Utah women in tech report religious sexism

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

am trying to convey that their inner thought processes produce/display behaviors and interactions that are socially less adept / more inept than the non-nerds with whom they interact

Being different does not inherently mean inept

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Being different does not inherently mean inept

Of course I'm speaking in relative and contextual terms. Technically the thesis is only describing differences, but we see everyday how differences are often perceived and become problems, or are in fact problematic and become troublesome for society. That is how the reported differences are interpreted in the article.

The OP pointed out, and I take it at face value, that the problematic issues of misogyny and gender discrimination occur nationally in the technology sector at higher levels than other industries, and are greatly amplified in the State of Utah where misapplication of the majority religion's teaching plays a role in male chauvinism. My hypothesis is that the social skills of those in the technology sector has a bit to do with that. I am asking questions to test that. Do the personality and behavior differences, however one might describe them, matter in the amplification?  If you can refine the questions, that would be great.

 

Edited September 13 by CV75

[CV75]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

If I had to guess I would say that it was likely either a result of very specific leadership decisions in that company to buck the trend (decisions the other companies are not making), that actual church members are not that involved in the running of that business, or people view family history and genealogy work as more of a female centric occupation and so are subconsciously more comfortable with them in leadership positions.

So you see no connection between Ancestry.com's closer association with the Church in terms of it demonstrating less gender discrimination. I tend to agree, but thought I'd ask.

I have seen the stats showing that some 75% of genealogists are women. I also found it interesting that the company is considered a tech company rather than a genealogy business that applies a good deal of tech. But there so much more to it than tech, it doesn't seem to create its own tech, and the genealogy field is recognized as its own industry. I think it might be better treated as a non-tech sector example.

Edited September 13 by CV75

[Calm]

On 9/13/2024 at 1:51 PM, CV75 said:

Of course I'm speaking in relative and contextual terms

No, you are speaking insulting terms, apparently making insulting assumptions about nerds everywhere.

The paradigm of a work culture may be toxic or at least detrimental to those disadvantaged by it, but that doesn’t mean those using it are socially inept.  In fact many in the culture may be quite adept that particular paradigm at using it to their advantage.  However, being socially mature and adept isn’t the only factor in social success.

For example, women have been typically seen as more socially adept than men in general for eons and yet they have consistently been disadvantaged in work cultures, their social skills even when identical to males have been judged inferior.

Edited September 22 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

hink one characteristic of a nerd is that they do not realize they are bucking a trend

Out of curiosity, do you identify as a nerd and is that why you come to this conclusion or is there another reason?

Speaking as a female nerd, I realized from grade 6 I was bucking expectations and trends by excelling in and more so loving, wanting to live, breathe, and eat math and science.  It was obvious from the reactions and expressed expectations of those around me towards not only the female nerds I associated with, but the male nerds.  And from my conversations, my guess is most of my nerd friends and acquaintances were well aware as myself.

Edited September 13 by Calm

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So you see no connection between Ancestry.com's closer association with the Church in terms of it demonstrating less gender discrimination. I tend to agree, but thought I'd ask.

I have seen the stats showing that some 75% of genealogists are women. I also found it interesting that the company is considered a tech company rather than a genealogy business that applies a good deal of tech. But there so much more to it than tech, it doesn't seem to create its own tech, and the genealogy field is recognized as its own industry. I think it might be better treated as a non-tech sector example.

I cannot say if Ancestry.com actually has a closer association with the church.  It's not owned or run by the church, right?  Is there some way to know that it's got a closer association in terms of managers and leadership positions than the other tech stuff?

But I agree that I don't think it easily falls into the tech-sector.  Just because something uses tech to exist and run online does mean that the service should be considered tech.  

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, you are speaking insulting terms, making insulting assumptions about nerds everywhere.

The paradigm of a work culture may be toxic or at least detrimental to those disadvantaged by it, but that doesn’t mean those using it are socially inept.  In fact many in the culture may be quite adept that particular paradigm at using it to their advantage.  However, being socially mature and adept isn’t the only factor in social success.

For example, women have been typically seen as more socially adept than men in general for eons and yet they have consistently been disadvantaged in work cultures, their social skills even when identical to males have been judged inferior.

I did ask you to offer better ways of phrasing my questions if my wording came across as insulting.

I think it valid to consider social ineptness a contributor to toxic workplace culture in the tech industry as portrayed in the OP where the general problems are amplified above the norm, ostensibly due to religion. All else being equal, what strikes me is the personality profile of the workforce influenced by the culture where that religion has so much influence, and how they handle it socially. I agree that women are more socially adept than men, including within the tech sector where the workforce represents a higher proportion of nerds than the general public, similarly to the problem being greater in the tech sector than generally.

I will wait and see who can address the questions I had in the first place.

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Out of curiosity, do you identify as a nerd and is that why you come to this conclusion or is there another reason?

Speaking as a female nerd, I realized from grade 6 I was bucking expectations and trends by excelling in and more so loving, wanting to live, breathe, and eat math and science.  It was obvious from the reactions and expressed expectations of those around me towards not only the female nerds I associated with, but the male nerds.  And from my conversations, my guess is most of my nerd friends and acquaintances were well aware as myself.

I don't much identify as a nerd, but I can relate to being one if that makes sense. In my case, being aware of a behavior is different than being able to navigate it well socially. Maybe low prioritization of the cost (or awareness of the cost) is a better way to describe it than a lack of awareness.

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I cannot say if Ancestry.com actually has a closer association with the church.  It's not owned or run by the church, right?  Is there some way to know that it's got a closer association in terms of managers and leadership positions than the other tech stuff?

But I agree that I don't think it easily falls into the tech-sector.  Just because something uses tech to exist and run online does mean that the service should be considered tech.  

I'm just going by the article. If I were writing the thesis or the article (not sure which source introduced it; I am focusing on my original questions), I would have left it out.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Maybe low prioritization of the cost (or awareness of the cost) is a better way to describe it than a lack of awareness.

Low prioritization is a much, much better description. I am highly aware of costs, implications, and impacts in many areas, especially social (I spend much of my day calculating that for myself and others) and I have never been described as socially inept or immature, quite the opposite, but have often had to low prioritize the need to push back in an inequal situation or even getting involved at all.   My guess is many other nerds operate by judging cost benefits they see very clearly, but may often choose to not be proactive for a variety of reasons based on my interactions with them.  We aren’t dumb when it comes to social skills or even just slow or clueless, it is often just too much work for what one gets out of it.  Better to expend limited resources on higher yielding activities.

Edited September 13 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 9/12/2024 at 11:37 AM, bluebell said:

I get not wanting to assume the worst about people we don't know.  But it does chafe that it's always the men that we don't want to assume the worst about, and never the women.  It's pretty acceptable to assume that all of these (multiple) women we don't know are just being unfairly judgemental, are whiney, are actually just bad workers, or even are flat out lying, in the name of trying not to judge the men in the stories.

Why are we willing to give the men the benefit of the doubt, but hardly ever willing to do the same for the women?

 

This.

Every possible other motivation must be discarded before thinking anything bad of men but if you want to explain why women struggle throw out the first gender stereotype that comes to mind and that explains it.

Men are SO fragile about this that it is almost comical.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Low prioritization is a much, much better description. I am highly aware of costs, implications, and impacts in many areas (I spend much of my day calculating that for myself and others), but may low prioritize the need to push back in an inequal situation or get involved at all.  My guess is many other nerds operate by judging cost benefits they see very clearly, but may often choose to not be proactive for a variety of reasons.

Thank you -- if interested, please rephrase my questions here without changing my underlying assumption*. The several questions are here: Posted 22 hours ago

* The personality attributes typically associated with STEM workers in the tech sector workforce contributes to amplified gender discrimination in the United States tech sector, but more so in Utah where Mormonism (with a male priesthood governance structure) uniquely predominates culturally.

Edited September 14 by CV75

[rpn]

I have never understood how the church can be deemed responsible in any way for its male members deciding that they had the right to decide anything for women (violates all basic belief of agency).  Or that they don't belong in any workplace (not just agency but wholly wrong to think they have revelation for anyone else).  I don't see those things as church related by maie stupidity issues (or exuses for being overbearing or similar.   For me that isn't faith, but a huge stupidization of everything the Church of Jesus Christ teaches.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, rpn said:

how the church can be deemed responsible in any way for its male members deciding that they had the right to decide anything for women

Because the men decide so much for the women all the time in church settings?

Happens a lot for men as well, but I have been in many wards where the women*** had to clear everything but the most minor things with the male leaders over them.  Did not see the same thing happening for men (though my view was more limited).

***women who were under women leaders would go to their leaders and be told their leaders would have to clear it first with the man who had oversight.

Edited September 15 by Calm

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, rpn said:

I have never understood how the church can be deemed responsible in any way for its male members deciding that they had the right to decide anything for women (violates all basic belief of agency).  Or that they don't belong in any workplace (not just agency but wholly wrong to think they have revelation for anyone else).  I don't see those things as church related by maie stupidity issues (or exuses for being overbearing or similar.   For me that isn't faith, but a huge stupidization of everything the Church of Jesus Christ teaches.

Because all members are informed by things the church has taught in the past and what it teaches now. Also more importantly by things that are practiced now.

[rpn]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Because all members are informed by things the church has taught in the past and what it teaches now. Also more importantly by things that are practiced now.

It's not inevitable extrapolation, nor anyone else's business and it never has been.  

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, rpn said:

It's not inevitable extrapolation, nor anyone else's business and it never has been.  

Can you explain what is not anyone else's business?  I'm not sure I'm following.

[The Nehor]

On 9/16/2024 at 3:55 PM, rpn said:

It's not inevitable extrapolation, nor anyone else's business and it never has been.  

?????

[ZealouslyStriving]

Hasn't the Church itself put women in high position in some of it's business interests- like Deseret Book?

Edited September 20 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Hasn't the Church itself put women in high position in some of its business interests- like Deseret Book?

I think you are referring to Sheri Dew. I’m not sure if she is a great example since she is unmarried and has no children. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you are referring to Sheri Dew. I’m not sure if she is a great example since she is unmarried and has no children.

Fair enough.

Hasn't the Church elevated women to leadership positions who chose to work outside the home?

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Hasn't the Church itself put women in high position in some of it's business interests- like Deseret Book?

In a pretty token way.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Fair enough.

Hasn't the Church elevated women to leadership positions who chose to work outside the home?

I only know of two, Sherie Dew and Sharon Eubank and both are single (not saying there aren’t more and some may be married).  Unless you mean in church leadership?  If in church leadership, yes, but their service is relatively short lived compared to most of the men in parallel callings.

Edited September 21 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I only know of two, Sherie Dew and Sharon Eubank and both are single (not saying there aren’t more and some may be married).  Unless you mean in church leadership?  If in church leadership, yes, but their service is relatively short lived compared to most of the men in parallel callings.

Yes, leadership positions. My point being that women who have worked outside the home aren't personas-non-grata in general church leadership, thus in my mind showing that the Church isn't to blame for men in business not promoting women more in their companies.

[The Nehor]

On 9/20/2024 at 9:03 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yes, leadership positions. My point being that women who have worked outside the home aren't personas-non-grata in general church leadership, thus in my mind showing that the Church isn't to blame for men in business not promoting women more in their companies.

LOL

No.