I am a recovering Superwoman wannabee Working moms such as me often fall into the trap of the Superwoman syndrome. The Superwoman syndrome describes the woman that tries to achieve it all: the pursuit of a successful career and a happy family life. The Superwoman can tackle any challenge thrown at her; she is invincible. She can carry all three kids on her back …
Or try to.
I think that we all in this industry have insecurities: we can't know/control it all, and there is fierce competition.
I remember my own experience, checking my email from intensive care after an accident.
Being a woman means some ppl consider that you have to "prove" yourself, and I guess that mus be an added stress.
My recomendations is: try to reserve some quality time for yourself, you only get to live once.
The *only* difference between working men and working women is the acceptability (to some) of compromise for success, I know mums who don't make any effort at work, and become "full time mums" (whatever that is) I know mums who do "pin money" part time jobs while husbands pay the bills, I know women who are CEO's of successful companies and take off two weeks to have a baby (twice, I may add).
Dads can pretty much do whatever they like without fear that they'll be criticised for being a bad parent, making time for the kids seems over and above (by being a "good dad").
What's wrong with this picture? same thing that's wrong with the article, an assumption that men and women are different, Phoummala strives and then caves in, failing to be a "superwoman" is merely failing to be super successful, but accepting that it's OK to be "normal", if this story was about a man, it would just end up with him saying "I couldn't be arsed, but at least I got to spend some extra time with the kids".
The article is hilarious, complaining about stereotypes - and then becomes one.
What does it profit a person if they gain the whole world but lose their family?
Its not worth the cost if at the end of the day you're a shattered hollow shell of the vibrant wonderful person you used to be. Giving up your family and time with your kids isn't sacrifice because sacrifice implies that we gain something more valuable by giving up the opportunity to spend quality time with our kids/partners. This is an outright fabrication that continues to be spread by industries that won't hesitate to use you up and move on to the next warm body.
The biggest secret of all is that there are no Super's. Just regular men and women doing the best they can to do the best they can. It's easy to mouth words about balance and harder to go out and find it. Well done for recognizing what was happening and taking the appropriate steps to right a listing ship. There are plenty of us workaholic males who could stand to take a page from your book.
"It's a tough game of male egos mixed with discrimination, stereotypes, and fears. If you want to succeed in IT, you need to work hard and play hard."
So why has The Register so clearly missed the point of this article by using a overtly sexual of Superwoman's breasts to promote this otherwise really informative piece?
<<Oh, and I'm a bloke BTW.>>
You can continue this discussion via this forum thread, if you wish.
It's interesting that superwoman still needed "permission" from Sheryl Sandberg's book before becoming more at ease and "leaning back" a bit. This seems to be the big difference between feminine and masculine (stereotypical) characters at work: the male "takes" the ease when deemed appropriate and leans back and doesn't worry (much) about perceptions even when competition is there. While the problem I see with building on the advice from peers and books is that it might still mask the bigger problem: to remain so dependent on sub-textual validation from ones environment and peers before deciding if something is appropriate to do or not, if enough is done or not. This needs to grow out of your own "balls", so to speak. That would be real gender liberation at the work floor, in my opinion. So not what Sandberg would do but what you would do.
"It's interesting that superwoman still needed "permission" from Sheryl Sandberg's book before becoming more at ease and "leaning back" a bit."
I agree - but only partially. In the sense that there is no need to follow some high flying business brass advice - it would be much more important to figure these things by oneself. On the other hand, I don't really agree that these issues are specific to women only - many of us face them with varying degrees of intensity on both (all?) sides of the gender line.
But the article only seems to scratch the surface of it all. We all behave in the way to we do for some quite complex reasons. We all have our motivations, some conscious, some less so. Trying to attain a deeper understanding of what makes one tick would be far more useful and long enduring, than just picking some quick-to-digest advice from the book of some business celebrity - even when that advice is right or it even works.
But overall, an article that is thought provoking and raises issues pertinent to all of us.
Amazingly, I've gotten through a 15 year career so far, working with scores of men, and not once have I needed to take out a sexual harassment complaint.
Then again, I've been fortunate enough to work with guys with a modicum of respect, not dickwads who insist on making "funny" jokes or sending crass pics around. Or worse.
If you're genuinely guilty of none of the above, no inappropriate remarks, touching, jokes, etc, then yeah, there is the rare female dickwad as well.
Although I am extremely curious as to what this "good communication protocol" is, and why you felt you needed to go out of your way to establish one with the (sole?) female you worked with.
Very true.
I (like many men nowadays) take quite a big share in housework, getting the kids to school, helping them with homework, cooking, besides working full time. My wife also works nearly full time so it can become a rat race for both of us. At some point you simply need to say: there are 24 hours in a day, and not all of them should be filled with duties. I have learned to say: "Hang this, I have done as much as could humanly be expected or more, I am now taking time off for my own hobbies" (stargazing: superbly relaxing, it really puts things in perspective). What helps is to focus on what you have accomplished, not on the list of chores that still has to be done.
Not always easy.
On Radio4 a women radiographer said that she did not know how exhausted she was until the day she retired. IIRC she slept for three days. As the good book says "you cannot help someone out of a pit if you go down into it". Stay on top!
BTW if you want geek status, you should have said an amplifier that goes to 11.
=========> ♀ penguin
Perhaps you should try a quick poll of your work colleagues., For those who have young families ask them if they would rather be at home with the kids or at work leaving their partner to look after them. See how the answers compare between men and women in the office and between those who seem to be getting the better assignments/bigger wages etc.
As others have said you can work all hours for the company, concentrate on the family or you can decide to have a "good" work/home balance whatever that may be,. Trying to work all hours for the company while doing the family thing can work for a while but you probably end up exhausted. The thing is when the man concentrates on the work he will feel less guilt about it (at least at the time, they may feel delayed guilt years later).
Those that work just the hours required so they can get back to the family make that decision and will rightly or wrongly not normally be promoted above others.
I wonder if Phoummala thinks her male colleagues are also wrestling with their work life balance or are they either 1) single 2) have no kids 3) find it a quieter life at work.
Is someone a little bitter? Get passed over for those "nice" project roles, or maybe blame your lack of career progress on having to take time off to have kids? Ever stop to think that the employer is not responsible for your kids, you are. You made the choice to have kids, if you didn't think it through then who made the stupid decision? Man or woman, married or co-habiting, having kids is not a decision to be taken lightly. A good employer will probably have been down the road too and will be as flexible as possible IF you are an employee worth it. Whatever you do, don't make the mistake of bleating about how having kids is "your right", that just sounds so weak and unthinking. Work, like a lot of life, is about compromise. Why would you expect a manager to give you a key role if you can't even manage your own life? Sure, the are employees that sacrifice their kids, but a smart manager looks for employees with balance in their lives because they are usually the better longer term bet.
"Perhaps you should try a quick poll of your work colleagues., For those who have young families ask them if they would rather be at home with the kids or at work leaving their partner to look after them. See how the answers compare between men and women in the office and between those who seem to be getting the better assignments/bigger wages etc."
Ok, I bite. Guess what. The result is 100% for people choosing family/kids over work. Sure, many people may work extra remotely over VPN, but even then not unconditionally. Doesn't appear to affect assignments/wages.
Perhaps you work for the wrong company.
It's not just women. Many people fall into this trap. Especially middle mgmt and MM wannabes.
Not only are they methodically killing themselves, they are making the rest of us who are not and will not be selling our soul to the company for any price, miserable as well.
No, people do not "overclock". well. Or at all for that matter. And leave your mommy and daddy attitudes at home.
Absolutely, by turning the screw tighter on yourself it gets turned tighter for everyone. Which makes the bosses happier.
And ironically, there's no actual correlation between working longer/harder and being more effective. On the contrary, the culture of the hard slog tends to mean that the people who are good at (any) job can be bypassed by the sloggers who just put in lots of ineffective hours.
This isn't just an issue with women really. I see this as a choice people will make regardless of gender....
Some will devote their time to work almost exclusively; very little social time, no family time. This may or may not help them get ahead -- if there are other people there more talented, they may "get ahead" anyway... and in some other cases, there's basically no normal promotion path anyway, so there is no "ahead" . In some cases, the person either enjoys their work and view it as leisure, some feel an obligation towards work (either for psychological reasons or they are very well paid), and some will have very little leisure and family life anyway so they just spend it working rather than doing absolutely nothing.
Others will devote more to a balanced lifestyle. This is a reasonable choice to make, if devoting all your time to work makes you unhappy or is untenable. In some cases this may put the person at a disadvantage, in other cases I think they *worry* it'll put them at a disadvantage but it won't.
Of course, trying to do both (extensive life outside work *and* extensive work life) will rapidly wear a person out, there are simply not enough hours in the day.
Finally I've seen those who have not found a job to pay enough for them to want to devote more time than needed to it, they make a point of going on lots of trips and spending lots of time outside work, working just enough to cover the bills. They may be having the most fun of all, but I'm guessing they'll never have any savings saved up and so may regret it later.
Have an upvote on me! Too many articles on life/work balance take the one-sided view of "family above all - or you will be sorry on your death bed". Well, I'm exaggerating a bit here, but I find that the above attitude ends up being a fairly narrow minded approach which doesn't apply to everybody.
Not everybody is the same. Not everybody has the same priorities in life. Not everybody has the same priorities at different times in their life. Not everybody has the same emotional make up. Not everybody has a happy family waiting for them at home. Not everybody has the same past. There are many reasons why some people might enjoy work more than others. Then there is the reality that some of us spent more of our youth searching for a carrier which fits our natural talents and inclinations, while others walked into the first job they could find or which paid the most.
Or some of us just accept that it is impossible to do everything and do it well in this life, but it is quite possible to just do one or two things in this life and do them well. It is a compromise, but that's how it works. And some of us might have accepted to do just some things (i.e. work) and do them well - maybe because of our particular personal situation. And it doesn't necessarily mean we disapprove of those who might have different priorities.
But on the other hand, why would someone who chooses to enjoy more of their time with their family have the same career expectations as someone who might have chosen to forego those pleasures and put more time into work? No one can have it all.
I am sick of this poor me crap..
I am a woman in IT, a super woman if you will. I work those 18-35 hour days, with little complaint. I did not have brats, and I am unmarried, and basically single.. I am currently working 20 hour days rolling out a new voip system. This is the life I chose, I don't compete wit male peers, because I do not feel the need to. I do what is required - put the infrastructure first. This isnt a boost of self esteem, its a career. Most importantly, I do not whine about it in books or articles. "Oh poor me, I cant keep up with my male peers".
By the way - who the hell racks servers in high heels??? This job requires jeans and comfy tennis shoes, no matter what your career is.
I wear work shoes, work pants and a long sleeve collared shirt to work. As a manager I need to be presentable, but also if I have to do something physical then I just get in and do it - crawing under desks or mucking around in the server room. It's not as practical, but there's more to consider than just dressing for practicality reasons.
Many companies have a dresscode too.
"I am a woman in IT, a super woman if you will. I work those 18-35 hour days, with little complaint. I did not have brats, and I am unmarried, and basically single.. "
Missing the point of the article here aren't you. You are single, no children, the author is telling us what it's like if you DO have a family including children at home. The superwoman thing was all about being the perfect high performing employee (or even boss) and at the same time being the perfect partner and mother. As someone who doesn't have a family at home you won't have experienced the expectations that it's the mother who attends sports days & school plays, or the parents evening. And even if someone does have a decent arrangement with their partner on sharing parenting duties, that share still takes up a fair amount of time.
I'm in the same situation as you - single and no children. But I am able to appreciate the problems that others face when they have to try to juggle multiple commitments.
"I am a woman in IT, a super woman if you will."
We will not. You have missed the point entirely. The point is not that working in IT makes you some kind of superwoman, and it's also not even about IT. It's about trying to keep up in any male-dominated work environment that relies on long hours, whilst at the same time trying to meet society's expectations with regards to married life (which you do not have) and the raising of children (which you do not have).
You absolutely are not a "superwoman" in this context.
If you're working those hours, more fool you. Unless of course this is a 2-month roll-out, and you're having a month's break afterwards.
I'm not married, hah, nor do I or will I have kids.
But my life is not about "putting the infrastructure first". Yeah, the weeks I'm on call, I'm on call. If there's a project getting close to deadline, I'll put some extra hours in. But if your systems are so unstable, or you have so little backup, or it's one crisis-deliver-NOW project after another, that you are getting called every night or you're not leaving until late o'clock, you don't have too far to look around to see where the problem is.
I'm female, I'm a sysadmin, I couldn't give one toss about family obligations (they are not gender-dependent and I wish more people realised that), and yet I still want a life outside the server room.
You don't get any greater rewards or sufficient recognition for working ridiculous hours constantly, other than a bit more cash in your pay-packet, Perhaps. If you never get the time to spend and enjoy it, what's the point?
"You don't get any greater rewards or sufficient recognition for working ridiculous hours constantly, other than a bit more cash in your pay-packet, Perhaps. If you never get the time to spend and enjoy it, what's the point?"
And also if one consistently does those kinds of hours, it soon becomes expected.
Works for the company. The overtime is cheaper than hiring a new full time employee.
And anyone who thinks the company wouldn't shaft such a person without batting an eyelid if it suits them is a fool.
"I am currently working 20 hour days rolling out a new voip system. This is the life I chose, I don't compete wit male peers, because I do not feel the need to. I do what is required - put the infrastructure first."
If you have to work 20 hour days, your company is obviously not employing enough staff. Obviously if that is a short term project then it doesn't necessarily make sense to hire more staff.
.. as for "I work those 18-35 hour days" ...well on this planet day is @24 hours so 35 is rather unlikely.
"This isnt a boost of self esteem, its a career. Most importantly, I do not whine about it in books or articles. "Oh poor me, I cant keep up with my male peers"."
Isn't it? Why post it if it isn't. Sounds a bit like a whine to me to be fair.
"....Isn't it? Why post it if it isn't. Sounds a bit like a whine to me to be fair." Agreed, I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't someone trying to be a bit too sarcastic. The problem is we're so deeply ingrained with the "don't-be-sexist" mantra we find it hard to even consider sarcasm on the subject.
"I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't someone trying to be a bit too sarcastic. "
The thought did cross my mind. In the end "thou protest too much" won.
"The problem is we're so deeply ingrained with the "don't-be-sexist" mantra we find it hard to even consider sarcasm on the subject."
You have a valid point there.
I did not have brats, and I am unmarried, and basically single.. I am currently working 20 hour days rolling out a new voip system. This is the life I chose
You sound like such a fun person to be around! I wonder why you're single? Maybe I could talk you through my slides of interesting telegraph poles sometime?
As a boss of a largeish number of people scattered acros steh globe I relish a mix of people, genders, ages, marital states, gender preferences, langauges and cultures. It makes for a high performing, self supporting team and one with different views on how to work with the customer,internal and external.
Married wommen with kids are just one thing in the mix, certain concessions have to be made for their life but as far as I can see they ae not so different. As for the superwooman bit, I find that is a Western Anglo-Saxon thing. My central europeans, Latin Americans and Far Easten married seem to take children, their feckless husbands and me in their stride. No excuse making and no whining. Mind you I did have Isabela excuse her self once to go and get her children early - mainly because there was a drung cartel gun fight across the normal road route. No kidding - makes your excuse to go early seem vacuous.
Put trust in people, let them sort out the edges of their life and as far as I can see it just works.
Mind you I did have Isabela excuse her self once to go and get her children early - mainly because there was a drung cartel gun fight across the normal road route.
You were one character away from a highly amusing typo - I'd love to see a "dung cartel gun fight" - "Eh jefe, these is MY caca de burro"
The superwoman or superman or superwhatever, they're pint pots trying to fill themselves with a quart, it never works. The trick is to fill with as much of a pint as you really need and be happier for it.
To all of you, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but it usually tastes like shite.
I am not sure about that. I think the top surgeons are quite genuine in that. Something happens at a weekend nobody else has the skill. You can drop everything and try to help or let them die because you are the only one who can do it. (I have been in hospitals where family members are not expected to survive and the top guy has come in dropping whatever he was doing. Just done it and succeeded. Explained the best possible chance was for him to do it). As far as I know those kind of things can happen at any time if you are that guy. (Or girl). I see saving somebody's life quite differently to stopping a company losing money.
This topic is someone complaining who has it far easier than loads of other women in the same situation with a really crappy job.
In IT there is loads of second chances. (And at the end of the day its not that important whether money is lost or servers are down for an extra half an hour or day even).
At any given moment not being 100% doesn't have any emotional impact as I am fairly sure making a mistake leading to somebody's death would.
It would be harder for a man to do what she is doing also as women help each other out but won't help out a man in the same situation.
"It would be harder for a man to do what she is doing also as women help each other out but won't help out a man in the same situation"
Makes me wonder how you've behaved towards the women you work with to make them unwilling to help you out. Also, do men never help people out (whether male or female?).
"It would be harder for a man to do what she is doing also as women help each other out but won't help out a man in the same situation."
Only because the social expectations for men is that they must be the "bread winner", able to "shoulder their fair share of the load", "don't cry", etc.
Trust me, men have as many problems as women do in the work place, it's just that ours are much less obvious because we live with them. One of those problems is that we believe that we are expected to do it ourselves. If we just asked, for the most part people would be willing to help.
This is also part of the super_______ complex, where we take on a role and get used to it being our role and never stop to say "I can't do all of this", even when life gives us a massive hint like stress related illnesses.
When I was younger I promised myself that I'd do one thing every day that's just for me. Do you have any idea how hard it can be to keep that promise.
"This topic is someone complaining who has it far easier than loads of other women in the same situation with a really crappy job."
Ah, there's the problem. You've got the reading comprehension skills of a child, coupled with a totally unjustified confidence in your own abilities, leading you to miss the point but invent one of your own instead to carry away on your poorly explained tangent.
"So you've got someone very good at their job, and in an emergency they're happy to come in on their day off and do some extra work. That's got nothing to do with the topic at hand."
I think it does have something to do with it. There is a lot of misuse of the words "emergency", "crisis", "disaster" in the IT industry. Almost nothing that can happen is life-or-death, and the pressure that sysadmins etc are put under is entirely false. Surgeons are some of the very few people in modern life who can actually make life-or-death decisions, and they generally wear that responsibility lightly - most have a very good work-life balance, at least when they become consultants.
Most of the work in the IT departments comes from the expectations of others, not from *real* crises, yet it suits some(many?) of the people doing the job to play into the idea that they are doing something exceptional and invaluable. That plays into the situation the author of the article writes about ... a need to feel special and in a position of power, when, in the wider scheme of things, it isn't. A server going down isn't going to lead death, destruction or apocalypse - there is some urgency, but in the end all will be well.
So, yes, the OP was contributing to the debate.
What modern people consider hard work is a joke compared to what my grandfather did when he was in his 20's and 30's.
Time in the Army.
12hrs - 5 days a week - 6 hours Saturday Morning.
6pm - 12am studying to be a chartered engineer.
Fixing up a completely empty house up all weekend.
Modern anything is nothing compared to that.
And what was his diet and exercise regime like? When was lights out? did he do that every single day or (as I suspect) did he actually take quite a bit of time out and make up the studying on Sunday? Back in the early 20th century people tended to a) sleep longer b) need to deal with less things in a day compared to our information overload today c) walk most places. This was true well into the 70's too.
The other point to make is that this was in his 20's and 30's, when did he become a chartered engineer? I bet it was before or very early into his 30's, as again younger people are more able to burn the candle at both ends.
Having children is a lifestyle choice. If you can't cope with bringing up a family and bringing enough money in to do so properly, then don't have children. Why is this so hard to grasp?
And please for God's sake stop playing the gender card, and stop whining about how hard you've got it. The world owes you nothing, and plenty of adults and children around the world work a damn site harder for a lot longer for a hell of a lot less.
And just how many blokes have you voiced this opinion to? You know, all those dads in the office who have their super-privileged jobs - how much less crap do they receive if they work ridiculous hours and neglect the family.
And "the starving children in Africa would be grateful for your leftovers" is an argument that wears off when you're about 12, I reckon. We're not talking global inequity here - we are talking about the differences between colleagues sitting right next to each other.
What on Earth are you going on about? No-one except you mentioned Africa. Why Africa anyway?
I think AC's point was that if you can't cope with having a family, then the best thing is not to have one. It's the height of narcissistic selfishness to have kids that you can't cope with, then drone on incessantly about how complex your life is, whilst expecting your (possibly childless) colleagues to pick up the work you can't do.
I'm sorry.. What super-privileged jobs?
If I even came close to "working ridiculous hours and neglect[ing] the family", I would get about as much crap at home as I would at work if I came in late, and bunked off early on a regular basis.
The trick is to "ahem" balance work and personal life. Yes, I sometimes leave work early to meet a familial obligation, and sometimes I work longer hours ..because I'll be taking time off for familial obligations.
And sometimes, I work extra hours because I need the money..for familial obligations.
" If you can't cope with bringing up a family and bringing enough money in to do so properly, then don't have children."
this comment ranks as one of the stupidest comments I have read,
because of course you can predict the future and your ability to cope with a situation of which you have little or no knowledge,
how do you know until you do it ?
it isn't all about the money either, there are good and bad parents from all economic backgrounds
Hopefully James 36, you're not one of these fathers who regularly arrives in late and bunks off work early 'because the kids just have to go to ${somewhere}' or 'they have to do ${something}', and has the arrogance to assume he has rights over his colleagues because he's managed to procreate and they have chosen not to or are unable to do so.
As a university teacher in a male-dominated campus, I got to see a new batch of students negotiating the protocols every year. The basic problem everybody had was that if you are a single exception in the group, there isn't a social standard against which to compare your own behaviour and the behaviour of others.
This was true for all minorites, but the easist thing to observe was that every year we would get complaints from singleton girls that the boys in their group treated them differently than they treated each other, and matching complaints from other singleton girls that the boys in their group treated them exactly like they treated each other.
Without any basis for comparison, the boys didn't know an appropriate way to treat female co-workers, and the female co-workers didn't have any way to know if they were being mistreated. We didn't have any correct answers either: but we could observe that the obvious answers were wrong: you can't treat a single female member of class the same way you treat all the other boys, and you can't treat her differently.
Of course what you need to do is to treat them equally, not the same, but in the absence of context it proves to be very difficult to establish what the equivilant behaviour and language is for minority representatives.
I always find the phrase "overlooked for promotion" to be slightly odd.
First off that implies the control of the situation was not yours or some external factor was at play to deny you the promotion you deserved. Is this really the case ?
Did you do everything you could to get the promotion or did you just work hard and expect it ?
If you think getting a promotion in the organisation you are in involves doing things outside of your boundaries then try the job market
If you feel you aren't being valued where you are then try the job market.
If nothing happens maybe you have found your level so be happy with that, or keep trying the job market whilst balancing your job/home life.
or just ignore all of the above as it is only my opinion and based on my narrow experience of the UK IT job market. The author is American and things are almost certainly different there.
In many cases of discrimination the control really isn't yours (hence the term). and if you're part of a minority that suffers from Glass ceiling/Glass cliff syndrome you have a work place version of Poe's law going on, in that unless you're happy that there's no discrimination where you work, then you may look at someone else getting a promotion who (in your opinion, and maybe that of some others) is far less qualified for the job than you, and have no way of telling if it's because of something they can do that you can't that makes them a better candidate for the job, they're being promoted out of the way, or you've been discriminated against. Equally when you get a promotion you're never sure if it's because you were actually good at the job or because they needed someone of your minority and you fit the bill.
My better half has in the last year been getting more and more feminist which has only brought to my attention how stupid some feminists are. Take this article for example, gotta keep up with the others, wanna match up to the others, want to be able to get everything sorted at home and at work, etc. Now if this was a normal person (bloke or woman) this is over stressing and not balancing work/life. Or from a feminist/sexist point of view this is the toil and difficulty of being a woman in a man run world.
I dont understand the desire to be the victim. Why add that your a woman to the list of problems? It is like adding the sky is blue, its irrelevant. If you said that there were specific instances of sexism which are easily defined and not paranoia(/desire to be the victim) then you have an actual complaint.
It amazes me the dumb assumption that men have it easy because they are men. Or that women have it hard because they are women. It does reduce the sympathy I can have for the tale of woe.
I believe that this article is about they why they are feeling this way rather than whether it's actually expected. I suspect that you'd find that a large number of people feel the same way as the author.
On the other hand I agree with this: "It amazes me the dumb assumption that men have it easy because they are men. Or that women have it hard because they are women. It does reduce the sympathy I can have for the tale of woe." however I feel that it's not actually what the article was about.
To summarise the article - The author has been working all the hours she can to do well at her job, and then at home has been working all the hours she can to have a wonderful family and sacrificed her personal time to do this. She has just realised that she can't keep doing this even though she still feels that she has to and is walking the hard path to a good work life balance.
This post has been deleted by its author
@DragonLord
I hope so but I am not so sure. This is the second article of hers I have read which cries how hard life is because she is a woman and its all the blokes fault (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/29/women_in_it_column/).
In both articles she cant get past being female and seems to think it is a terrible thing (probably blaming men for that too). The irritating thing is she has actually got something to say that is worth saying, but she doesnt seem to understand the worthwhile point. Her last article explained how making yourself a sore thumb will make you the odd one out. In this one she is talking about work life balance and the stress involved. Both are very good topics.
But when I read her articles all I can ask is what bloke did what to her that was so bad that she cant get over it. Or is it penis envy? If she would get past banging on that she is a woman and men dont have these problems she would have an appealing article for both men and women. Instead of realising she is like the rest of us she makes comments like this-
"My early days in tech were bumpy. I struggled with stereotyped perceptions of women in IT that I thought I had overcome, but in reality I still had not. I felt - and still continue to feel - not equal to my colleagues. I had to prove myself to them to gain acceptance. Was it my own insecurities or the unknowing actions of my male colleagues that gave me this fear?
To be honest, probably a mixture of both."
Yet she seems to think the insecurities are centred around her being a woman! Who hasnt felt they might not be equal to their colleagues or had to prove themselves? Especially when starting out. But this idiot boils a legitimate problem, a real concern, something we all go through and claims it in the name of being a woman.
It does irk me because most of us go through various uncertainties and they are legitimate feelings to work through. So telling men they dont have problems and only ego's while telling women that their legitimate feelings are all because they are a woman in the workplace surrounded by men doesnt help anyone. It probably does turn women off joining IT.
Seriously???
Replace the word "woman" with "man" and re-read that article.
Everything still applies (apart from the high heels of course) ... women like you crack me up.
This is a competitive industry for men too, there's always someone after that job and from a business managers point of view they promote the person they feel will commit the most to the business.
A single person with no outside commitments is probably working more hours than you because they don't have to raise kids is just 1 factor.
Poor you ...
This article is total BS!
If you want more from life go get it stop whining about it.
FYI: My boss is a woman and chooses to be at work rather than at home raising kids, i'd love her job but I really can't be bothered with the hours she does so fair play to her.
On top of that, the MD in our company is female, she has kids and never moans about life.
Would this article really have been better if she'd tried to generalise to the point where it applied to everyone.
"For a man/woman/indeterminate who is working/serving in the military/dealing with being severely handicapped while balancing working long hours/being shot at/not being able to move his/her/its legs along with raising children/breeding prizewinng goldfish/feeding their heroine addiction, you can get over stressed (unless of course you thrive on stress, then maybe you don't have enough stress).. where was I?"
Seems more reasonable to me that she wrote about what she knew.
Divorce rates, single parent families, rampant teenage hoodies, teenage pregnancy and alcohol abuse. It’s all because you want baaaaabis and a career, and you want the man in your life to be perfect Facebook material (so you can tell your social networking friends how he cooked you a meal after a day’s work, or how he did the housework, or got you a lovely gift) then weeks later pour your heart out to everyone you went to school with after he finally gives up and leaves, leaving you a crippling burden on the economy raising your children.
Let your man love you, take care of you and provide for you and his family. Raise your children and be there for them OR get a job and forget the juggling act, either way, stop moaning.
And to all the feminists poised to reply, I guarantee you that you will end up single (if you are not divorced at least once already), but go ahead, tell me how perfect your life is and how you can have it all.
> the jobs are more competitive and demanding with long hours
It does sound to me like most of the pressure is coming from within.
My experience of working (some might even say: succeeding) in IT is to do what you say you will, at the time you have stipulated and with as little drama and error as you can muster. There's nothing wrong with saying "I can't do that" - except the injuries done to personal pride. You might even get thanked for saying-so up front, rather than your inability to deliver becoming apparent when it's too late to fix it (unless you have found someone else to lay the blame on). You will get the occasional arsehole of a boss who puts you down and belittles you for admitting to limitations, but planting some pr0n on his/her computer is an easy fix to that problem (and might even get you to fill the ensuing vacancy).
If you feel pressure to excel - one that my colleagues will testify that I have never felt - then that's something within you, as a person. Nobody else is driving you. Any demands you have (reasonable or otherwise) are ones you place on yourself: either though having agreed to someone else's agenda, or from some sort of self-image that requires you meet some sort of standard.
A successful IT person is a happy IT person. No more, no less (and you can probably scratch "IT" from that aphorism).
I don't believe that the writer of this is being serious.
But it really does bug me as a man (aged 24) to read about how "unfair" it is being a woman.
It would be a different story if there were actual examples or realistic fears, but to just throw it out there like "it could be my fears...but it's Probably mens fault as well" i mean what the hell?!
Bringin in some REAL sexism, yeah this article is the kind of thing i would expect from a female.
Argumentative, passively aggressive, extremely subtly sexist and it's all pieced together to get a reaction or some sort of dramatic response.
Well i don't like to keep a lady waiting so here's my dramatic response to all feminists:
Poor men that have to deal with women their whole lives in an attempt to satisfy our instinctual coding, to find a mate, (men always have to ask first, or are expected too..that includes proposals) do manual labor (opening those jars really is challenging) and then when we get home, our ideas of extra curricular activities is shot down with a "oww but I have a headache and my favorite soap opera is on" and then if (on the rare occasion) us men are too tired, suddenly we are being unaffectionate?! OR ACTING DIFFERENTLY (accusations of cheating come in) It's could just be my worries.......but it's probably females just as much.
ON a personal note,
My whole life I have treated everyone equally based on the variables that should be added into the mix (such as is he an a-hole or if shes a cheating lying scumbag) and how far has that got me? people take advantage of kindness, the women get bored of you, they take you for granted, and they cheat on you. 3 individuals each have shown this such behavior.
I'll still continue to treat everyone based on the variables they give me because that's the proper way.
Something for the writer to think about - perhaps you feel like you are treated differently because you treat other with more hostility then you think. Your colleagues are not stepping stones or rungs in a ladder for you to climb up to where you want to be. Monster.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
