[30454] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [OT] Valley of the Boyz
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sheryl Chapin)
Mon Aug 7 10:27:27 2000
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000807102633.0099f9a0@pop3.ctel.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:26:33 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Sheryl Chapin <schapin@ctel.net>
In-Reply-To: <398EB8A3.C636DE6C@onecall.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Ummm, I think you guys are missing the point. The point is that guys live,
breath and eat this stuff, but to most women, it's just a job. I am the
only female technical person in my (admittedly small) company. One of the
guys once described me as "being very good at my job, but it's just a job".
I have no problem with that discription, when I go to lunch, I'm not
interested in talking "tapes, hard drives and wiring", I do that at work.
And yes, I have very little in common with these guys. Most of them go
home where there are more computers than people, all networked together and
play for hours (by play, I don't mean games, I mean they write programs and
expirement with new technology). They *love* this stuff. I go home and
don't even look at my computer unless I'm beeped.
In a previous job, (again, the only woman) I was invited to stay and play
networked doom with the guys one Friday night. I played for an hour, ok,
it was fun, I'm done now. They played until 3am.
Personally, I always thought it was just me, but maybe it is a gender
thing. Is that bad? I really don't know.
Sheryl Chapin
CommTel Internet
At 08:24 AM 8/7/00 -0500, Richard Irving wrote:
>
><rant>
>
> So, anybody want to take bets ?
>
> I bet the young lady, in the interview,
>within her first 2 years, makes a BEE-LINE
>for management, and starts -insisting-
>everyone wears a tie, so they look professional.
>
> Remember, IBM salesman -rammed- "dark tie,
>and white shirt" down the industries throat..
>You weren't -professional- unless you dressed,
>in this fashion.
>
>Corporate America's management bought into this
>load of malarkey, wholeheartedly. (I suspect their
>ties were too tight..) So, soon
> corporate America was looking down their nose at
>anyone who couldn't play the management conformity game...
>
> After all, your not a -professional- with out a dark tie,
>and light suit.
>
> Meantime, back at IBM HQ, at the Watson Research center,
>the top IBM techs , such as Benoit, were running around in
>cut offs, and pony tails.
>
> Seems, to IBM, this rule was only true for -salesmen-, and trivial
>technicals, and IBM had a pioneer in their company who went
>-way- out of his way to make sure R&D TECHNICALS were
>-not- required to conform. According to his research,
>good technicals rarely enjoy conforming.
>
>It is management, and sales, that admire conformity.
>
> Nonetheless, a reality as sold by -salesman=, bought into
>by -management-, and propogated by -recruiters-, became the norm
>for technicals... it took us 20 years to throw that
>perspective out the window... and some big companies
>-still- by into that load of "stuff".
>
> Meanwhile , IBM kept running that research center, -without-
>such codes.... pointedly.
>
> Yes, I feel almost -positive- this young lady
>will seek management. I really do.
>
> Shortly thereafter, she will attempt to correct these
>errors in the industry, and set us all straight. She will
>recruit people who cannot stand discussing "tape drives,
>hardware, and wires", and management will back her wholeheartedly.
>
> I just know it.
>
> :\
>
></rant>
>
>rdobbins@netmore.net wrote:
>>
>> News flash, lady - IT -is- "tape drives and hardware and wires and
>> machines". So, if you have nothing in common with people who are
interested
>> in such things, go do something else.
>>
>
>
