Men have to prove they are tough enough to part of a male group in the same settings. It's called hazing.
This isn't an IT thing, either.
You're saying that you're sure you will be flamed. While I, too, appreciate the softer feeling that women bring, it is also sexist to denigrate things male.
Maybe you need to read "Men Are From Mars" which has very useful insights into how men think and talk differently from women, because you seem to expect men to act like women (don't interrupt, don't be competitive), and they simply aren't hardwired that way
A stellar recommendation.
The OP describes a situation in which she was unable to cope with gender communication differences and expected men to communicate with her as women communicate with women.
Men talk over each other, too, often. Be more assertive. You could try to teach your male peers to be more sensitive, but somehow I suspect that self-change would be more fruitful if you're catching my drift. As one ascends the authority latter in a workplace, recall that some portion of the population there is going to be high on the testosterone scale.
While I cannot speak to your own specific work circumstances, and if you'll pardon me treating you like a statistic instead of a person (seriously, pardon me, please), I really don't think that men treat competent women in IT to be either a threat or the enemy.
Most of us are "like, kewl".
Now back to the more assertive thing. One of the things that guys are taught from when they are very young is friendly competition. Often girls aren't so much, and take these things personally. The mere feeling of it personally, if one doesn't act out, could set off a guy's danger detector. Act out on it, and yes, the enemy detector will go off very quickly.
You said you dropped out of IT, and that's a shame. Hope your new career is rewarding to you.
Well, I've certainly read (many times, over several years now) that there has been a collectively discovery by women that IT-related fields are less sociable than they might need in order to be satisfied with their career. What numbers and fields this reduces, too, I understand not well at all.
I think that what was being said, albeit rather insensitively, is this:
If you're the person in the position of deciding who the next project lead is, are you going to take a risk on the person who's not performing so well due to lack of sleep, or the person who's hungry for the role and at the top of their game?
The question is merely rhetorical.
There is a cost involved in the decision to have children, and at that point in someone's life, they are likely to carry some of that cost in their careers (for reasons associated with the rhetorical question, and others like it). I suspect that women carry a disproportionate burden from the men during that time. Note that unlike the person you are replying to, I have no notion of this being a "deserved" situation.
However. Consider. What if someone decides not to have children in their life, instead becoming "married to their career". Is it so wrong for these someone's to feel that their decisions should be rewarded also?
Or, how about this: we notice our peers get paternity leave. Only we've decided not to have children. What kind of leave should we enjoy.
I.e., this situation appears to be discriminatory against us in some ways.
My company offers family leave for the father when his non-employee spouse has a child. I personally saw a fellow do this, and during his off period another fellow was given the project lead position this guy was hoping for. Would we take away the lead position from the guy who got the job and proved himself doing it to take a risk on the guy who was in line for it, but missed it do to timing? Not so much.
This problem isn't gender-based at all. It just looks like it at first blush.
I didn't find the OP's remark's distasteful, because I took the remarks more along the lines of figurative. Overall, the general truth of women leaving IT is that they are finding that IT isn't scratching the social interaction itch that they were hoping for. Women are psychologically primed for more sociability than men, and frankly I think that men are much more likely than women to find IT-related work to be rewarding because of this. Hence the "oops, I only imagined this career was supposed to be for me" thing. Happens in a number of fields for different reasons. This explanation instead of the OP's is, of course, quite a lot more likely to be accurate.
While I get your point, you think nursing isn't well paid? Um. LOL. RN jobs break $100K out here, mon. Anyway....
Overall what you're saying is true. One of the reasons that I'm not entirely sympathetic (which is not to say I am not somewhat sympathetic) to all claims of gender-inequality for pay is that men tend to take dirty & dangerous jobs in a way that women do not. Also, as has been recently revealed by gender statistics coming from unemployment, men take jobs that can be less stable than jobs that the women take. A comprehensive analysis of any gender gap needs to cover all of these things.
You have to understand these things from the point of view of resource allocation. Given various things like intercepted diplomatic cables, signals of interest, and other things of interest to national security from verified threat nations, are you going to allocate your scarce resources to a financial crime when someone clamoring for the same resources may in fact be a senior in an intelligence agency or a multistar general in the armed services who could potentially blame your misuses of resources directly on the death of someone working in the US national interests should you make such a decision? HELL, NO.
It's even more interesting than that. If DARPA begins succeeding a lot, DARPA seniors end up having to explain to congress (yes, directly to congress) why it is they aren't forward-leaning enough. I.e., DARPA programs are expected to fail often, and congress uses this failure rate as pro forma information about how "researchy" DARPA is.
Yes. The lionshare of Europe's ability to socialize itself came from deferred defense costs due to having the US as their umbrella defender during the Cold War era. Shitty. And how stupid we are.
Yes. But what I meant was that if you go into a war with another country, you can expect that your own people will be the perpetrators. It just happens. It's part and parcel of the dehumanization aspects of military operations when it comes to the enemy. That, and an admission that event he best trained forces will always have a few sociopaths, statistically speaking. Anyway, deal is, if this happens, the locals who are the victims may begin to really hate you. So you better have a real good reason for being there.
While this matter is just my opinion, I think "World Cop" is not good enough of a reason. Frankly, I'm not even a big fan of alliances. To wit, if ever we get to where we believe it possible, I'm a fan of withdrawing from NATO. No comment about whether or not that's possible or wise right now. Not something I've analyzed, wouldn't be qualified to have an opinion...
Yes, it actually might be, depending upon one's measure of merit. USA as "World Cop" is one I adamantly oppose. I'm with the pre-WWII republicans on this one.
Part of the problem is that soldiers in an environment where killing is a regular thing get numbed to death rather quickly. The "other side" gets dehumanized. If you think about it, this process of dehumanization is almost essential psychologically for the soldier. It should therefore be no surprise that certain limits are transgressed once it happens.
I think the citizenry need to understand this better, both the essential need of the soldiers to detach themselves as well as the consequences. I think citizens would be a bit less rabid in demanding military outcomes were they more aware, for one. A second part of the problem is that when the citizens are really pissed, as they were after 9/11, they themselves have already dehumanized the situation to a degree.
If you think there has ever been a war where civilians didn't get murdered, you are kidding only yourself.
As an aside, I believe that the above is also literally true, unfortunately. One of the reasons that war should be avoided unless absolutely required is that murder, rape, and other terrible crimes will almost certainly occur on both sides, no matter how much you hope they wouldn't.
It's a fallacious argument to assert that just because one has been wrong before one is therefore wrong now,...
But it's not a fallacious argument to argue that if a source has been extremely unreliable in the past, that it is not a worthy investment of time or resource to evaluate it now.
The question is does his employer have claim on the code he wrote BEFORE starting employment.
Well; they hardly need a claim, as that code is GPL'd, I am to understand. Once they have a copy of a GPL'd work, if they wish to use it internally, they can do so.
But let's suppose it were not GPL'd. And let's say they wished to disseminate this code in some form. Suppose a former employee came at them and said, "well when I wrote this, I put in copyrighted works that are not yours to disseminate without tellin' ya. So you can't." The lawsuit on this would be a terrible stinger, mon. It's made of lose.
As for whether or not the OP will or will not "piss off" his employer for distributing work prior to employment, I won't comment, except to say that I do think he has the legal right to do so. I would suggest that some documentation that this was all true as of that date would be wise.
Now, as you may or (more likely) may not be aware, the English language was invented right here in little old Britain.
Well. As the case may be.
However, I would like to point out that while we may also be a former colony of yours, Tony Blair made it quite clear to the rest of the world that your a current colony of ours.
What's your languages spoken source? Anyway, I would think Washington DC is the appropriate target for comparison. Based on past stories of ethnic diversity that I have heard.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes well the word "intellect" had 3 syllables in it. I apologize for talking down to the gallery. I am so ashamed. :-)
Men have to prove they are tough enough to part of a male group in the same settings. It's called hazing.
This isn't an IT thing, either.
You're saying that you're sure you will be flamed. While I, too, appreciate the softer feeling that women bring, it is also sexist to denigrate things male.
C//
Those things which are "perfectly possible" are not the norm in any organization I have known as one ascends the ladder.
Maybe you need to read "Men Are From Mars" which has very useful insights into how men think and talk differently from women, because you seem to expect men to act like women (don't interrupt, don't be competitive), and they simply aren't hardwired that way
A stellar recommendation.
The OP describes a situation in which she was unable to cope with gender communication differences and expected men to communicate with her as women communicate with women.
C//
Men talk over each other, too, often. Be more assertive. You could try to teach your male peers to be more sensitive, but somehow I suspect that self-change would be more fruitful if you're catching my drift. As one ascends the authority latter in a workplace, recall that some portion of the population there is going to be high on the testosterone scale.
While I cannot speak to your own specific work circumstances, and if you'll pardon me treating you like a statistic instead of a person (seriously, pardon me, please), I really don't think that men treat competent women in IT to be either a threat or the enemy.
Most of us are "like, kewl".
Now back to the more assertive thing. One of the things that guys are taught from when they are very young is friendly competition. Often girls aren't so much, and take these things personally. The mere feeling of it personally, if one doesn't act out, could set off a guy's danger detector. Act out on it, and yes, the enemy detector will go off very quickly.
You said you dropped out of IT, and that's a shame. Hope your new career is rewarding to you.
C//
Well, I've certainly read (many times, over several years now) that there has been a collectively discovery by women that IT-related fields are less sociable than they might need in order to be satisfied with their career. What numbers and fields this reduces, too, I understand not well at all.
I think that what was being said, albeit rather insensitively, is this:
If you're the person in the position of deciding who the next project lead is, are you going to take a risk on the person who's not performing so well due to lack of sleep, or the person who's hungry for the role and at the top of their game?
The question is merely rhetorical.
There is a cost involved in the decision to have children, and at that point in someone's life, they are likely to carry some of that cost in their careers (for reasons associated with the rhetorical question, and others like it). I suspect that women carry a disproportionate burden from the men during that time. Note that unlike the person you are replying to, I have no notion of this being a "deserved" situation.
However. Consider. What if someone decides not to have children in their life, instead becoming "married to their career". Is it so wrong for these someone's to feel that their decisions should be rewarded also?
Or, how about this: we notice our peers get paternity leave. Only we've decided not to have children. What kind of leave should we enjoy.
I.e., this situation appears to be discriminatory against us in some ways.
C//
My company offers family leave for the father when his non-employee spouse has a child. I personally saw a fellow do this, and during his off period another fellow was given the project lead position this guy was hoping for. Would we take away the lead position from the guy who got the job and proved himself doing it to take a risk on the guy who was in line for it, but missed it do to timing? Not so much.
This problem isn't gender-based at all. It just looks like it at first blush.
C//
I didn't find the OP's remark's distasteful, because I took the remarks more along the lines of figurative. Overall, the general truth of women leaving IT is that they are finding that IT isn't scratching the social interaction itch that they were hoping for. Women are psychologically primed for more sociability than men, and frankly I think that men are much more likely than women to find IT-related work to be rewarding because of this. Hence the "oops, I only imagined this career was supposed to be for me" thing. Happens in a number of fields for different reasons. This explanation instead of the OP's is, of course, quite a lot more likely to be accurate.
C//
While I get your point, you think nursing isn't well paid? Um. LOL. RN jobs break $100K out here, mon. Anyway....
Overall what you're saying is true. One of the reasons that I'm not entirely sympathetic (which is not to say I am not somewhat sympathetic) to all claims of gender-inequality for pay is that men tend to take dirty & dangerous jobs in a way that women do not. Also, as has been recently revealed by gender statistics coming from unemployment, men take jobs that can be less stable than jobs that the women take. A comprehensive analysis of any gender gap needs to cover all of these things.
C//
No, but calling someone else's language "big words" might be an act of anti-intellect. Or failing to see the humor in context: the same.
You have to understand these things from the point of view of resource allocation. Given various things like intercepted diplomatic cables, signals of interest, and other things of interest to national security from verified threat nations, are you going to allocate your scarce resources to a financial crime when someone clamoring for the same resources may in fact be a senior in an intelligence agency or a multistar general in the armed services who could potentially blame your misuses of resources directly on the death of someone working in the US national interests should you make such a decision? HELL, NO.
C//
It's even more interesting than that. If DARPA begins succeeding a lot, DARPA seniors end up having to explain to congress (yes, directly to congress) why it is they aren't forward-leaning enough. I.e., DARPA programs are expected to fail often, and congress uses this failure rate as pro forma information about how "researchy" DARPA is.
Joe.
Yes. The lionshare of Europe's ability to socialize itself came from deferred defense costs due to having the US as their umbrella defender during the Cold War era. Shitty. And how stupid we are.
C//
Yes. But what I meant was that if you go into a war with another country, you can expect that your own people will be the perpetrators. It just happens. It's part and parcel of the dehumanization aspects of military operations when it comes to the enemy. That, and an admission that event he best trained forces will always have a few sociopaths, statistically speaking. Anyway, deal is, if this happens, the locals who are the victims may begin to really hate you. So you better have a real good reason for being there.
While this matter is just my opinion, I think "World Cop" is not good enough of a reason. Frankly, I'm not even a big fan of alliances. To wit, if ever we get to where we believe it possible, I'm a fan of withdrawing from NATO. No comment about whether or not that's possible or wise right now. Not something I've analyzed, wouldn't be qualified to have an opinion...
C//
Yes, it actually might be, depending upon one's measure of merit. USA as "World Cop" is one I adamantly oppose. I'm with the pre-WWII republicans on this one.
C//
That was an insightful piece. Thank you for writing it. Can't mod ya up, as I'm in the thread two posts up, but as the case may be.
I agree. Firm internal policing is essential.
Part of the problem is that soldiers in an environment where killing is a regular thing get numbed to death rather quickly. The "other side" gets dehumanized. If you think about it, this process of dehumanization is almost essential psychologically for the soldier. It should therefore be no surprise that certain limits are transgressed once it happens.
I think the citizenry need to understand this better, both the essential need of the soldiers to detach themselves as well as the consequences. I think citizens would be a bit less rabid in demanding military outcomes were they more aware, for one. A second part of the problem is that when the citizens are really pissed, as they were after 9/11, they themselves have already dehumanized the situation to a degree.
C//
If you think there has ever been a war where civilians didn't get murdered, you are kidding only yourself.
As an aside, I believe that the above is also literally true, unfortunately. One of the reasons that war should be avoided unless absolutely required is that murder, rape, and other terrible crimes will almost certainly occur on both sides, no matter how much you hope they wouldn't.
C//
It's a fallacious argument to assert that just because one has been wrong before one is therefore wrong now,...
But it's not a fallacious argument to argue that if a source has been extremely unreliable in the past, that it is not a worthy investment of time or resource to evaluate it now.
C//
I agree with you. Something like CUDA will be required.
C//
The question is does his employer have claim on the code he wrote BEFORE starting employment.
Well; they hardly need a claim, as that code is GPL'd, I am to understand. Once they have a copy of a GPL'd work, if they wish to use it internally, they can do so.
But let's suppose it were not GPL'd. And let's say they wished to disseminate this code in some form. Suppose a former employee came at them and said, "well when I wrote this, I put in copyrighted works that are not yours to disseminate without tellin' ya. So you can't." The lawsuit on this would be a terrible stinger, mon. It's made of lose.
As for whether or not the OP will or will not "piss off" his employer for distributing work prior to employment, I won't comment, except to say that I do think he has the legal right to do so. I would suggest that some documentation that this was all true as of that date would be wise.
C//
I thought you couldn't name a corporation in small claims court action? Nice if you can.
Now, as you may or (more likely) may not be aware, the English language was invented right here in little old Britain.
Well. As the case may be.
However, I would like to point out that while we may also be a former colony of yours, Tony Blair made it quite clear to the rest of the world that your a current colony of ours.
"Oh, snap".
What's your languages spoken source? Anyway, I would think Washington DC is the appropriate target for comparison. Based on past stories of ethnic diversity that I have heard.
C//