Reading notes: DW edition

[elainegrey]

On the dreamwidth dysfunctional modesty/impostor syndrome thread [i began with firecat's post and have not gone deep]:

Re women in tech fields: early in grad school it was clear that there was a macho, "i'm tougher [intellectually] than you," attitude among most of my peers. I remain doubtful that it's necessary for the science, but i can recognize that getting into competitive games was helpful for those for whom the style of practice and learning didn't get in the way.

I remember the first tenured woman in the department giving me advice at a conference that i needed to be an asshole, that one had to out asshole the men. Physics wasn't important enough to me to do that.

I am not competitive and loathe external challenge. I've met enough women who really are competitive and and who rise to a challenge: the "women aren't competitive" has far more to deal with socialization and framing than women not wanting to compete. If women weren't competitive, there' d be no horror in showing up in the same gown to some event. This comes to mind because "being competitive" is related to this question of modesty and female socialization that trains one to not trumpet accomplishments -- and then to subconsciously discount praise and heighten criticism, discount success and heighten failure.

Where was i going with this? Just remembering as i read these threads, i guess, thinking about the workplace environment of the Minnow that, in the development group itself, had a very effective and efficient culture of collaboration and nurture.

Oh, right, Firecat says, "And when I hear that a primary solution to the problem of people underestimating women is to retrain women to behave differently in public, it kind of bothers me."
I'll go with, "makes me very angry," actually. Firecat goes on to point out if "the game" really produced good results, that would be one thing, but she questions if it's true.

Competition came to mind because that macho posturing i remember from grad school also gave most of my peers more socialized practice with the topics of physics: all that extrovert posing and posturing prepared them for oral defense, prepared them for day to day practice of science in the hallways of conferences and so on.

Yes, i wish i could have been engaged in the same way, and it's hard for me to know how much was gender based (there was lots of gender based crap going on) and how much was personal difference -- my characteristics of being introverted and shy, and far preferring self challenge to external challenge.

--==∞==--

One way Dreamwidth seems different from LJ is the social theory memes. Perhaps it's just a shift in my reading, but i've found less writing that makes me feel like someone's sharing their day to day life and personal journey, and more writing that feels like discussion group sharing. This seems to matter to me because i worry about the cost of participation: investing the time to be a voice in conversations to be heard. I'm pretty sure i don't have the time to participate at the level that one becomes noticed as a regular, so i lurk.

And when I hear that a primary solution to the problem of people underestimating women is to retrain women to behave differently in public, it kind of bothers me.

--==∞==--

Another thread from this morning's reading is with respect to the general meme of people hosting threads (or creating communities) so other people can put their name in them and then other people leave notes saying nice things. I rarely put my name out there, for the two fold reason of fear (how will i feel if no one responds, how i will feel if someone responds "too much" on the "Valentine" themed posts) and a certain sense that if i wanted to be more engaged and involved with people, people would welcome it.

However, i am aware how difficult it is to gauge connection in the absence of comments, and i'm aware my writing style doesn't invite comments. (I'm not sure why that is, but i'm aware of it.) I'm not going to cross post this to LJ, in order to ask this: could you leave a comment if you read this journal regularly/semiregularly? Those of who who comment regularly, even if in odd time sequence, already let me now you are reading.

Thanks.

Comments

[weofodthignen]

I would have replied anyway :-)

1. Sorry, I just don't comment anywhere as much as I used to. I'm drowning in demands on my time, and part of the change in LJ from my POV has been that fewer people seem to like getting a lot of comments, or it's become more normal to only really want to be read by your "real" friends, or something . . . anyway, 6 of 1 and 1/2 a dozen of the other, I comment less.

2. Gods, yes, women are competitive. Maybe these people who say they aren't, have never been inside a girls' school or even read girls' school fiction (which come to think of it used to be absolutely market-dominating in the UK and doesn't seem to have been at all important here.) But girls' sports . . . yeesh, I do not see how anyone could say women are not competitive. And I loathe ambition. I regard it as a serious character flaw. It has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with neglecting your present duty because you are always focusing on the next job title . . . and not even, in most cases, the next set of duties. Ugh.

3. There's an odd dynamic with academic pride in accomplishments and willingness to get out there and debate. I am in several ways not the right person to analyze it: I was an odd combination of success and failure in academia on both sides of the Pond. But I do not think enjoying discussing ideas and jumping into conversations with one's own criticisms, questions, and work results is the same thing as beating others down by always trying to "win." I don't think all those who revel in the seminar/conference/hallway environments are phonies, but the publications/presentations system is threaded through with rewards for phonies: in the sciences mainly people who hang onto the coattails of the right sponsoring bigwig, in the humanities there's also an awful lot of sheer outrageousness (invent a point of view/theory that is just gobsmacking, then churn out papers arguing for it by simply dismissing all possible criticism, and verbally eviscerate anyone who tries to make a reasonable objection. This is the way a terribly large number of people got tenure; I like to think it's impossible in the sciences, though I fear there are some corners where it can be done . . .)

4. The tide of writing interesting stuff on LJ is going out, with a tremendous force of suck, and creating an undertow of resentment among those who have not lost many valued friends to the management's ineptitude and hostility, and just can't see why some of us are so disgusted. There are nice eddies here and there--yuki_onna is so repelled by people recommending DW to her that she's writing a fascinating post every day for 30 days on her LJ! I am thrilled to read them, although like pretty much all of us she has other demands on her time, so I feel guilty . . . . A lot of the backstory is that people are incredibly busy - and charitably, I'm going to keep telling myself that that's why they Facebook or tweet rather than writing here or on LJ. But it isn't me, it isn't you, it isn't even DW. It's the times (and the past on LJ that can never be forgiven even if the current management were to get a clue). Large parts of the community are scattered to the wind. But some--like the Yuki_Onna nexus and the Shadesong nexus--remain. However, DW is nice. I like it here. So I support it with 2 daily posts, one of them designed to get others posting too, if only in comments. I figured if I could not find time for real substantive blogging, I could at least do that.

5. And you just did, and keep doing, real substantive blogging. In both places. So thanks :-)

[onyxlynx]

You do turn up on my Network page, and I may even once have commented on one of your postings. This says nothing about regularity, but you sail across the horizon at frequent enough intervals that I recognize your handle.