"Lean in" in my mind is about playing the bullshit political games. Your twenty-something male co-workers? They have the same insecurities and reservations as you do. But the system works better for them because the people at the top are more often than not men. So the only way women are going to be able to re-shape the system in a way that works better for women is to put up with the obnoxious bullshit politics for a while.
I'm not saying that I agree with her; and tech is far worse than most other industries about being male-dominated. Really, the bullshit workaholic culture at many companies is the root of the problem, but it's something that varies on a company-by-company basis.
> So the only way women are going to be able to re-shape the system in a way that works better for women is to put up with the obnoxious bullshit politics for a while.
It may be true in some circumstances that it will be possible for a specific individual to get further ahead by participating in a bad/sick/oppressive/etc system, but advising women that if they just participate in the patriarchy for awhile, and work really hard, they'll succeed, is not an acceptable message. It perpetuates the problem rather than moving to solve it.
It's like advising people who are concerned about our lack of choice in politics to shut up & vote, rather than to work to reform /how/ we vote.
"So the only way women are going to be able to re-shape the system in a way that works better for women is to put up with the obnoxious bullshit politics for a while." - I'm sorry... WHAT?
No. That's the whole point of this article. The bullshit is bullshit. Let's cut it out.
Sometimes the only way to change the system is from the inside because your influence on the system is directly proportional to how seriously the system's leaders and participants take you.
This is especially true in this case. You don't have the option of not participating and instead trying to change the system from the outside, because doing so directly harms your income and therefore livelihood.
I don't think SS is saying this is the only way to be happy in her book. I think she is saying that if you are a woman and you want to be successful in the business world, here are a bunch of stories and anecdotes talking about life is more difficult for you, but you can persevere if you work really hard. I don't think she says the system is fair, and I also don't remember SS saying choosing other lifestyles is wrong.
So I really don't understand this rant against SS. The goal of her book wasn't to promote unhappiness, it was just to share her very meaningful advice which applies to a lot of people (but not everybody).
Our industry has a real problem with work life balance, this is why there aren't more women in tech. Because they are smarter then us and they realize its a bum deal.
You're joking right? Is this sarcasm? Work life balance? A bum deal? We get paid a six figure salary on top of getting fed breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a daily basis to work lazily for realistically 6-7 hours a day and then head home with more hours of free time per day than our friends in other industries (finance, medicine, law, you name it) have who are making half a tech salary or working twice the hours.
I don't know about you but I am thankful every day of my life that I was interested in tech because otherwise I wouldn't have been able to enjoy the insanely comfortable life we have.
Don't know where your working. To get ahead a most companies I know of, working 60 hour weeks is a given. Thats why they provide free food and stuff, so you can spend as much time as possible working.
Why does Apple need to charge price stuff so high when the profits it makes is already more than what it can realistically spend on improving its investors happiness?
I would assume the management team at Apple finds their work highly fulfilling or they would have quit a long time ago (certainly they can afford to).
I'm merely pointing out that if you don't find 60h weeks at your job fulfilling, it doesn't make much sense to chase more work and more responsibilities when the marginal utility of a dollar is pretty shitty past ~$100k anyways.
Definitely didn't intend for it to come off that way, sorry about that. What I meant was that he doesn't seem to see how hard women have to work to be taken seriously. I've never heard a woman say working in tech is relaxed and easy.
You're joking right? Is this sarcasm? I dunno who you think this "we" is, but 99% of software people are not part of it. Hell, you even contradict your own fantasy tale, how are you getting fed 3 meals a day if you are only working 8 hour days?
My friends in other industries work 40 hour weeks and make just as much as I do. Hell, I know a plumber and an electrician who both make more than I do, and they both work less than 40 hours a week. I am being pressured into working evenings, weekends and all through christmas to meet an arbitrary deadline while they keep adding more features to be finished by that deadline. Step outside of your little bubble and look around at the rest of the world, it isn't your fantasy.
This is as true for men as it is for women. We face different societal pressures, but those pressures do exist and it is impossible to fulfill all of the expectations placed upon us by society/ourselves.
Work is important. Being good at what you do and recognized for it is vital. But so is spending time at the dog park and going camping and lazy Sundays. It's easy to get sucked into working too hard when you're fresh out of college and have nothing else going on in your life, but that is not the road to happiness.
> What will get you to the top and still have you loving life? Taking leaps of faith, laughing at the naysayers, blowing off people who ignore you, caring about people and organizations that make you healthier and that care about the core of you rather than what you can simply do for them, celebrating your family and friends and all the love that you can create together.
Probably not. It might make you happier, but it probably won't get you to the top. Almost universally, the people at the top are those who know how to and are willing to play the game. And as a factual matter, a hugely disproportionate percentage of the people at the top are married men whose wives don't work, with all of the advantage that entails.
First of all, credibility. Sheryl's words have made it so far because she has succeeded in her career and is trying to explain to others what she thinks you should do to get where she is. The author of this letter hasn't experienced success and therefore shouldn't have enough of an idea what it takes to succeed to agree or disagree with Sheryl.
Second of all, I don't think the author of the letter even knows what Lean In means. It seems like her interpretation of the definition is to lean in to your work and grind through 80 hour weeks such that you don't have time to take care of yourself, be happy, or even do your own household chores. I haven't read Lean In personally but my impression was that the definition was more along the lines of ignoring all of the existing gender bias and having the self-confidence to set goals and go for them.
Perhaps the goal you set is to be happy, or to do your laundry once a week, or to stay fit, or to have a happy relationship. Your goals don't need to be corporate/career ones. I don't think the goals of the letter's author necessarily contradict Sheryl's points.
Sandberg is credibly the COO of Facebook, but TIME didn't give her the cover to appeal to the 7 people who will hold that job between now and FB's eventual bankruptcy in 2047. Or the 70 people who will compete for it, or the 7000 people who will be in similar positions across the Fortune 100. She's being held up as a model of success, for the average person to emulate. It is very much an open question how many people would consider life like hers well-lived.
That the difference is glossed over so blithely makes me skeptical.
Sheryl has an opinion, the letter's author has an opinion, I have my own opinion. We are all free to share our opinion.
I am weighing in because I care immensely about women in tech and feminism and disagree with the point of view portrayed in the letter.
Am I not allowed to share my opinion because I haven't read the book she's violently disagreeing with? Just because I haven't read the book doesn't mean I haven't seen Sheryl speak numerous times and don't understand her point.
Perhaps she's experienced some level of success, thanks for correcting me/acknowledging the hole in my argument, but I think it's safe to assume that she hasn't experienced the same level of success as Sheryl.
"Leaning in", where have I read that before... ah, got it:
> I have no problem with leaning in. Really I don't. If you are going to puke on someone's shoes, you had best lean in a little, lest the spatter hit your own glorious footwear. [..] But if it's real, substantive change we're after, then we'd best be talking about organizing and collective action.
As a male in late middle age, I'm not the target audience of either the book or the letter. I would agree with the writer that Lean In is of very limited applicability. I would qualify this by saying that "self-esteem, peace, confidence to take leaps of faith, and well-rounded happiness" are not necessarily best sought directly.
Good advice regardless of who you are: chill out, and work towards actual happiness. Regardless of what that means for you, although id usually wager that playing others bullshit games probably isn't going to be it. At least is usually isn't for me!
I'm having a difficult time reconciling this article to what I actually read when I read Lean In...to the point where I don't think the author of this article has actually read the book.
It bothered me enough that I bought the Kindle edition just now so I could cite what's actually in the book (I originally read it in hard copy form.)
This quote from the book showcases the point Lean In is making:
"A few years ago, I hosted a meeting for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner at Facebook. We invited fifteen executives from across Silicon Valley for breakfast and a discussion about the economy. Secretary Geithner arrived with four members of his staff, two senior and two more junior, and we all gathered in our one nice conference room.
After the usual milling around, I encouraged the attendees to help themselves to the buffet and take a seat. Our invited guests, mostly men, grabbed plates and food and sat down at the large conference table. Secretary Geithner’s team, all women, took their food last and sat in chairs off to the side of the room. I motioned for the women to come sit at the table, waving them over so they would feel welcomed. They demurred and remained in their seats.
The four women had every right to be at this meeting, but because of their seating choice, they seemed like spectators rather than participants. I knew I had to say something. So after the meeting, I pulled them aside to talk.
I pointed out that they should have sat at the table even without an invitation, but when publicly welcomed, they most certainly should have joined. At first, they seemed surprised, then they agreed. It was a watershed moment for me. A moment when I witnessed how an internal barrier can alter women’s behavior. A moment when I realized that in addition to facing institutional obstacles, women face a battle from within."
In reading the book, I didn't find Sandberg accusing women of not doing enough--like this article seems to imply. Rather, she's pointing out barriers to women becoming leaders--barriers that we as women are probably not even conscious of. In that way, I found the book incredibly helpful.
I should note I was predisposed to not like the book based on articles I'd read, but I am a voracious reader and I wanted to see for myself what Sandberg was saying. The book opened my eyes to small but significant behavior and language changes I could make to be taken more seriously as a leader, and in that way, I am grateful.
If the article writer hasn't read the book, I respectfully ask her to before dishing out criticism--if there is a valid point in the book that she is inclined to criticize, then I will listen with an open mind. But as it stands right now, I don't find this criticism-without-citation productive.
Quote from Lean In: "I pointed out that they should have sat at the table even without an invitation, but when publicly welcomed, they most certainly should have joined."
Quote from @ericabiz: "In reading the book, I didn't find Sandberg accusing women of not doing enough"
I have not read the book, but in the specific passage you quote Sandberg is explicitly telling these women they have not done enough.
You seem to have missed the OP's point -- that Sandberg makes the assumption that theses women could not have authentically preferred being not to be at the table.
At the very least, the book quote definitely does not sound like an accusation. More of a realization.
The difference between:
You're not doing enough! Try harder!
I just realized, we're not doing enough
What exactly it is that is "not enough" is also contextually important. If you are simply not pulling your weight, you are not doing enough and that's all there is to it. If you are pulling twice your weight, to say you are not doing enough is insulting.
The article was also about "Lean in culture". I'm sorry, but that's different from the book. The book has spurned something completely ridiculous. It's the reason why, when I wanted to take a break from work for a while, my colleagues said to me, "But you've got to lean in!" That's so obnoxious.
People often take a shallow understanding of a nuanced concept and build a culture around that shallow understanding. You're seeing that with "lean in" just as we've seen it with "lean software development" or "agile".
Totally valid points, but the post is about work-life balance, and not really anything to do with women in tech. While women absolutely do have it harder in tech, and different work-life balance challenges, making it an Open Letter! is a bit dramatic. Make the balance choices that are right for you, no matter if you're a man or woman.
I want to criticize Lean In, but kinda something feels guilty inside me cuz I'm a man... That's why I wanted to hear some critics from females side. But how do we know that it's not a fake post and not written by 35 years old male as a joke?
What did you dislike about it, or think needs to be criticized? We won't judge you because you're a man - this is the internet! It's a meritocracy, and your critical opinions will stand or fall on their own value alone.
Why exactly I don't see these many discussion about women in construction industry as I see about women in IT? Why exactly I don't see any discussion about courts giving children to their fathers in 50% of cases?
Why exactly my wife is so brainwashed that even when I make 5.2 times money she does, she still needs to go to work which costs us more than her paycheck once we pay for the childcare and food. Her work is net negative to home budget. Unfortunately, she doesn't get it because as her mom says "women MUST work".
> Why exactly I don't see any discussion about courts giving children to their fathers in 50% of cases?
Because when fathers do actually contest custody, they usually get joint or sole custody? http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias... ("These trends were apparent in an earlier study of a sample of 500 Middlesex County cases filed between 1978 and 1981. Fathers had sought sole custody in about 8% of the cases. They received sole custody in 41% of those cases, and joint custody in 38%. In 5% of the cases, custody went to someone other than a parent. In instances in which fathers sought sole custody, mothers received sole custody in only 15% of the cases.").
> Why exactly my wife is so brainwashed that even when I make 5.2 times money she does, she still needs to go to work which costs us more than her paycheck once we pay for the childcare and food.
Because she can do math and realizes that while child care expenses are temporary (and drop off substantially in just 5-6 years once children enter school), the lifetime impact on earnings from taking time off to raise children is substantial and permanent?
Did you notice how that study didn't control for anything? Like say, the reasons that fathers were seeking sole custody? Fathers virtually only seek sole custody when the mother is abusive or grossly negligent. In cases where the mother is not abusive or negligent, fathers almost always accept minimal joint custody as they feel it is what is best for the children. The fact that people throw this around as some sick attempt to portray fathers are not caring about their children and the courts being totally fair is disgusting.
"""
Although perceptions of bias that discourage fathers from seeking custody are a concern, n52 the outcome of cases in which custody is contested provides a more direct source of information about possible judicial gender bias. We heard testimony from George Kelly, a representative of Concerned Fathers, that in contested custody cases, mothers are awarded physical custody over 90% of the time. Mr. Kelly was unable to provide substantiation, however, n53 and our own investigation revealed a very different picture.
The statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey had collectively represented fathers seeking custody in over 2,100 cases in the last 5 years. n54 They reported that the fathers obtained primary physical custody in 29% of the cases, and joint physical custody in an additional 65% of the cases. Thus, when fathers actively sought physical custody, mothers obtained primary physical custody in only 7% of cases. The attorneys reported that the fathers had been primary caretakers in 29% of the cases in which they had sought custody.
The preliminary findings of the Middlesex Divorce Research Group relitigation study show a similarly high rate of paternal success, but fewer awards of joint physical custody. In their sample of 700 cases in Middlesex County between 1978 and 1984, fathers had sought custody in 57 cases (8.14% of the sample). In two-thirds of the cases in which fathers sought custody, they received primary physical custody (42% in which fathers were awarded sole legal and sole physical custody, plus [*832] 25% in which fathers were awarded joint legal and primary physical custody). Joint physical and joint legal custody was awarded in 3.5% of cases. In 11% of the cases, mothers received primary physical and joint legal custody; in 12%, mothers were awarded sole legal and physical custody; other custodial arrangements were ordered in the remaining cases. Thus, when fathers sought custody, mothers received primary physical custody in fewer than one-quarter of the cases in the Middlesex study. Information about which parent had been the primary caretaker was not available for the Middlesex cases.
These trends were apparent in an earlier study of a sample of 500 Middlesex County cases filed between 1978 and 1981. Fathers had sought sole custody in about 8% of the cases. They received sole custody in 41% of those cases, and joint custody in 38%. In 5% of the cases, custody went to someone other than a parent. In instances in which fathers sought sole custody, mothers received sole custody in only 15% of the cases (Phear et al., 1983).
These statistics may be a surprise to many. They are, however, consistent with findings in other states. A study of court records in Los Angeles County, California, in 1977 found that fathers who sought sole custody obtained it in 63% of the cases (up from a success rate of 37% in 1972) (Weitzman, 1985, p. 233). A nationwide survey of all reported appellate decisions in child custody cases in 1982 found that fathers obtained custody in 51% of the cases, up from an estimated 10% in 1980 (Atkinson, 1984).
The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see "Family Law Overview") and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers.
"""
These studies are underpinned by sexism, racism, represent xenophobia and people who conducted them surely have issues with relating themselves to the opposite sex.
Now, try discussing that. Beceause this is what you'll get once you'll present a study showing men are better soldiers than women to a feminist. And nobody cares. Equality at the Army, period. Actually special treatment for women because apparently they need to run just 4 miles to get to the Marines when males have to run 6 miles. Because obviously the enemy will stop 2 miles short just to treat our female soldiers better than others. Or like this precious thing that a women in the uniform can't have be moving machine gun. It is too heavy for her for goodness sake. This is all about special treatment and not equality.
So maybe that's how we (males) should start rolling as well. 50% cases children go to the fathers, period. If you don't agree you are a sexist xenophobic in need of a psychological treatment for aggression impulses and the whole study is a hate speech.
Of course. It's impossible to respond when you have provided good logical evidence and get emotional instability and calling names in return. I just wanted you to got through the exercise to see that whatever feminists demand, whether it is logical or makes sense or not - they get. And if you try to respond in logical fashion, you get this, what I gave you. Just to prove a point. Females are more important to children than males. I agree 100%, you don't need to provide me with any evidence. That's common sense. The same way males are better soldiers than females. I agree 100%. You don't need to provide me with any evidence. That's common sense. But why we live in society where we apply logic to certain things (like divorces and who gets children as their result), and to other (i.e. female soldiers) we would rather gag logic in the name of the political correctness, is beyond me.
Hey, MensRights: any casual reader of this thread can see your clumsy rhetorical trick here. "Females are more important to children than males. I agree 100%. The sky is polka-dot and I am the witch king lord set over all chocolate bars. I agree 100%. One hundred percent! Damn you, political correctness!"
"I agree with something you never said" is a 14-year-old's debate tactic, right up there with "stop hitting yourself". Which is unsurprising, because the logic of "MensRights" is mired in about the same developmental stage.
Why would anyone take you seriously ever again after you wrote a comment like this? I do not know, and think that they should not.
name calling - of course; (check!)
aggression - of course; (check!)
pointing to issues with semantics and form and not addressing the issues themselves - of course (check!)
That's how I know I talk to a feminist.
Other left-wingers like Marxists - you need to spend some time showing them your argumentation before they give up and do that. Start attacking a person instead of attacking argumentation or addressing issues.
Feminists go to that right away. Again, not surprised at all. You are very angry group of people indeed. And that's why in most polls women disagree with feminists. Nobody likes angry mean person who attacks messenger instead of addressing issues calmly.
Nothing you said addresses my point. Notice how only 8% of fathers are seeking custody? Why is that? Using statistics to deliberately mislead people is dishonest.
I'm not. I am blaming you for presenting a statistic in a misleading way. You are suggesting that courts are fair because fathers get custody when they seek it. But you are leaving out the part where they only seek it in cases of abuse. Fair would be default joint custody, which feminist organizations like NOW actively campaign against.
As a father, I find the idea that I could lose custody of my children though a legal default to be ridiculous. Custody is not a casual decision. 8% of fathers demand custody because that is approximately the fraction of fathers who want it. The vast majority of fathers are fiercely career/work-oriented.
I don't understand your first statement. You currently lose custody of your children by default, that's the problem. Attempts have been made to change the law in some states to fix that, but were defeated by NOW and their supporters. Currently, the law considers the best interests of the child to be "with the mother". It should consider the best interests of the child to be "with both parents".
A review of the cases does not support your claim. 8% of fathers demand custody because 8% of fathers feel the mother is so bad that the children are better off with the father. The fact that they generally win in such cases is expected, but can not be generalized to imply that if fathers simply seek custody more often, they will still get it that often. When they seek custody in cases where the mother is not abusive, they lose.
The same way vast majority of mothers used to be fiercely home-stay oriented. It was explained to them that it's wrong. That they should be also present in the workforce. They should make up 50% of US CEO's. They should be in Congress.
So, why not to, start social marxist change also in court rulings. Let's explain fathers they should take responsibility for children in 50% of divorce cases. Let's have legislation enforcing that. Let's have think-tanks to make it happen.
I don't really care, I love working with women. My only problem is that things born in Marxist ideology like feminism are making social experiments on us whether we want it or not. And none of these left wing dreamed of social experiments work.
Why are we putting all these women under so much pressure? You have to be in IT. There are not enough women there. You must be good in IT. And what about this what women want to do? Women's psyche is more gentle than ours. You show thin teens on magazine covers long enough and next thing you know you deal with anorexia/bulimia pandemic. You create social pressure for them not to have kids, to delay having family, to go there and compete in brutal business world. What gives you right to do that?
Have you read the article under which we are commenting? The author is not happy. She definitely feels like her life choices were forced upon her. All I'm saying is that this is wrong. You don't feel social pressure to be a good cook, or spend 8 hours a day with a kid. Feminism hurts women, not men. This is what the article shows.
What a creepy comment. Of course, HN can reliably expect to see comments about how much weaker women are than men on any thread involving gender. It's apparently a law of physics.
Yes, women are the weaker sex. And your task as male is to protect them. No need to say thank you. But your parents should have told you that long time ago. Maybe they did, but you didn't listen. You don't seem to be good at listening.
You are the one pretending not to see that women are after "equality" as far as clean, safe office jobs go. I don't you see you or them demanding 50% of construction jobs to be filled by females. Yeah, I will probably make $260k this year. My Manager is a woman and I love working with her. Because she is smart and has more balls than most dudes have. I have no problem with women. I have problem with people who want special treatment. And these come in all sexes, colors, shapes and sizes.
Protip: when you are arguing with someone who is "on your side" as if they are your opponent, you might just be an overzealous douche who wants to argue too much.
Feminists look up the socioeconomic spectrum and see men as CEOs say, and want some of that for themselves and their friends. Fair enough, who doesn't want success? But they never look down and see the men mining coal, collecting trash, packing meat, pouring cement and all the other dirty, dangerous, low pay and low prestige jobs. We actually need those people far more than we do a new social network. Society collapses without them. That is something the movement is going to need to reconcile at some point.
This reads to me like you think only women are or can be feminists. So let me give you my perspective:
To the extent there are institutional barriers that prevent women from being able to get those jobs if they want them, those barriers should be torn down. But the reason that's not happening as fast isn't because women don't want those jobs, it's because no one wants those jobs. So for my part, I'm more concerned with the social factors -- gender, but more likely class politics -- that lead to anyone needing to do shitty dangerous work who doesn't really want to.
In brief, if society would collapse without them, we should be paying them a lot more, not relying on bullshit machismo and a lack of options. I consider that a feminist position.
Sure but there is an elephant in the corner of that room. Prestige is social standing, and social standing is deeply baked into mammals as a proxy for desirability as a mate.
You will hear feminist principles at work when someone wants to go up in social standing. But if the principle of equality is to be upheld it has to go the other way too, and it won't, so long as a persons job has anything to do with their social rank. What determines all this? Well the consensus of the tribe sure, but let's be completely frank: the collective opinion of the opposite sex about what signals desirability is what determines a lot more than we would comfortably admit structures our supposedly sophisticated society.
Okay, but... I feel like you're completely ignoring the feminist principle I just outlined to go on a little monologue. Is there any chance of us having a productive discussion that relates in some way what I actually wrote?
OK think about this: being a nurse is a low paid job[1] that involves, umm, cleaning up after other people. It is quite literally "a shitty job". But people still want to be nurses, and nurses have a high social status. So what is the difference between this, and one of the jobs you have identified that no one wants to do? It is entirely one of perception.
Sure. Perception, physical labor, bodily danger, advancement prospects, hours, locations, unions, a direct involvement in the lives of others, and, if you like, social status. Fine. Are you gonna drop the relevant part on me now?
What never stops amazing me that Feminism which is Left ideology, it's almost like Marxism in action. Well, it really is Marxism in action when I think about it. Well, this Marxist ideology is all about women being these capitalistic successful CEOs of these international corporations that are all about greed, greed, greed and profits. I'm sorry but it's quite literally impossible to take all this nonsense seriously. Feminism in all about special treatment for special interest group, that's all, just open your eyes to see.
Of course typical weak response attacking form and not the content. I didn't expect much more.
One of the reasons left is not at all that popular when it should be, for example in Greece, is that it forgot about its ideology and sold out to the capital. Hence feminist parties in Europe never above 1% vote. Hence Greek left is done and neo-nazis topping the polls. Once you sold your soul to the devil there is no coming back Mr. let's get CEO jobs for women.
So if you want political advise it would be don't be a whore sold to the capital. The age of conformism and technocrats in politics is over. It is all about the ground work, grassroots and standing for something in life nowadays. And I don't see feminists there. I see them in 100 richest and most powerful capitalist club instead. You are a fake.
Don't say never. You think police or fire departments or military are highly paid or safe? Many women have fought for the chance to show they can do those jobs.
Sure, that's where prestige comes in. For many people, the social standing of their job is as if not more important than their pay. But my point stands. Real equality must permeate all jobs.
I suppose there are some who want that, but many just want the opportunity. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Barring people from an activity strictly because of their gender or race is absurd. The race barrier has huge holes in it today, and the gender barrier is being torn apart as well.
Here's an example (from my example professions). Women in the police forces used to be relegated to meter maids, secretarial/administrative roles and other "safe" jobs. Promotion into positions like detective were not open, or only open for the rare ones that caught the right persons attention or had some other pull (family, political, whatever) or the one who did 10x what their male colleagues did to show they were capable. Today those barriers are gone (going away?).
Yes, those 'barriers' are gone because female firefighters, soldiers, etc. are subject to lesser physical requirements than the men are. Hope you're not too fat for her to carry you out of the burning building.
The part that is difficult for me to grasp is why they want to be 50% of all the CEOs but not of all the Policemen. I mean it's very easy for me to explain (i.e. they want special treatment for themselves). But I'd love to see you struggling to explain to me why is that and not look ridiculously funny.
>>Just do your job like any other gender and absolutely nobody will give two cents about what shape is in your pants.
Except people do care about gender. Studies have conclusively established that men and women earn drastically different amounts of money even if they do the same jobs. Men are also much more likely to be picked for promotions over women even if their performance is worse.
Honestly your comment is extremely ignorant and you would do well to go and educate yourself.
I'm not saying that I agree with her; and tech is far worse than most other industries about being male-dominated. Really, the bullshit workaholic culture at many companies is the root of the problem, but it's something that varies on a company-by-company basis.