eliz@cs.rochester.edu (05/09/89)
From: moe!jeremy@ppgbms (Jeremy Levine) Subject: Women competing with men Message-ID: <6962@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: 8 May 89 19:02:24 GMT >>Message-ID: <6938@ecsvax.UUCP> >>In the 13th April 1989 edition of "Computing", there is an interview >>with Cally Ware, a product manager with the systems house Hoskyns. >>An excerpt:- >> >>"What advice would she give to young women determined to make the most >>of a career in ... computing? >>"'Enjoy being a woman and don't compete with men on their own terms.'" >>Would readers agree or disagree? ... I think it's trash, "... own terms .." what is this ?? I like to think that I'm a holdout for competing On Our Own Terms. My first reading of Ware was that she was saying "don't compete" to women. This isn't really what she's saying, though. For women to compete on our own terms is to not blindly accept the standards of success that have been used in the past, which make no reference to special values or skills we may have after being raised as women in this culture. A very simple example might be that, where traditionally the most successful manager might be the one whose group writes the most code, the most successful on traditionally feminine terms might be slightly less productive but have a very pleasant interpersonal environment. (In fact I choose my jobs using this criterion.) A woman who values relationships but thinks that to succeed she has to be the biggest kickass SOB is going to experience great internal conflict. And there is no reason why we should compromise ourselves like that. Personally, I am uncomfortable competing because I empathize with the loser when I win. People who play competitive sports learn to manage this feeling in the arena at least, and both women and men can learn to. But I refuse to accept any claim that empathising with my less succesful colleagues in unprofessional. (At the moment I am competing for jobs with some very good friends.) Some other traditionally feminine values that have a place in the workplace: problem-solving by consensus: not just the loudest person gets heard appearance of the product: are all the details working? is the color nice? is it friendly? the ability to do several things at once, juggle several projects legitimacy of non-work relationships like family commitments that might call for some flexibility in scheduling (gee, men want paternity leave all of a sudden. why is that?) respecting the natural environment & cleaning up after yourself being able to spell, use grammar, type being able to express your feelings and show an appropriate affect in situations -- (candidates are allowed to cry about election results now, did you notice? how about farewell parties?) These issues are all very relevant to the computing profession -- you can figure out the details. Let's just say that if no one can listen to clients, it doesn't matter how many stud coders the company has. Sure, there are women stud coders. But there are other ways to succeed. Elizabeth Arpa: eliz@cs.rochester.edu (Elizabeth Hinkelman) UUCP: ...{rocksvax|allegra|decvax}!rochester!eliz USnail: Department of Computer Science, U. of Rochester, N.Y. 14627 phone: (716) 275 - 2527 (office)
hunt@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Francie Hunt) (05/10/89)
In article <6970@ecsvax.UUCP> eliz@cs.rochester.edu writes: >I'm a holdout for competing On Our Own Terms. >My first reading of Ware was that she was saying "don't compete" to women. >This isn't really what she's saying, though. For women to compete on our >own terms is to not blindly accept the standards of success that have >been used in the past, which make no reference to special values or skills >we may have after being raised as women in this culture. Years ago, I would have thought that any differences between men and women should be ignored and that we would all compete on the same footing. The problem with this is that the rules of the game have evolved over the years and have a decidedly male bias to them. Add to that the fact that we all have a different set of social baggage we were brought up with, and it turns out that many of the valuable contributions that women make are unrecognized in the current acknowledgment/reward structure. Rather than turn ourselves into male-clones, and suppressing some of our qualities, we should fight for the opportunity to have "our own terms" recognized as valid. >Some other traditionally feminine values that have a place in the workplace: > >problem-solving by consensus: not just the loudest person gets heard Now if only our faculty meetings would run under this concept! :-) They would be a lot shorter and more productive. >legitimacy of non-work relationships like family commitments that might > call for some flexibility in scheduling (gee, men want > paternity leave all of a sudden. why is that?) Isn't that interesting? When women take maternity leave and/or need some flexibility in their scheduling, it is seen as a burden. When men start asking for the same considerations, they are applauded. If you think I am being too harsh, look at how you would react to a man requiring a leave after some kind of surgery. It seems that people are much more sympathetic in that case, than when a woman has gone through childbirth and needs to heal. >These issues are all very relevant to the computing profession -- >you can figure out the details. Let's just say that if no one can >listen to clients, it doesn't matter how many stud coders the company >has. Sure, there are women stud coders. But there are other ways to >succeed. This is true in academic departments as well as industry. You have to look at the traditional model of academic "success" as embodied in the number of publications, amount of research grants, etc. A faculty member can contribute to the education of students in many different ways, but only a few are rewarded. It's getting harder in computer science, because the field is advancing so quickly. In order to read enough of the literature to keep up with the current work, and write results of your own work, and teach classes, and supervise graduate students, and chase funding from various agencies, not to mention all the administrative stuff that is required, takes an inordinate amount of time, something that is a precious commodity if you have young children at home. On a happier note, I was finally recognized on my own terms this year. I went through an incredible struggle during my tenure review, with both positive and negative feedback along the way. What saved the day was the president of the university standing by his statement on the importance of teaching and balancing my contribution in that area against my adequate (but not stellar) research record. I feel that my strongest contributions to the university and our CS students have been in my commitment to teaching, and am gratified to have been accepted for it. Had a different administration been in place, I would have been out pounding the pavement. To sum up, (sorry this is so long), we have to get out of the mindset that only certain qualities count for success. When people try to mold them- selves into something that they are not, we all suffer. -- Francie Hunt Associate Professor, Computer Engineering and Science Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106 hunt@alpha.ces.cwru.edu OR {sun, att, decvax}!cwjcc!alpha!hunt
eileenp%pogo.wv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Eileen J. Phelan) (05/16/89)
In article <6970@ecsvax.UUCP> eliz@cs.rochester.edu writes: >...I'm a holdout for competing On Our Own Terms. >My first reading of Ware was that she was saying "don't compete" to women. >This isn't really what she's saying, though. For women to compete on our >...example might be that, where traditionally the most successful manager >might be the one whose group writes the most code, the most successful >on traditionally feminine terms might be slightly less productive but >have a very pleasant interpersonal environment. (In fact I choose my jobs >using this criterion.) A woman who values relationships > Okay, I have to say this. I believe that the best group is the one that gets the best results, the most results, AND is the greatest place to work. I think they go together. I get upset when I hear someone say that the work has to suffer for the sake of the interpersonal environment, because it just isn't true. In fact, I believe that knowing you have the best and most results is very conducive to a happy group. Yes, I have been in groups like this. Groups in which everyone would stay late if one person had work that needed to be done. Groups in which ALL the software released worked according to spec. Yes, it really did. Happy groups, in which we all by preference had lunch together regularly. >Some other traditionally feminine values that have a place in the workplace: I agree with these; if I include them the line counter won't let me post. Eileen
mcgrath%paris.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Roland McGrath) (05/25/89)
In article <6970@ecsvax.UUCP> eliz@cs.rochester.edu writes:
Some other traditionally feminine values that have a place in the workplace:
I don't see why these are feminine values. I'm male, and all of these things
are important to me and things I try to do...
[There were several replies on these lines. There is an important difference,
however, between "female" and "feminine." "Female" is determined by biology;
"feminine" is a set of characteristics determinedy by culture. So it is
pefectly possible for a man to be "feminine" and a woman to be "masculine."
Hence, to say something about masculinity is _not_ to say something
about men. All this means that I think people are actually agreeing--
that the traditionally, stereotypically feminine approaches to life
could have good consequences in computers. The question is whether or
not there is a "feminine" approach to computers, and, if so, what it
would be. TR]
These issues are all very relevant to the computing profession --
you can figure out the details. Let's just say that if no one can
listen to clients, it doesn't matter how many stud coders the company
has. Sure, there are women stud coders. But there are other ways to
succeed.
There are also male programmers who are not `stud coders', even if they produce
code of equivalent (or better) quality than the `studs'. In fact, the stud
coder is likely to produce worse code, because he probably has the machismo
complex of "it works and you can't figure out why, so I'm cool".
--
Roland McGrath
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
roland@ai.mit.edu, uunet!ai.mit.edu!roland
Copyright 1989 Roland McGrath, under the GNU General Public License, version 1.