>"Some things went well, others not so well. I am not giving you a list specifying each. It has nothing to do with your technical skills; that is normal to have room for improvement. We just feel there is a lack of chemistry with the team."

>

>This is just the way things are, especially in tech. It's not sexist, it's just unfair and dumb and political. And it's applied to all individuals. I've had it applied to me. I've been in management conversations on how to approach others to apply it to. This just isn't sexist.

I think what you're missing is that the reason a statement like this was visited upon you, or whomever poor soul you visted upon in turn, may not be sexist in your case but perhaps so in the author's.

Precisely as you point out: it's dumb and political. The reasoning isn't going to be good and it's going to be opaque. Well, sexism, racism, etc are dumb, political, and opaque.

> may not be sexist in your case but perhaps so in the author's.

'Perhaps' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. I'm convinced social media is raising a generation of mind-readers.

I'm convinced it has made people a bit lacking in resilience. Everything anyone utters is suspect or to be picked apart to find even a hint of offensive content.

Some might say we're just surfacing issues that society has repressed in an unhealthy way, and I understand that to a degree, but I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far.

Not everything is racist, sexist, rude, or malicious, even unintentionally. That someone interprets or perceives such a thing shouldn't mean we automatically validate or legitimize that perception.

>Carl is a difficult person to work with

sidenote - it is still, after more than 2 decades here, amuses me how people are allowed here to be "difficult to work with". Back in Russia - i was an engineer and later manager there - we didn't have "difficult to work with" persons, at least by the end of the first week of employment of any given person.

> The second is a gross demonstration of "anecdotes are not data."

The second one doesn't even support the premise. Video games aren't more "technical" than Facebook.

The "willing to learn" case was construed as sexist since she was a diversity hire who did not undergo the same hiring process as her colleagues. While the double standard may have given her an advantage in being hired, it was a disadvantage with respect to her future prospects. The company did not know how to utilize her strengths nor what weaknesses had to be addressed. In effect, they abdicated responsibility for her success within the company prior to even interviewing her. This was not the case for non-diversity hires. Her interpretation is legitimate.

Plenty of other things she notes were sexist; pointing out that one is just absurd. It's more or less the advice senior staff are encouraged to give junior staff regardless of context in almost every manager/senior training program I've ever been in.

I understand the argument you're making (that in this context it's sexist, even if it's not sexist in other contexts), I just completely disagree with it.

Just to be clear, I am supporting her interpretation of the statement. I am not claiming that the statement itself is sexist, intentionally or unintentionally, even in this context. We don't know what was going through her mentor's head when they said it. Even if we did, they were probably given incomplete information about her background and may have been given inaccurate information.

The problem lies with the company creating the framework for her interpretation. It set the tone for her tenure, a tone that implied that she was facing an uphill battle since she was hired in spite of her qualifications. That tone would understandably (in my opinion) alter the meaning of what was being said. In this case, the intent may have been to encourage her but the interpretation was that they saw her as unqualified.

Well nobody respects diversity hires because they weren't put to the test at the same standards. It's like getting a job because your parents are wealthy, people don't respect those. That is until they prove themselves somehow, if the stigma sticks after that then it might be sexist/racist...ist.

Personally I believe these "quotas" systems hurt more than they help, if you don't subject people to the same high standard test they don't improve, because they don't have technical challenges to overcome. That's why I never participate in them

>"Boys are just predisposed for technology by nature, and there is nothing we can do. I see it in my children: While my son prefers video games, my daughter only cares about Facebook."

Well you're not supposed to say that though there may be some differences between the sexes. Like myself and my sister fit the stereotype.