![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
Tags:
no subject