She says, later in the article, that this may not have been a sexist remark, but at the time it was hard to see that. I think that's someone who's quite good at introspection, in fact, since she anticipated your comment, or the first part of it.

On the second half, I've never been managed by someone who I wasn't supposed to learn something from - have you, really?

>On the second half, I've never been managed by someone who I wasn't supposed to learn something from - have you, really?

Are you kidding me? One of the more basic roles in tech/IT is that of the idiotic, clueless Project Manager (which 90%+ of the time is a male btw).

That's how the Dilbert guy made his millions...

I've never actually come across that person - it is a caricature. If you have, really, then that's cool, I was asking for your experience!

Damn man, really? You're very lucky then.

I have tons of stories to tell, but instead I propose you check this: http://thedailywtf.com/

I never really believed that the DailyWTF was non-fiction - seriously?

The managers I've had have all had flaws of one type or another, but they've also had strengths that I couldn't gain without years of training/working under them.

I wouldn't last long under someone I didn't respect - that's a recipe for resignation.

>I never really believed that the DailyWTF was non-fiction - seriously?

Again, are you kidding me? It sure has some fabricated pieces, but I've seen tons of similar examples in real life, working with other programmers and project managers.

Heck, you can find tons of DailyWTF worthy material even in Stack Overflow questions and answers, and those are 100% legit non-fiction.

> It sure has some fabricated pieces, but I've seen tons of similar examples in real life

OK, what are your real life examples? :) I'm trying to see through the myth.

> you can find tons of DailyWTF worthy material even in Stack Overflow questions and answers

Plenty of examples of crappy code on Stack Overflow, not so many examples of crappy managers.

This is a tough rule to follow. I'm a man. I'm talking to a woman. I'm not allowed to say anything that she thinks I wouldn't say to a man, regardless of whether I actually would say it to a man. How am I supposed to know what that set of things is?

Prior to reading this article, I would not have included "you're emotionally attached to your code" in that set because that is something I would say to a man. I can only wonder what other things I do say to men that women think I don't say to men.

I don't read this as her telling you you're "not allowed" to say something.

I read it as her explaining how this choice of phrase, done likely without any malice, carried with it additional and possibly unintended connotations to her, due to her past experiences.

Despite being well defined in dictionaries, language is, like everything else about the human experience, inherently subjective.

So no, I don't think she's providing a rule for you to follow - I think she's just letting the reader know how a small phrase can have an impact beyond its intent.

Nobody is suggesting that this is something you can't say, to anyone, in an appropriate circumstance. The author is merely explaining why it was difficult in this case, and how it made her feel.

If the context hadn't been in front of a client, perhaps she would have been able to ask for clarification of what was meant - and the whole thing wouldn't have cause such a big, hidden reaction in her. The context made this more difficult that it should have been - it is not saying "don't ever say this or you're sexist", that is what you've read into it yourself.

The difference is that nobody cares if a man felt the same way, nor would he feel a need to blog about it years later.

...what?

Are you seriously arguing that there's a fundamental difference in the way the sexes harbour grudges? I think you're wrong there dude...

Look up the statistics for how men vs women participate in direct violence and violence by proxy, and you'll see why you're wrong.

It isn't that you said something possibly sexist, the point was she didn't have anything to talk to or reach out to in this regard from a female perspective and that solitude was the issue after the matter. Small incidents like these add up.

Yes, turns out it takes some effort to be aware of power imbalance and work against it. Those words have different social meanings when spoken to a woman than when spoken to a man.

So what does one say to a woman who is being too emotional?

There's lots of guidelines about what not to do. There's less guidance about what to do instead.

Yes - people management is kind of like project management in that way. There are lots of things that are obviously wrong to do, but very few things that are always going to work.

I think personally I'd consider it a success just to be aware that whatever you're doing now might not be working, or might not work on this particular person - and with this in mind, look for feedback/signals and adjust your behaviour to circumstances.

That's up to you. Maybe that will become more clear as you see the social power imbalance more clearly. Perhaps your framing of the whole situation would change, I don't know.

Sure, you can learn something from anybody, but often the managers don't have the time to do actual development and dive into specifics, so they end up being taught more than they teach.

A manager is essentially an organizer and decision maker.

She seems to realize this and mentions the maybe the same would've been said if she were a man. At the time though, she couldn't see it any other way. And feeling isolated only made it worse.

That, I feel is the more important insight in the article. Because she felt isolated and lacked female mentors or colleagues, she only has the perspective of one woman in tech - herself. The perspective of others in similar situations might have been valuable in helping process the anger she felt and give some much needed encouragement.

i think she realises that this is common criticism against anyone with passion for their work - she is describing an irrational emotional response and basically says as much.

i'll admit i often give the same advice: "don't be precious about your code"

i would never do this infront of a client though - or even infront of other co-workers unless it is a recurring problem and i feel that a bit of shame might help give them a kick into action...

Your's is certainly a good point, within the context of seeing this as a cry against sexism.

However I see this post as more of a cry against the general culture of tech. And I think it's a culture women find they go against the grain of more often than man. But many men would agree.

I would certainly agree. We work in an industry characterized by a lot of problematic social interaction that hurts.

It hurts to get banged up over and over again and not feel you have much of a social support structure to right the boat. Female friendships tend to have a caring component that male friendships have less of. And this is therefore s component more lacking in the tech off space, and therefore a component women in the tech space will inherently notice more than men.

Nevertheless men feel it too. Men feel the negative energy and it affects them. Many of them probably internalize it and turn it against each other. The author points this out. They're unsung heros in their own right who are stuck in a tough culture.

This is a great discussion to have: so that we can get away from the army "tough it out" mentality in tech and move toward something that enables us to talk, share, and be caring (i'll even say it -- loving) people for one another.

That is not the point of the anecdote. Nobody should have their competency questioned by a coworker in front of a client.

This is why so many men (and a lot of women) don't get the issues that women (and a lot of men) face in technology: people are fucking assholes to each other.

Seriously. It is amazing how many of these problems wouldn't be problems if people just behaved towards each other with even a minimal amount of courtesy. "Praise in public, criticize in private" isn't a hard rule to learn.

I wonder how much of this is due to tech's historic legacy as a safe space for the socially awkward. There's a fine line between a culture where the socially awkward are welcome and a culture where social awkwardness is considered a positive good.

> Not all reference to emotion is a "code" for an antagonistic remark against females.

After what you quoted, she says

> And the truth is, maybe I was, but, nearly everyone is emotionally attached to their code (recognizing this is the first step to behaving rationally about it.)