I had the exact same thought and then immediately realized it was bullshit. If it was a man I think I would question their role and I think that’s true of most people. It’s hard to say after the fact.
Some people don’t have these biases but most people who think they don’t are just full of shit.
When cops do this it’s entrapment but when a hiring manager does it... it’s good. I guess the police should go out and entrap as many people as they can I’m sure they’ll find a few criminals among the population.
Why not have the CEO role play a custodian with a mop and flip out when candidates make assumptions?
No, when cops do what's described, it's called an undercover assignment. Entrapment is when the police encourage the forbidden behavior. In no way shape nor form is having a woman greet you coming near entrapment.
As for having a CEO play custodian, sure, it's a poor use of my time in leadership, but at the end of the day, I don't care who is carrying a mop around the office. I do care about keeping out the shitheads who feel they're entitled to disrespect someone because they're carrying a mop.
She was all "Feel free" and didn't budge an inch on her awful behavior so he did, in fact, close his account. For which I believe she was fired because he was the owner of a construction company and his accounts were worth millions.
The "test" is "are you shitty toward women".
Making assumptions and then acting on those assumptions (particularly in a hiring scenario) is, indeed, shitty shithead behavior.
> Before I begin the infamous “cola punching” story, I should point out that I am quite short, and sport curly ringlets atop my short head. It’s been a constant battle to be taken seriously in the workplace; I detest the word “cute,” and woe betide anyone who perceives me as such.
...she's just setting herself up for disappointment- repeatedly. I'm also rather short and baby-faced and clients and coworkers are often surprised when I tell them I'm nearing 30 when I could just as easily be the fresh intern not a day older than 18. People aren't necessarily going to be malicious with behaviors like those. Could it be internalized misogyny/ageism or something along those lines and that no matter what it'd be out of the line? Maybe, but it wouldn't come from a place of genuine malice.
That's a stretch.
But, as always, once to step into an office treat it like the police. Anything you say or do is taken note of and observed. If you have two equally qualified candidates (from either POV) most will opt for the more favorable one.
A more professional organization will send the candidate a schedule with the people they’ll speak with and their titles to avoid stupid guessing games.
If you aren't provided with a schedule, ask for one.
I would have preferred to see some analysis of how she has had to and did adjust to the way men think, some tips for colleagues welcoming women, something she appreciated in working with men, some area she uniquely shone because she was a woman in a male environment, etc.
What we got was a thinly veiled foregone conclusion of "anything I don't like is discrimination because I'm a woman" and "the problem is men". As usual, she is merely the victim, has no agency and no interest in a non-gynocentric perspective. As it stands, there is little to be gained from her post besides discouraging women from joining up and demonising men.
Also, your suggestion about presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic. The insidious thing about experiencing prejudice is that it can be very difficult for a reasonable person to be sure whether it's real or whether it's in their head—by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on.
Did you find any evidence of sexism in her first example? Is it unreasonable to say she jumped to her own conclusions there?
Do you think there might have been more going on in her second example than "sexism" when she got seated in a supply closet? Is it reasonable to assume no one went to lunch with her just because she was a woman?
> presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic
As opposed to her one-sided anecdotal "evidence" of a sector structurally ill-adapted to women that she somehow stuck with for 20 years anyway? The fact she stuck with it so long is indicative that there must be upsides, none of which she mentions because she wasn't interested in providing a measured or constructive account - she wanted to write about sexism.
> by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on.
That's precisely it: her account isn't factual, it's anecdotal with all the inherent biases and one-sided interpretation that go along with that.
What nutritional value are you deriving? What did you find actionable or insightful? What are reasonable men to take away from her post? What are women, aside from "don't join up"?
- I would have guessed that the person who greeted me, showed me where to sit, and asked if I needed anything before leaving was a receptionist regardless of gender. That seems like an unfair strike/test.
- I'm always surprised by how stupid people are. Being nice to the receptionist isn't just good standard human behavior, but it's also obvious that a receptionist will have input on the hiring process.
Unspecific thoughts:
- I'm always bummed when writing about sexism is laden with sexism ("Tech bros" being thrown around like an insult a lot here -- maybe don't use a gender pronoun in your insults?).
- I'm always bummed that sexism exists at all, because I'm so naively un-maliciousness that I forget some people are the exact opposite. When I read stories like this, I have a hard time believing them because they're so out side the realm of how I would act/behave, but I definitely believe it all.