I think using the word 'fun' in this title is demeaning and misleading. Women aren't looking for fun, they're looking for meaningful, interesting work and are being denied it. (Obviously not all women, etc. etc.)
I know a very talented woman with more experience and talent than her teammates who constantly deals with the interesting work being given to men instead of her. In meetings men look to the other men for opinions instead of her, even when she's leading the meeting. Partly it's because corporate environments prefer bluster to quieter expertise but the answer shouldn't be to tell women to be bigger blowhards than the men in order to get to do interesting stuff.
I don't think it's demeaning and misleading. Professionals--men and women--generally consider "meaningful, interesting work" to be the "fun" part of their jobs.
> Partly it's because corporate environments prefer bluster to quieter expertise but the answer shouldn't be to tell women to be bigger blowhards than the men in order to get to do interesting stuff.
This often seems like a better dimension on which to analyze these "gender in the workplace" issues. That is, these issues arise more often due to the typical characteristics and behaviors that members of each gender display and engage in, rather than something essential about gender in and of itself.
Blowhards versus... well.. what's the opposite of a blowhard? "Introvert" doesn't seem quite right.
My point is that gender issues are often actually personality type issues.
It also affects quieter, sometimes more effective men.
"Speak up!"
It not infrequently reduces to physical posturing. And volume escalation. I kid you not.
(Not to mention, that these loud and aggressive types often make particularly open-space workplaces much greater challenges to the concentration of... this quiet, effective type (me), for one.)
Why does engineering increasingly suck in the U.S. (excluding some of the Silicon Valley et al. "gifted" enclaves)? Because type-A assholes have taken over U.S. management. And they shit all over anyone who isn't like them and isn't the bully they are.
Next up: Do they succeed on the international scene? Or do different cultures shut them down? Does e.g. a Shenzhen -- where I just got my latest and greatest fitness tracker for $23 -- manage to give them a big "fuck you" while combining extant tech into new and compelling products?
Part of the difficulty women face with these problems is that there definitely are multiple different strands of issues all wrapped up in this. But it's important to realize that just because there could be some explanation for one strand (bias against quieter people), doesn't mean that some people don't face one of the other strands (sexism). Dismissing a woman's problems could be due to sexism because another explanation exists is one of the most crazy-making parts of this mess.
I've come to learn it's a much more complicated problem than I initially thought.
Well part of the problem is that social norms are different for the genders. The kinds of behaviors that often allow men to dominate corporate environments are not effective/seen more negatively when adopted by women.
a personality isn't some spontaneously emerging, fixed thing. it's affected by its environment. certain qualities are encouraged, and others discouraged.
perhaps women are less likely to be blowhards due to something essential about being a woman. on the other hand it may be that the qualities encouraged and discouraged in women are the components in being a blowhard. and that assumes women are less likely to be blowhards, and that blowhards are more likely to succeed, which isn't necessarily clear. maybe gender disparities exist simply because women are treated differently than men, and reframing the cause to "typical characteristics and behaviors that members of each gender display and engage in" is just shuffling around gender essentialism.
As an introvert myself, I agree that there is a bias against quieter people but I think these are issues that some people _also_ face, not that it's one issue instead of the other.
Sure, but when you have a culture that punishes women for not being quiet by labeling them as aggressive, b*tchy, etc (after all, a certain presidential candidate often demeans his female opponent for "yelling" and so forth, despite that behaviour being perfectly acceptable in a man), you have now sown the seeds for gender bias.
>the answer shouldn't be to tell women to be bigger blowhards than the men in order to get to do interesting stuff
Interesting statement but what's the justification for that and what precisely is the action to be taken?
People who aren't willing to stand up for themselves will be dominated by those who are, regardless of gender. The biggest "blowhard" (to use your term) wins, at work, at school, at home, and at every other social interaction. That's basic social dynamics.
Note that the article implicitly acknowledges this: “'In situations like this, [Coffman] suggests, 'you need to be your own best advocate and aggressively seek out the most interesting and challenging projects. If your male peers try to task you with menial work, you can tell them 'no'. They're your peers, not your bosses.'”
I agree that the use of "fun" here is a little demeaning.
I also think, however, that the overall point here was totally valid - you are your own best advocate, and you can't trust other people to hand you interesting work. Being handed menial, boring tasks is much more likely.
I know a very talented woman with more experience and talent than her teammates who constantly deals with the interesting work being given to men instead of her. In meetings men look to the other men for opinions instead of her, even when she's leading the meeting. Partly it's because corporate environments prefer bluster to quieter expertise but the answer shouldn't be to tell women to be bigger blowhards than the men in order to get to do interesting stuff.