Honestly, why take things like that personally? Why liken it to a ghetto? Is your pride really so hurt that someone wanted to help you out around the office that you refuse to believe that you could have learned anything useful from it? You can't even come out of it with another friend, a future business contact, an interpersonal skill, deeper knowledge of a workplace tool? It's great if some people don't think they need help overcoming sexist barriers in the office, some people do. No need to over-complicate it.

> Honestly, why take things like that personally? Why liken it to a ghetto?

Man, it's beyond irritating to see this kind "what's the big deal? just chill" type rhetoric used in this context. Particularly because it's a hard-fought (and ongoing) battle to stop this _same exact logic_ from being used to deflate complaints about what it's like for underrepresented minorities in the workplace.

The argument here was that being offered assistance is personally insulting. In this case, I think the "same exact logic" holds. Yes, the line of questioning is a bit of an abrasive way of putting someone on the defensive, but I wanted to have a clear and direct answer for why the ghetto comparison held.

My point is that all the arguments used to rebut this line of thinking when applied to more conventional complaints from underrepresented people apply just as well here. If "the same exact logic" holds, what exactly makes the same exact rebuttals magically invalid?

What are the rebuttals?

Usually it's something like "you can't minimize someone else's experience if they're expressing that it's affecting their work life", "clearly there's a problem since they are underrepresented", etc.

They're usually pretty unfalsifiable, but they're not unreasonable, and the line of acceptable discourse has been firmly drawn to exclude questioning them.

I'm skeptical that you're actually unaware of these rebuttals: if I said to someone something like "what's the big deal, who cares that you're the only Latina in this company, the only one making a big deal out of it is you", I'm sure these rebuttals would readily come to mind. If not because you believe them, then at least because they're so ubiquitous.

Deciding that they're appropriate just because you disagree with the specific policy being criticized is kind of weaselly.

> "what's the big deal? just chill" type rhetoric

I wish more people were like you. If everyone tried to assume the best of others until proven otherwise instead of assuming the worst we would all be much happier as a group

Sure, but that buddy system sure sounds a lot like pushing someone in a wheelchair, them asking you to stop, and you going on regardless. Unwanted help is unwanted.

"why take things personally?" The same could probably be asked of many of the "sexist barriers" you allude to. Intentions And pragmatism have never been relevant with regards to inclusivity; why should they now be? Because the offender has the right politics?

You're clearly not part of a minority group.

That's a confusing reaction to what I said and what I'm arguing against.

Edit: For the record, I'm a bisexual Mexican woman. Of course there are times when I perceive people as holding my hand too much and I know it can feel condescending. When I reflect on it, though, no, it's not the same brand of condescension that made my middle school teacher tell me I had no future in math. There's something strange about victimizing yourself out of fear that people are victimizing you.

An internship program for women at Microsoft isn't a ghetto; it can only come from a place of extreme privilege and ignorance to believe so.

Aren't your posts here telling the GP how important and useful a specific group for females is despite them explaining why they didn't want want to be a part of it a form of mansplaining?

Why are you assuming that I'm a man? Either way, these kinds of programs are useful for certain people and there are lots of other articles in defense of them. Just because one person didn't want to participate doesn't mean that other people aren't happy that they exist.

But why single out a given group? Why not offer everyone an "intern buddy"? Also, why change from opt-in to opt-out?

Do you believe decisions like this are randomly made?

> "Why not offer everyone an 'intern buddy'"

Female interns could have complained about sexual harassment, female interns could have had lower rates of accepting return offers, etc.

> "Also, why change from opt-in to opt-out"

The program had been going on for a while. They could have had data that suggested that female interns would be interested in such a program but had fears about bringing it to the attention of their managers or had fears of the repercussions of being one of the few who accepted.

As an aside, my first job involved mentoring software engineering interns.

I was the "intern buddy", and the policy was for all incoming interns regardless of their gender.

The transition from college to work life can be challenging for many people (it was for me, I wish I had an intern buddy), regardless of their gender.

Yeah, it seems to me like such a program would be a great addition to the onboarding process at many companies.

That sounds like a great program.

Do you believe that decisions like this exclude men because women are so much more fragile and need more help than men?

Do you think that men may not need similar help. "intern buddy" doesn't imply a gender role, and maybe should choose to be an inclusive concept instead of exclusive.

The also could have just winged it and made the decision without backing data based on the advice of a gender studies professional.

I don't know what reasons Microsoft had for making the program exclusive to women, because I think men would also benefit. Here's my guess: gender affects mentorship. An older man having a close working relationship with a young woman, inviting her out to lunch, and getting drinks after work carries implications that simply do not exist with a young man. Having these interactions take place within a socially sanctioned program helps everyone out because it clarifies the nature of the relationship to both the participants and the onlookers.

Microsoft didn't make the program.

Because it implies an opinion of weakness to the party offering said "help". Many people do not need or want help and forcing it on them only serves to enforce hidden power dynamics on behalf of the requestor.

What I really don't understand is how we men can act so innocent about all this. "Oh, I was just asking a question," "I didn't force her to do anything," "she was free to decline," "what, how could you not want help? Think of all the [rationalizations]!" and so on....

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Intentions are as clear as the sky on a sunny day...

People who see others as equals treat people differently than those who think they see a potential partner, or victim, or lackey...

EDIT: Also, "mansplaining"

You are super angry at something. Maybe that something is perfectly valid but it does not seem a reasonable reaction to the situation at hand.

You sound like the kind of person I would avoid interacting with at all costs because anything could result in non productive conflict. Have you considered people might be reacting to your hostility not your gender?

> You sound like the kind of person I would avoid interacting with at all costs

And yet...

There is limited risk in talking to strangers on the Internet unless you say horrendously racist things then become Internet famous for it.

I am. Technology was in such a good place; the internet was a buffet of information free and available perused mostly by nerds, the clueless, and the occasional asshat. Now that all this crap's gone mainstream, the best info was bought up, and positivity-sucking muggles have ruined all that's left.

So am I supposed to feel equally condescended to by the man in upper management who calls me "sweetie" and the woman who has organized some person to show me around the office and introduce me to people? Okay.

Why interpret one charitably and not the other? I survived being called "honey" by a woman in management; I didn't take offense because it would never occur to me to spin a well-intentioned comment for victim points. I fully realize that cute nicknames can be used in condescending tones, but then the issue is being condescending, not the nickname. I also realize that the genders are reversed, and that's supposed to make the nickname more offensive or invalidate my opinion or something; just to head this one off early--it doesn't.

Do they do it for everyone?

Benevolent sexism is still sexism.

As if condescension was a binary thing...

...and as with much of this stuff, much of it depends on context -- body language, situation, phrasing, intonation, and so on. A perfectly routine request or offer can quickly become patronizing depending on the manner in which it is asked, or by who. The vibe that I got from the original article was HOPPERS was one of those things -- help, ostensibly, but unnecessary and patronizing. Not in the same category as Mr. Sweetie Manager but still offensive.

Thinking humanity from first principles we need to help each other in order to help ourselves.

Good answer to a good (sincere) question. Thanks.

"Paternalistic" is the word that pops into my head. I really like "condescending" too.

Projecting the belief that we know what's best for other people, the arrogance, is why so many hate "liberal elites" like me. Whereas I'm trying to figure out ways to empower others, many of my cohort continue to unwittingly disempower others.

I definitely don't have any useful answers, insights.

(Aside: "liberal elites" are the mirror image of the "fundamentalists", for lack of better terms, who also know what's best for other people. This is not a left vs right issue.)