12 months and most of those women were moved to other positions.

Yes, of course that actually happened.

'...other teams like cars were headed by women, which to Mr. Parsons was a sign of problems.

“No eyebrows are going to rise if a woman heads up fashion,” Mr. Parsons said. “But we’re talking about women staffing positions — things like autos — where it cannot be explained other than manipulation.”''

So having a 70% male workforce is normal, but 70% women, or women in charge of mens things is wrong. I dont think thats mgtow, thats flat out male supremacy.

To me I noticed an obvious parallel to the narrative about rape.
Women are making things up, they are lying for personal gain and going to enforcers (police or HR) with falsehoods to punish men.
Men are scared because they could accidentally have their life ruined through no fault of their own.
Quote from article:
there’s a high awareness right now, which is positive, at the same time there’s a fear.”

So what you're saying Indiana is that the help desk people utterly failed to recruit any of the many thousands of competent and qualified women they could have recruited? That in response to attempts to make the staffing structure more equal they behaved like utter morons and hired people who weren't suitable for the job? How is that anything to do with the women doing the job? Why weren't the people who made such appalling recruitment decisions fired??? It sounds like deliberate sabotage to me, surely no one is that stupid??

Indiana Bones, I am very sceptical about your story. I've never heard of companies pursuing 50/50 recruitment policies to their detriment. So ALL the women recruited were technically less skilled than the men going for the jobs?

I wouldn't support such a policy anyway, I think there are enough gifted and educated women there to be employed. It isn't about making such jobs 50/50 in some positive discrimination move but about encouraging more women to study for STEM careers and making those workplaces hospitable - as oppose, for example to having comments made about how they look, or gendered comments about their abilities, or being passed over 'just in case' they get pregnant. If we are going for anecdotal evidence I know a few women in STEM careers who have some shocking stories of sexism and being unsupported at work. That kind of atmosphere isn't conducive to women want to join or stay in those careers. Anecdotally I know one such woman who was hounded out of a job by sexism.

@QuentinSummers I agree I saw that parallel too, it's as if they feel women are making things up just to be promoted and it couldn't be that a pervasive culture of sexism has made men comfortable with acting a certain way and now they are being called on it. It seems to me that the 'fear' they speak of is about having to change how they behave to something approaching respect.

(I don't think Indiana will be returning, at least not in that guise...)

Now what makes you think that AssasinatedBeauty? Surely you aren't suggesting he was genuine?

*wasn't genuine

I can't speak for the hiring policies of a particular help desk, not even my own, though in the last 5 years, they have managed to employ one female techie, out of about 30 employees, and she left after about a month because of "personal differences" with another colleague. From what I saw, she was certainly technically able, but I have never found our more details.

But as a general rule, women in tech generally are better qualified than their male colleagues and usually have to perform better to be seen as good as the men. You can get away with being a mediocre man in tech, but it's difficult to survive as a mediocre woman. (And God knows there are plenty of mediocre men out there.)

I don't want to be too specific but I'm studying a STEM subject right now, "against all the odds" there are 3 females sitting at the top of the class. There are also 3 females in the class, so far all classroom subjects.
We have started practical work and I quote "won't be getting any extra help just because we have no experience".
This is a supportive learning environment which has been telling anyone who will listen about their success with women in STEM.
I had hope, now the only thing that surprises me about this story is that any actual effort had been made in the first place.
I am this close to recording sessions to publicly shame them but I don't want to torpedo my career.

"won't be getting any extra help just because we have no experience".

Do you have no experience? It doesn't sound like you need any extra help if you're all at the top of the class, but are they just assuming you have no experience just because you don't have penises?

If you're at a uni, they should have an Athena Swan contact. I'm all for asking awkward questions about how you're being treated fits in with their supportive environment. Mind you, I can't promise it wouldn't torpedo your career, but as I've been told I have to walk on water to get a promotion, I don't feel I have much to risk. (Almost certain that my male colleagues who have been promoted can't walk on water either. I am willing to let a couple of them try to prove it on a deep pond near the office...)

Sorry, reading back that was clear as mud. There's 1 male in the class who is resitting the year so have done all the practical before. He was playing billy big bollocks and I called him out. Then, quick as a flash, I was informed I'd get no help from anybody. Some very male reactions ran through my head (lots of heavy tools and machinery).
I got the same talk about walking on water. Apparently it's assumed I'll do well in "soft" subjects so I also have to excel in "hard" subjects to measure up to the penis owners. Awaiting clarification on hard and soft (apart from the hilarious joke about knowing the difference)

Apparently it's assumed I'll do well in "soft" subjects so I also have to excel in "hard" subjects to measure up to the penis owners.

It's funny how assumptions that they'll do well in the "hard" subjects doesn't mean they'll also have to do well in "soft" subjects. These skills are usually things like communication - the things that actually make you a useful co-worker. There's no use in being technically brilliant if no one can talk to you or work with you.

Not doing engineering at Imperial are you Nonibaloni? That would ring a bit of a bell.

Although i suspect it's like that on a lot of tech programmes at a lot of unis.

As it happens maths is where I'm doing best (toot toot own trumpet), "against all the odds" and yes the communication subjects are straight forward because I've worked for 10 years so can whizz out a report.
I suppose nothing surprises me, and hopefully can get far enough up the tree to effect some change. Probably not though, I'll go into acedemia as suggested at my interview. The fact I can't go 3 senstences without dropping a c bomb is overridden by my vagina maybe?

Engineering yes, Imperial no. About a thousands steps less impressive. Nice to know it's universal though. (And can you work a milling machine?)

I don't know that it's quite universal. I've heard good things about Crossrail as an employer of female engineers. But that's just one company.