The issue here is it's asking women to be activists. Few companies want activists. Most companies want to achieve fairness and equal opportunity, but they also do not like agitators (because one can never have control over agitators, you never can know their next target, so to be safe, most companies tend to not want them around).

It's the same conundrum with double agents. You agree with them helping your intelligence org, but you can never fully trust them. You cannot control their motivations (unless you hold their family hostage like they did in the USSR, etc.)

From that standpoint, this is not good advice. Leadership is key. You have to schmooze leadership and convince them it's the right thing, but not via these activist methods.

I hire teams and I absolutely encourage everyone to snitch if they see bad behavior. I will not tolerate abuse on a team I manage. Anyone who works for me is well aware they should snitch if they see bad behavior. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Substitute race for gender and this argument totally falls apart.

If you see a black colleague being treated unfairly and do nothing because you don't want to be seen as an "agitator" or "activist" then you are part of the problem. Full stop.

The same goes for women.

There is an interesting face to this coin though, the "don't be a snitch". You're saying "be a snitch".

Yes, being a snitch would probably improve the lives of people in lots of places, and yet it does not happen often because it can be destabilizing (despite people not liking the people they could snitch on). Companies do not like this "unknown". They do want to do the right thing, just not via activism/snitching. Because just as other groups of people who see the downsides of snitching, companies see the same.

This is asking too much from other women. Sure it’s a good thing for the group to pint out bad behavior, but it comes at a price for the individual doing the reporting.

I would never use the word "snitching" to describe sticking up for marginalized/mistreated people. Nor would I ever work for a company that sees it as such.

For me, no amount of money is worth compromising basic human decency but YMMV.

What's the difference?

Whether it's in school or your neighborhood or work. Stick up for what's proper in school or neighborhood labels you a snitch. You're trying to do what's right. And it is the right thing, it's just that people cannot trust that person from then on.

My god, where on earth do you live?

On a side note: companies usually don't want to do the right thing. They want to be perceived as wanting to do the right thing, while going down the easiest route.

But the easiest route won't cover applying the changes needed for the tech industry to become a place that's not a misogynistic dumpster fire.

Calling out what's wrong and pressing companies to leave the easiest route and actually do something about it will help. And that's — by the way — not snitching. It's called criticism.

Sticking up for someone being harassed or treated unfairly isn't "being a snitch"

I'm explaining why this isn't the best path toward equal treatment. Companies may agree with your specifics but not the method.

Snitching on the neighborhood bully would be a good thing. Snitching on a company cooking the books, etc. But people also can't trust the snitch. Companies can't trust activists (whatever their persuasion).

Some other expressions of this are seen as “men clam up” in front of me. Basically they now don’t want something to be misinterpreted. It’s to be expected.

>Snitching on the neighborhood bully would be a good thing. But people also can't trust the snitch.

You're projecting. Maybe you wouldn't trust the "snitch". Most educated people would see him/her as a victim and show sympathy.

This isn't prison for crying out loud.

This feels like a non-solution; implying that working harder solves mistreatment simply glosses over the work that women do, and could implicitly associate harassment with "poor performance".