[new_corp_dev]

She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak.

> This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.

I would not call it "reverse sexism", because it is is just plain sexism. Of course the author doesn't "see it that way", despite acknowledging it, because the author directly benefits from said sexism.

If the author is being encouraged to apply for and accepted to speak at conferences primarily based on their gender, then the industry's reaction will be to expect that women speakers are token speakers, and this will set back women in the industry.

Embrace differences, embrace diversity, but in the long run special treatment does not benefit anybody.

[jonahrd]

What kind of manager treats every single employee the same, regardless of differences in talent, background, needs, etc?

If a manager hires a person who needs a bit more structure in order to stay focused, that person should be given a little more structure. Or in this case, if a manager hires someone who has been pushed down her whole life and has learned to fade into the background so as not to upset men around her, the manager should most definitely spend some time helping her get accustomed to speaking her mind and advocating for herself. It's just good managing.

This way, she'll be able to contribute much more to the team that she would if she was still worried about fitting in. And her knowledge can be spread to new female employees, which helps move the inequality further towards equality in the long run.

I don't see how this "special treatment" is in any way detrimental.

[RIMR]

If they said "Bryana, you're a great speaker and can really hold a crowd. We want you to attend conferences and represent our company. You're really the best at it!", then it would be wonderful. There is no need to treat every employee equally when they clearly have differing skills and strengths.

This isn't what is happening here though.

This comes off much more as "Bryana, you're our only female programmer, and we want to look more progressive and diverse than our competitors. We are sending you to conferences to speak for us so we can show you off as our token female."

It works out in her favor, so she'll never complain, but it is sexism nonetheless. Special treatment doesn't lead to equality. Equal treatment leads to equality.

[new_corp_dev]

Helping people overcome whatever unique problems they face in order to reach their full potential is expected and encouraged. Offering them opportunities solely based on a protected status is not.

I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status.

In the very same article the author laments not knowing whether she is being offered more responsibility because she is a woman or if it's because she's seen as capable and competent. It's a completely valid assumption, because she's already been offered more responsibility because she is a woman.

[Lawtonfogle]

It is weird that discrimination is a four letter word when it is absurd to try to treat everyone equally.

But... either we can discriminate based on gender or we can't. If you have an all male team where most members are extremely shy around women (like bad enough they probably should see a therapist), then it would make perfect business sense to only seek another man for that team. But discrimination based on gender isn't allowed, so you can't do that. And for the same reason, even though there is business reason why special treatment is justified, you can't discriminate based on gender.

[LesZedCB]

Encouraging and incentivizing a female employee to speak at a conference is not reverse sexism or sexism. It's simply providing a pathway to level the playing field. The cultural meme of reverse racism or reverse sexism is simply used to continue in our racist or sexist behaviors unapologetically. These are still cultural issues to deal with, despite the progress we have made on them, and therefore there is a real power dynamic that needs to be accounted for, which manifests itself in people deliberately righting wrongs such as by giving extra encouragement to female developers.

[RIMR]

>It's simply providing a pathway to level the playing field.

This doesn't level the playing field. It specifically encourages employers to treat their female employees differently than male employees.

As Bryana mentioned in her blog, it's pretty much impossible for a woman to not be singled out in STEM, simply because she is a woman. Men almost never have to worry about their gender being brought up, while women generally either have to deal with being looked down or being put on a pedestal.

You can thank "people deliberately righting wrongs such as by giving extra encouragement to female developers" for this additional layer of sexism in STEM...

[new_corp_dev]

All capable employees should be encouraged and incentivized equally, or based on their competence. Incentive based on protected status is discrimination.

[RIMR]

Agreed, but at least Bryana doesn't have the defeatist attitude that a lot of women in her position develop. Sexism is real, and it shows it's nasty face all the time, but to not let it define you and to refuse to change how you work because of other people's biases is far more empowering than this "every woman is a victim" narrative that gets pushed far too often.

But yes, I agree. It is sexist to push her to do things BECAUSE she is a woman. She should be pushed to do things regardless of her gender.

Any emphasis on sex is sexist. Any emphasis on race is racist. We aren't defined by the color of our skin or what we have between our legs. Unfortunately, people regularly do sexist and racist things in an attempt to be "anti-sexist" or "anti-racist", and it just doesn't do any long-term good.

I like to call it "moonwalking", because it gives the illusion that you're moving forward, but really you're just stealthily moving backward...

[chillacy]

> Any emphasis on sex is sexist. Any emphasis on race is racist. We aren't defined by the color of our skin or what we have between our legs.

I see this attitude not infrequently among pseudo-liberal city crowds. I've heard the claims that we're postracial or past the need for feminism or civil rights activism.

I agree that's how it should be, but it's not. Civil rights was only a generation ago, and america has spent more time mistreating its women and minorities than not. It's delusional to believe that everything is going to be fixed.

The reality is that women do have a tougher time due to various social programming, and minorities do as well in many industries due to stereotypes that we all hold. To pretend like we all have the same advantages in America is a lie, and one that benefits the ones already at the top.

Here's a good test: if gender/religion/etc truly doesn't matter, would you rather be a <not straight>, <not white>, <not man> who practices <not christianity> in america, or a straight white anglo man? It shouldn't matter, right?

[jazzyk]

Agreed.

How I wish that (at least for the remaining few conferences where you can submit a proposal without having to be a "silver sponsor"), submissions were "blind". No name submitted, you get a reference number back to confirm your submission.

Focus on merit, not gender/name recognition/budget.

[frandroid]

In critical race theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory), the main tenet is that racism is the combination of discrimination and power. Everyone can do negative discrimination versus anyone based on race, but it becomes racism when the party that does the discrimination has power over the party being discriminated again. If you apply this schema to patriarchy, one cannot call positive discrimination "reverse sexism" or "sexism".

I agree with you that "special treatment" does not benefit anybody, but there is so much misogyny (aka "special treatment") that counter-treatment is not just desirable, but necessary.

[Lawtonfogle]

>one cannot call positive discrimination "reverse sexism" or "sexism".

Positive discrimination for one person is negative discrimination against another, of whom the discriminator has power over the discriminated. So it still fits as being a *ism.

That is assuming you even accept the whole 'power + mistreatment' bit.

[new_corp_dev]

I disagree. Discrimination, both sexism and racism, is any negative treatment towards someone based on protected status, regardless of who is "in power".

The critical race theory definition is just a shield to hide behind while practicing racist or sexist behavior, and I will only acknowledge it as such.

[RIMR]

If we actually do break down barriers and correct our gender biases as a society, what is to stop us from continuing this "special treatment" at the expense of men? When do we say "mission accomplished"?

Case in point: "Black History Month" wasn't supposed to be permanent. We still celebrate it though, as if black history were distinctly different from American history. It started off with good intentions, but it continues to this day as an unnecessarily divisive holiday. How much "black history" is ignored 11 months out of the year just so we can celebrate it in February (the shortest month of the year)?

Sexual discrimination is sexual discrimination, regardless of context.

[LesZedCB]

Thanks, said it better than I could. People never consider power when talking about race or gender, only about actions or behavior.