It seems to me that this is where the men on the team can help: As a man, I'd volunteer to take notes.

Of course, this may not be tempting, because you may be on the kind of team where you just know that, if you volunteer to do some thankless task, you'll be stuck with it forever. And that is an entirely different kind of problem. But it's a problem that should not be covered up by deploying sexism.

I don't understand the "as a man" part. That's further propagating the problem.

I'd rather we point out "sexist behavior" to help make it stop vs introduce an even more subtler sexist behavior

In your senario: You, as a man, aware that she as a women, can get treated differently, so you will then treat her differently based on that.

You see, you are still treating her differently, where ultimately, no one treats her differently.

Reminds me of this quote from Morgan Freeman in an interview

Wallace: Black History Month you find...

Freeman: Ridiculous.

Wallace: Why?

Freeman: You're going to relegate my history to a month?

Wallace: Oh, come on...

Freeman: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month?

Wallace: Well...

Freeman: Come on, tell me.

Wallace: I'm Jewish.

Freeman: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?

Wallace: There isn't one.

Freeman: Oh. Oh. Why not? Do you want one?

Wallace: No. No.

Freeman: Alright. I don't either. I don't want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

Wallace: How are we going to get rid of racism...?

Freeman: Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman.

> I don't understand the "as a man" part. That's further propagating the problem.

...

> You see, you are still treating her differently, where ultimately, no one treats her differently.

Actually, everyone is treating her differently. The problem isn't just that people see men and women differently. That's almost impossible to change in the short term. In the short term, all you can do is try to get people to treat each other fairly.

I've no opinion on whether or not "Black History Month" is a good idea or not. Maybe it's a piss-poor token effort. Maybe Freeman doesn't care, because people treat him fairly, as he's outrageously successful, but other African Americans don't get treated fairly unless people make a big deal about doing so (which they usually do, thanks to a huge amount of anti-black-discrimination sentiment ... Latinos aren't so lucky). I'm not an American. I don't even know what "Black History Month" is.

There's three things that should happen - everyone should try to treat everyone else fairly, people should stick up for groups of people who are treated unfairly (whether they are a member of that group or not), and people should try not to think of people as belonging to any particular group. But when a group is treated unfairly, if you don't think of them as a group (on occasion), you can't stick up for them.

What I'm saying is that your shouldn't primarily consider someone to be defined by their (race / gender / height / whatever), but should occasionally stop to think about whether people might be getting treated unfairly, and do something about it if they are.

I'd consider saying "maybe I should take notes, because it's not fair that the girl always seems to do it, and (name) is busy with her presentation right now".

in the long run, for the survival of the race, we'd better continue to treat them differently. Get over it already!! Women are different! All this pc stuff is drivel.

Please elaborate. Firstly, why is it necessary to treat them differently for "the survival of the race"? Secondly, yes, Women are different, but that doesn't mean that

a: It's appropriate to comment on a woman's cleavage at work

or b: that women can't be equally good software developers

I agree. I think though that you have to be more clear. I believe when you say "for the survival of the race" what you mean is that woman want to be with men whom they respect. I feel like that is true. Certainly woman are also different. However, when it comes to being in the workplace, I think what the OP and most of the people here are trying to get at is using better judgement. We are not animals here. We treat woman with the same respect that we treat men, while simultaneously recognizing that we ought not act the same around them as we do around men, or maybe specifically of men we are friends with.

PC is drivel. agreed. being respectful: definitely not.

Where did I "treat her differently"? I'd like to think that if there was any other member of my team that was consistently getting stuck making tea and taking notes, I'd do the same for him. Indeed, I have done that in the past.

It's true that people, observing just this one incident in isolation, might conclude that I was "treating her differently" because she was female. I can't help that. I, too, am stuck in the society we have, the one where people make assumptions like you have just made, and as you point out it's not productive to tell people not to assume such things, no more than if I asked them not to think of an elephant. If anyone asks why I "treated her differently" I'll say what I just said: Team members are team members, none of them should be stuck with the boring stuff all the time unless they really enjoy making tea.

Meanwhile, I used the rather clumsy phrase "as a man" not because I enjoy writing clumsily, nor as some sort of political statement, but just to get the mental picture clear: I'm a guy, who looks like a nerdy guy, and when I make tea I look like a nerdy guy making tea. I suppose I could have left that ambiguous, as I usually do online - hey, on the internet nobody needs to know that you're really a beagle who can cite SICP and make tea - but in a conversation that's essentially about the optics of an in-person social interaction I felt it was kind of important that we all try to envision an actual room, with an actual team, one member of which is a middle-aged guy who is stepping out to make some tea.

If I could upvote this twice, I would. The labels we use for each other are an elephant in the room. A lot of people came to this country and worked very hard to build it. Some by choice, others by duress. The ones who came by choice made mad bank and their descendants received all the benefits of a raised standard of living. Meanwhile, a great percentage of the descendants who came in shackles are still struggling to raise the standard of living for themselves and their families.

This has nothing to do with skin tone and everything to do with perception. Your feet follow your eyes.

Exactly. The moment we stop looking at "men" and "women" or "black" and "white" and start looking at "people" is when these things are truly sorted out.

This is never going to happen, and IMHO should not. Equality is not equivalency and none of us are colour blind. The key is accepting differences when they ARE there. That said, class is a way bigger difference than race. :P

EDIT: I'm definitely not saying that the subjective perceived differences in gender and race are real, or that bigotry and ignorance are cool.

Where I disagree with you on "colour blindness" is that your statement assumes that gender and race are reasonable and obvious ways of categorizing people. How often do you group people by whether or not their earlobes are attached? Or by the curliness of their hair? We have made gender, race, etc important constructs. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to make them unimportant.

Accepting differences is a good thing. However the magnitude of the perceived difference can make accepting it either easier or harder

We are all different, but that doesn't mean we must be treated different at all times.

At work we are all workers. We may be treated differently depending on our position within the company, because that is relevant to our job and duties. But how is it relevant and useful to treat employees or colleagues differently because they are this or that? Does it bring any more profit, productivity or anything positive at all?

We can't be looking at these differences all the time, because most of the time they do not matter at all within the context. This is what people don't get.

Let me add some more. People here being called "african-american", "asian-american", "japanese-american", "indian-american" (different from the "Indians" who are the original (native) Americans) and so on. This shows the inherent racist bigotry prevalent and the sense of entitlement felt by the WASPy americans. Why not call all Americans (whether by birth or naturalized) as Americans instead of differentiating? On the same lines, I'd suggest calling white americans from Europe as "white caucasian americans", "italian-americans", "irish-americans", "british-americans" etc. Oh, and one more, China != Asia. Asia consists of a LOT many countries, not just China. A very relevant editorial cartoon last year by Steve Kelly of the Times-Picayune on the immigrant issue, too.

As a man, I've handled this by being the one to turn it into an obvious sexist thing by making a joke aloud "yeah, Sarah, boss says it's your turn to take notes again because, you know, you're the only girl at the table :P. Ha ha ha ha."

Everyone laughs, boss realizes what he's doing, Sarah is off the hook.

Yes, your comment may get Sarah off the hook, but I'd probably feel even more offended by that comment than by the boss' request.

If she has the courage to display any disdain over your overtly sexism comment though, perhaps the boss would take (mental) note.

At the same time, the boss may not even be aware of the sexism in the initial request--he/she may rationalize the request/decision after-the-fact, even if it were made in a sexist light at a subconscious level. In that case, that comment may end up offending both the boss and Sarah.

(And yes, women in management sometimes are more sexist against female subordinates than male counterparts.)

If you follow up your comment with an apology and an offer to take notes, however, everyone will feel better.

His turn of phrase suggested to me that said overtly sexist common would me delivered with sufficiently dripping sarcasm to make it clear he wasn't in favour of the idea.

I think I might say "yes, boss, because the possession of a penis renders one incapable of note taking, obviously" instead but that's more about the turn of phrase of my sense of humour than anything else.

How is that remotely offensive? I think you need to re-read his post.

If you worked in a "traditional" corporate environment, you would know why it's offensive. General rule of thumb is, don't say it if you wouldn't say it to your mother. I certainly wouldn't say that to my mother.

Edit: to elaborate, corporations aren't concerned with being labeled as sexist. They are worried about being sued because of sexism, because it's one of the toughest kinds of corporate lawsuits to defend against, and one of the most lucrative kinds of lawsuits for the plaintiff. (IANAL though)

And I, in turn, would blurt out, "yeah, Sarah's a girl because she doesn't menstruate. Hahaha" and everyone would grow more uncomfortable.

Edit: it's really sad that HN has such a devotion to using the word "girl" to describe women. It's flat-out demeaning, whether you want to admit it or not.

I found an article about racism in the antebellum South and the cultural norm of referring to an adult black man as a "boy".

I never really considered that calling a woman a 'girl' was a way to demean or lower them in status (I do use the word on occasion). I think the key difference is that I would never address a woman as a girl ("Come here, girl") but I may refer to someone as a girl if she in her 20's or younger ("Hey, that girl dropped her college id, can you give it to her?) Or I might say "Do you want to see if any of the girls in accounting want to go to lunch?"

Is this really the bar for modern-day sexism?

In modern feminist circles they have apparently settled on "lady" as a dignified compromise between the infantilising "girl" and the sometimes undesirably serious "woman."

How is it not demeaning and condescending to call an adult woman by the word used to describe the immature state of her sex?

Why can't you simply say "women"? What's the impediment? Why do you so cling to "girl"?

I agree that there are contexts where calling a woman a "girl" is demeaning and condescending. This is clear. And I think labeling a word as "demeaning" requires one of two things: a subjective component (the response of the person at whom the word was directed believing the word was demeaning) or an objective component (the intent of the speaker of the word intending it to be demeaning). I think if we agree with this, it isn't hard to fabricate examples where calling an adult female a "girl" is, in fact, demeaning.

Now if we agree on that, then to make any absolute claim that calling a woman a "girl" is demeaning then we must either make some universal claim about the intent of all those who use the word or a universal claim about the reaction of all those that hear it. I think either of those claims might be overreaching. Or maybe I'm just setting the bar too high.

We obviously live in different parts of the world with different social expectations for language use. Beyond a certain point, arguing about when it is ok to say woman or girl is just pointless bickering over divergent cultural expectations and nothing more.

I respect your viewpoint, you have definitely made me think. I now consider myself a Level 3 misogynist (up from 1).

I've yet to hear my girlfriend (or any of her friends) use the word "man" or "men." Exclusively "boys" or "boy."

I find that demeaning as well. I also take it as a signal of the speaker's maturity level.

> Of course, this may not be tempting, because you may be on the kind of team where you just know that, if you volunteer to do some thankless task, you'll be stuck with it forever.

That is only the second thing that came to my mind.

The other "danger" is being the only guy to act like that, then looking like a desperate "white knight" to the brogrammer crowd. Which sucks, because these exist and can be terribly creepy, and that gets you onto the women's side of the sexism.

Not that it is a valid reason, of course.

You have to be careful how you do it as well. Because I offered to do a task like that (it wasn't note taking, I think it was making tea) saying something like [names changed] "Chris, I'm not sure why Amy is always asked to make the tea! I'll happily do it".

Which I thought was politely volunteering whilst also publicly raising my bosses problematic behaviour - an educational experience.

I got glowering dagger stares from "Amy", and afterwards she told me she felt humiliated because I'd exposed her as a target of sexism, which made her feel like a failure.

Which is awful that it had come to that (and in retrospect I was an idiot...).

So; use this approach with caution!

Edit: though in my defence "Chris" did improve no end after that; giving"Amy" only her fair share of mundane tasks, etc.

Thanks for the story. This is why, though my approach has been gently and justly accused of being "passive" downthread, the passivity is the key in this case.

Don't overtly "defend" Amy. (Or Chuck, or any teamaker of any gender, for that matter.) Don't use the word "sexism", don't start doing math on how often each team member has been asked to make tea in the last two years, and don't otherwise call attention to your noble sacrifice (which, as you've seen, in an otherwise-mostly-male crowd serves to throw an uncomfortable spotlight on Amy). Say as little as possible. Just make tea. Try to win the initiative: If you start the job first, it can pre-empt argument over who is going to do it. Or if you lose the initiative, but Amy has interrupted her typing to start making the tea, say something like "hey, if you'd like to keep writing I'll make the tea today". (If she says no, don't press.)

If you inadvertently attract too much attention, you can make a joke about how much you enjoy tea. Quote some Hitchhiker's Guide or something. It's amazing how useful random whimsy can be.

Now, of course if you're always missing from the start of every key meeting because you're making tea the folks in the meeting may be liable to demote you in their minds. This is a sad but true fact of politics: Act like the doormat, and you'll become the doormat. There is a reason why badly-gelled teams tend to try and assign lousy jobs to the person with the weakest political position. So this might not be your final move in this game. But you may be in a better strategic position than Amy to negotiate the necessary change (which could be: rotating the tea-making role through the team, getting catered tea, moving an electric kettle into the corner of the conference room, or just "forgetting" to make the tea and seeing what happens: Maybe the team will settle on one of the above alternatives, or maybe it'll turn out that tea just isn't important enough after all to be worth the risk of introducing hierarchy into an otherwise egalitarian team.)

I've been thinking about this, and to be honest that could equally be seen as sexist, and also backfire.

Things like But you may be in a better strategic position than Amy to negotiate the necessary change could certainly be considered sexist if voiced. What you are suggesting is much the same as what I did do - simply missing out the overt portion.

It has advantages; it probably saves people being put in awkward positions, on the spot. But it could take longer, and backfire on you personally. And theoretically (I suppose) it could solidify ones own even-more-subtle sexism.

This is why I struggle with situations of equality in general. I think the whole issue is a minefield where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And any thought process will end up offending someone.

Ultimately the key is to do whatever you do for the right reasons. The wrong reasons are probably "because she cant stand up for herself" and the right reason is probably "because that doesn't seem right". With empathy and common sense applied in spades.

As you say; this is a lot easier to address in a cohesive environment. By my observation - if people are playing office politics the sexism is probably just one part of an overall game.

Things like But you may be in a better strategic position than Amy to negotiate the necessary change* could certainly be considered sexist if voiced.*

Trying to teach manners through the Internet is like trying to teach bicycling by correspondence course.

Yes, of course I wouldn't say that out loud, ever, except in a high-level meta-conversation about an imaginary office populated by imaginary people drinking imaginary tea. In the real world, I would ideally say nothing at all, except perhaps "I'm going to make some tea; would anyone like some?" And then there would be tea. Delicious tea.

Heh :) I was playing devils advocate, mostly to highlight how even that thought process could be construed in the same way as my overt actions.

I agree, with the action you mention in the last paragraph - that is the action I should have taken.

What I was questioning was the thought process behind that action, and arguing it was little different to my own, could also be seen as sexist, and is only "OK" by virtue of being not-overt :)

Mostly I was thinking aloud.

Now, coffee break.

Day 1: "My turn to make the tea" Day 2: let $amy make the tea Day 3: "You did it yesterday, I'll do it again - I guess the rest of these fucks are too lazy or incompetent to use a fucking teapot."

(adjust word choice for the day 3 variant to an appropriate level for your team's social context)

There's some research showing that people associate "bullying" with childhood. After that they think that being bullied makes them weak; or that they couldn't be bullies because that's something that kids do and adults are rational.

This NewYorker article (which I found via Longform) about the trial of Dharun Ravi (over the completed suicide of Tyler Clementi) has a tiny snippet about that.

(http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_...)

Your experience shows just how serious the problem is - people don't know or think they're being sexist; the target of that behaviour don't want to speak out because they're told to "just lighten up" or they don't want to appear "weak" and other people don't speak out because it feels awkward or not the right time or whatever.

And it's not just sexism; there's 'hetero normative' and racist and anti-disabled stuff going on all the time. And this anti-disability stuff is important for programmers - people on the Autistic spectrum (which covers Asperger's Syndrome) are covered by English Equalities laws, yet we see open mocking of people with Asperger's.

Amy shouldn’t be blaming herself for being the victim of sexist behavior. You could have tried to convince her of that. Even though you didn’t, you weren’t an idiot here. Aside from her internal negative reaction, the situation was actually improved.

From the sound of it, she's not. She's blaming ErrantX. What I gather is, she didn't feel offended, and rather, by him doing what he did, make her feel as if others saw her as being "offended."

I think that is much more likely the case.

The question is, should ErrantX be offended for other people? If he's offended, he should speak up. But being offended for other people implies they are also offended. And, if they aren't, sends the wrong signals.

We discussed it in depth after, because we are close friends (which helped).

It wasn't so much exposing her as being offended; she was put out by the treatment, but had gotten used to it over time. To the extent it didn't bother her any more (the more I tell this anecdote, the more awful it seems really!). When I raised it as an issue, publicly, it brought all of that back.

In addition it made her feel that everyone saw her as being targeted, and unable to cope with it (partly because we were so close, she imagined they saw her getting me to stand up for her where she could not). Whereas before she could think of it as a private upset between her and "Chris".

I never even thought of it in that context; "Chris" was doing something inappropriate, I felt that calling him on it would be a good way to resolve it for everyone.

What I missed is that it could affect "Amy" in unexpected ways. A private conversation with "Chris" would probably have been better...

So, yes, she blamed me. And herself. But only really in the heat of the moment - after the fact she was grateful, just wished I'd done it another way.

One thing she did say was that her initial reaction was that I was just as bad (sexist) because it looked like I saw her as unable to stand up for herself (which wasn't what my thought process was, I should add!). But after she realised that actually she hadn't stood up for herself on this issue. That blurs the line so much on terms like sexism.

So I learned; human social interaction is blooming complicated!

Thanks for the followup! Very informative. Unfortunately, it only leads to more questions, as you seem to clearly understand (Clearly understanding your confusion seems an odd thing to say).

Luckily, you were close friends. This makes things much easier. This lends weight to my worry about sticking up for other people when they show no signs of bother. Should I have been offended for Amy? I don't know her. As you pointed out, if I did, that would be just as sexist.

Let's be clear here, I'd probably feel uncomfortable for the person being denigrated in such a manner. But what is my responsibility?

I mention this because all to often people are quick to say "Hey, I'd jump in to defend a person," and while well meaning, it's just not that easy. Even women can't agree on this (not that they should). On one hand, Amy was perfectly content and these things didn't bother her. On the other hand, in some manner of speaking, they are still wrong. The move Shallow Hal comes to mind here (to some extent, as ignorance isn't the key part here).

This leads me to my way of thinking. Unless it's out right obvious and offends me, I'm not going to rush to the defense of someone because I think they should be offended. However, I will support people who do come out and clearly state they are offended, and support them. If they accept the treatment (for example, always taking notes at the meeting) without a word, who am I to treat them like a defenseless child incapable of defending themselves.

Supporting the person after they've made it clear they aren't happy with the mistreatment, on the other hand, I think is fair and proper.

Some people might feel awkward raising an alarm that something bothers them. This is understandable. In some manner, we must encourage them without outright saying "Hey, doesn't it bother you that you are always asked to take notes? (Maybe that's acceptable if the relationship is more than a co-worker type)."

In the end, it's the best I can offer.

I agree that the least harmful approach is to let the victim initiate the defense, but like you said, people might feel awkward raising the alarm.

The underlying problem here is that we are taught (by our culture) that: 1. It is okay to be subtly sexist but even worst, 2. We're being bitchy (uncool) if we defend ourselves (I'd argue that it's part of our intense worship of "being cool" but that's another topic)

I think we would be in a better position to tackle these problems of subtle sexism if it was more socially accepted (and encouraged) to stand up for yourselves (especially for females to stand up for themselves).

A side note: I read once that when asked, females would attack a rapist who is raping their friend or sibling but would not attack when they are themselves being raped by the rapist.

I think this stems from the theory 2 above: that we are viewed as bitchy if defend ourselves, but we are praised if we defend someone else.

So if this tea thing happened at (nearly) every meeting, you'd have been able to discuss the issue in private, between meetings, and offer to raise it next time--or probably better, discuss it, let her know that if she'd bring it up you'd have her back?

I don't know actually--apparently she had an idea of something she would be comfortable with to address it? I have some ideas for different approaches which I wrote down but then deleted because in the end it comes down to what she feels comfortable with. <-- this is actually not a male/female thing, but applicable in any social situation where you intend to stand up for someone getting the shitty end of a stick.

Anyway my point is, I'd almost always first discuss this with the person in question rather than speaking up in the heat of the moment. It's usually not appropriate, puts the person in a tight spot or a spot light and sometimes these things are better resolved at a different, quieter moment anyway. The exception to this (for me) would be when a remark is really offensive or not subtle at all (like the low-cut blouse remark in the article[1]), simply because at that point it offends me as well, even if the person isn't even around because I shall not tolerate such toxic remarks in a place where I have to work.

[1] "Hey Jim, your fly is open! I KNOW WHERE I'M SITTING! :D wink"

the more I think about this problem, and the solutions being offered, the more I think everyone is missing the point. I think riding in and saving the day is just as "sexist."

What the OP wants here is to be respected for who she is and her accomplishments as an individual, so that is the best solution. My guess is that most women accept this sexism as a part of life and have a way to handle it, but evey once in a while it just crushes them.

The healthiest and most productive solution is to "give them the tools" to feel better about themselves and ignore the sexists of the world, by letting them see that there are good people out there who will treat them with respect and appreciate not only their efforts and accomplishments, but also their sacrifice and struggle. It is obviously very easy for a a woman to fall into the "traditional secretary" role, if someone put the effort to overcome and rise above, that effort should be appreciated.

If the boss asking her to take notes is demeaning, why not ask her to help you overcome some difficult coding problem.

In most situations, it really just boil down to being a mensch.

And letting her know that if she wanted to say something about it, you'd have her back.

Is this not less about appearing to be a desperate white knight and more about appearing to put a woman before the guys and, in doing so, betraying your male friends.

That's true, and an even more powerful response of a man in this position is to deal with the problem less passively by (a) pointing out the trend without making a big deal, (b) suggesting that the team rotate more often, (c) proceeding to lead by example by taking notes.

This may be even too subtle a message for a problem as severe as this one, but it at least signals that not everyone within the team will tolerate this behavior, without claims of sexism backed by little evidence.

In my mind, an important point here is that NO ONE should be asked to put together a pot luck. Why does anyone think this kind of thing is appropriate in the workplace? It makes me want to vomit when workplace boss becomes social boss. If anyone ever told me to put together a pot luck my immediate response would be "go fuck yourself."

You're getting quite a bit of flak for this. You got a sucky boss? I rather like my co-workers, and potlucks are just one method of team-building/friendship making that can be had at work. No, work buddies should never be your only friends, but to have a pleasant time around co-workers, and to have team-building events such as those? There's nothing wrong with that; and, I would argue it helps to create a condusive and lower-friction environment.

There's a difference between friends and forced friends. There are lots of FreeBSD developers I'd be happy to invite over for dinner if they were in town, but that doesn't mean I'd be happy if someone told me that I had to invite them over for dinner.

My social life is just fine, thanks. I don't need a boss telling me who my friends should be.

My employer does this sort of thing, but it isn't mandatory. A sign-up sheet goes up in the kitchen, and there's never a lack of participation. From what I've seen, folks seem to genuinely enjoy doing this sort of thing, so more power to them. Sometimes I take part, sometimes I don't.

Now, if we were forced to participate, that'd be another matter.

Nothing wrong with a less frition-filled work environment. But it should not be mandatory. Also real friction caused by workplace politics rarely reduces due to such events.

Are there statistics on if its less likely to happen in the first place?

I'm not a professional chef, I'm a sysadmin. Cooking isn't part of my job description.

I don't want to be forced to eat food prepared by people who don't have food handlers' cards, and I don't want my coworkers to feel hurt because I don't want to eat what they cooked and left in their car.

Want to improve morale and do teambuilding? Get a cater, or go somewhere for lunch.

Lighten up

Yea, seriously. WTF is a food handler's card? It's not like a medical license.

For anyone else who had no idea what a "pot luck" was - it's basically a "bring-a-plate" event ("Odds on savoury, evens on dessert" at a residential street party).

In the context of work, the event is probably at the work itself, like in one of the open meeting rooms.

I agree. The "asked to put together" is the offensive part. I consider myself lucky to work with people that I do want to hang out with, and sometimes we collectively decide to plan a social event together, but having it come top-down really riles me up.

I wondered about the pot luck thing, isn't the point of a pot luck that everyone brings something to eat for everyone? If she'd be the only one that had to bring something, it wouldn't be a pot luck any more, right?

At least, that's what I understand pot luck to mean? I like them a lot btw, very American thing, so we don't do it often enough here, but my hummus is always appreciated ;-)

Stupid question, but what is a "pot luck"?

Edit: Question answered! The ability to read actually is an advantage! ;-)

Though my response won't be as forward as yours, I couldn't agree more.

If you worked with me, I would tell the entire office that everyone is welcome to the 24-pack of beer I brought from home ... except you.

I believe that would make you a petty asshole. There's a huge difference between offering to organize something social and being told to do so.

I wouldn't have hired either of you.

I'm really glad I don't work with you, then?

Why point out you brought it from home?

I'd be inclined to give the author the benefit of the doubt, and take serious the problem she's chosen to flag. She's saying that the attitude of "lighten up" is a problem in and of itself. To say that the "meat of the problem" is something else is really kind of like saying "lighten up."

This. Why must we re-analyze her problem and say it is something else when she has already clearly stated what it is and how she feels.

Seeing the grandparent as the top voted comment is like HN saying 'hey, we know better, your problem is actually this'.

Which isn't much different from saying 'lighten up' - both amount to dismissing her feelings.

Then why discuss her article at all? She has made up her mind and quit, and that is all there is to it?

One thing would be to discuss, as a startup owner, how would one prevent this kind of thing happening in their startup. How to create a culture where women aren't treated like that so that highly talented women are more likely to join and stay. Or is this something that we shouldn't hope to achieve because nerds will always be like that?

Judging by other comments here (and recent sexism issues in tech), it seems like her treatment isn't an isolated case.

You simply assume that she is right, but you have only heard her part of the story. Obviously I don't want to defend the right to leer at work, but it seems impossible to accommodate everybody's preferences for a workplace. Therefore just raising one persons preferences above the preferences of all other people seems questionable to me.

For example in other sexism threads the ubiquitous Star Wars posters and stuff like that came up. Should Star Wars posters really be banned in programmers offices, just so that some more women programmers might feel more at home. I don't know...

>I don't want to defend the right to leer at work, //

This sort of thing is often in the eye of the offended though. Fat slob with a beer-belly and greasy hair glances at you - bleurgh, X is leering at you. Six-packed, chisel-chinned near-divine human that drives a Ferrari checks you out - phwoar.

>Should Star Wars posters really be banned //

Can anyone give a cogent argument as to how a film poster bearing fantasy sci-fi imagery is sexist aside from specific content like an image of a man with their top off that is intended to objectify them?

Your theory here is that being treated fairly and equally is some sort of quirky personal preference? How is that different than just telling her to lighten up?

> As the woman, I've been the only person in the group asked to put together a pot luck (presumably, this work is beneath the males). I've been the only one asked to take notes in a meeting... even if I'm the one who's presenting (because my title really should be 'secretary who we let on the servers').

Had a new project manager/analyst join a few months ago, and he bakes a different cake for us each week. it's awesome. :)

Not sure, but this might be the study you were referring to: http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

The notetaking situation as you describe it (not necessarily the way Katie was treated) can probably be averted by politely declining, such as, "Can someone else take notes this time? I like to put more focus on this particular discussion." If it's happening even more frequently than, say, 50%, then perhaps something along the line of suggesting everyone taking turns (if it's a regular meeting).

At my previous workplace, it's usually the host who sends out meeting notes or action items if needed. Otherwise, the task falls into the hands of the project manager, if one is present in the meeting.

Yes, that might keep you from having to take notes, but most fools don't respond to subtlety.

The problem is being viewed as nothing more than a note-taker, not the actual note-taking work.