OP could make his statement much stronger if he wrote the whole piece from perspective of bit asexual straight man working in environment dominated by gay men who would introduce in daily worklife all kinds of innuendos often forgetting that protagonist is not interested in them and also not very interested in sexual layer of human interaction.
I think the innate homophoby of the readers could help them to better understand.
Yes, lets read an article by a straight man about how the gays kept him out of the fashion industry by finding him attractive and behaving effeminately.
Then lets try to take it even half as seriously as articles about how those geeks keep women out of tech by finding them attractive and behaving nerdily.
You do realize that there are plenty of gay men in the tech industry, don't you? You also know that "behaving effeminately" is not characteristic of all homosexual men, right? Consider, instead, a tech environment dominated by gay men and the article is about, as you put it, "how those geeks keep men out of tech by finding them attractive and behaving nerdily."
Scotty79 may be onto more than is immediately obvious, and you do his idea a disservice to dismiss it so quickly. In the OP's article, the victim of the gender-based injustices writes that he wrongly thought he had left the harassment and the immaturity of others behind him--back in high school and college. I'm almost certain, however, that many gays, of any gender and in any industry, feel the same way when they have to deal with their coworkers saying things like "that's gay," "no homo," "don't be a fag, man," and for the gay men in particular, "don't be a pussy," "stop acting like a bitch," "quit acting like a girl," etc. It's quite obvious, too, that the misogyny carries over when men are criticized for "behaving effeminately," as if there could possibly be an absolute definition of femininity and that it is wrong for men to approach it, even slightly.[1]
As mentioned earlier, Scotty's suggestion was not about imagining the struggles of a straight man trying to break into a typically 'gay' industry; it was about writing from the perspective of a "straight man working in [an] environment dominated by gay men." That is, any environment (the tech industry, in our case) which is hypothetically dominated by homosexual men in a way similar to the female dominance found in the OP's article. The main difference between the two posts would be that, as per Scotty's suggestion, the story's protagonist would be the sexual target of other men--giving a, perhaps, more faithful glimpse into the tech world women have to deal with every day. The OP's hypothetical role-reversal throughout the entire world and history, while somehow still attributing the same brutish machismo to those running things, is an interesting change indeed, but it depends quite heavily on the reader's willing suspension of disbelief.
At any rate, I'm glad Rob took the time to write "Men in Tech." I was really worried, for a moment at the start, that the narrative would turn into one of those, "men can hypothetically deal with this type of harassment, why can't you?" I'm so glad it didn't.
1. It's worth reading Michael S Kimmel's "Masculinity as Homophobia," since it discusses how men fear being 'unmasked' as either gay or effeminate, and so overcompensate by emphasizing the perceived homosexuality or effeminacy of others.
Thanks - you just demonstrated my point. If a man were to whine about how he avoided some field because he didn't like gays hitting on him, or because he was uncomfortable working within that field, both you and I would tell him to stop whining and learn to deal with it.
How so? I argued that it would be a good idea to give not only the perspective of women, but that of the gay men and women being ostracized in the workplace too. Situating an attractive, straight male in a hypothetical, heterophobic environment dominated by gay men would illustrate the kind of uninvited sexual cut and thrust that some men in tech impose upon women, as well as the passive bullying that comes from homophobic language in the workplace, language that gay people generally have to endure. All this, of course, in an effort to get people, men and women alike, to clean up their acts.
> If a man were to whine about how he avoided some field because he didn't like gays hitting on him, or because he was uncomfortable working within that field, both you and I would tell him to stop whining and learn to deal with it.
No, I can't say that I would tell him to deal with it. The point of the suggested narrative would have been to show how difficult it is to say "stop whining and learn to deal with it" and actually mean it once all parties have a thorough grasp on the circumstances.
> Why don't we tell women the same thing?
People already do, and that's the issue.
I believe what you're trying to argue is that, because men would be told to "deal with it" when put a similar situation, it's alright to tell women to do the same. Please let me know if I'm wrong about that. As far as the argument is concerned, it's flawed in that it makes assumptions about the needs of both genders while altogether disregarding the human needs for belonging, self-respect, and respect by others. Instead of telling victims to deal with it, we should be telling instigators to cut it out. I'm all for hominism and feminism once the usual, and mostly misguided, misogyny and misandry are set aside.
I interpreted you as reacting negatively to the idea that gay men in fashion should be blamed for the absence of straight men. If I misinterpreted, my apologies.
I believe what you're trying to argue is that, because men would be told to "deal with it" when put a similar situation, it's alright to tell women to do the same.
Not quite, I'm saying that a lot of people would object to my characterization of gays driving straights out of some field, and I'm suggesting there is probably a bit of a double standard present.
The trick in pulling this article off is you can go too far with your stereotypes and "artistic license" - actually offending the people you're trying to defend.
And I've worked there - in a place where gay men outnumbered the men. I've been cornered - shoved in between two refrigerators while a guy who outweighed me by 50 pounds leaned against me and went for my bits - all the while telling me "it's time to come out".
I put my fist into his sternum as hard as I could. He laughed - "feisty! I like it..." and he backed off.
This happened. But what's the point of this story? That gay men can be aggressive? That I was "wronged"? That I can somehow identify with women because I was, literally, assaulted at work?
I think you can relate better to victims of similar assaults. Most of them are women.
Point of the story would be to help reader to understand how unsafe can someone feel at work when people pass sexual remarks like it's nothing. OP's post doesn't really achieve that.
There is no need to be a slightly asexual man in gay men environment.
It is quite enough that you are a man in a mostly female environment. When a woman approaches you and you turn her down then strange shit starts happening.
Maybe but most of target audience of such story doesn't have first hand experience of working in mostly female environment and while reading about it they would imagine happyland of pure bliss with a bit of thrill.
I think straight men have similar level of uneasiness about gay men as women about straight men. Mostly safe despite all the silly stuff but...
I think the innate homophoby of the readers could help them to better understand.