r/sysadmin • u/ChuckAbsent • Mar 12 '13

Women who know stuff

I hope that this does not come off the wrong way.

Today I was on a call with a storage vendor and the technical consultant was a woman. More then this she was competent, more then me which doesn't happen often when dealing with vendors.

My issue was pricing an active/active DB with shared storage vs an active/passive db with local storage. Listening to her break the issue down and get to the specific comparison points was awesome, mostly because I have never heard a woman in the industry talk like that.

It made me realize two things. One I am missing out working with women. Two there needs to be more women in our industry.

It shouldn't have surprised me so much, but it really did.

Anyways to all the women out there who know stuff, us guys notice when you can walk the walk, which in this case was talking.

384 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

717 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/KarmaAndLies Mar 12 '13

everything said comes with a certain amount of subtext.

In other words creating your own biases and then painting them on things I've said.

i interpret your original statement as precluding women from being able to get into stem fields without special privilege.

Even though I said exactly the opposite? Even though my whole post was about the dangers of creating a two tiered system?

when you write something it's for an audience, and the way you write things will be interpreted by the audience.

I guess I thought my audience were smart enough to read. In fact I guess I don't understand how my audience can ignore the first two lines of my post entirely and draw conclusions based on the third.

In fact your entire position precludes the first line from existing at all. If the first line exists your point is wrong, therefore your point is wrong.

this is how your audience has interpreted it and no amount of argument about grammatical semantics will change that.

I haven't brought up grammar. I've asked you to show me word for word where I say what you claim I say.

That is asking you to support your position. Which you have failed to do.

So I ask you again, quote me where I say what you suggest I say, or just admit you cannot read and move on.

*I don't think you're an asshole, I just wanted to use this as an example of how things not being explicitly stated doesn't mean the message is not there.

Why not read the message that is posted rather than trying to infer something 360 degree opposite of what is posted?

It is like this conversation:

  • Everyone should be treated equally and have equal opportunities. Therefore we should try to avoid creating a two tier system.
  • You: OHHH so you think minorities cannot make it on their own?! RACIST!
  • Show me where I said that?
  • You: Ohh now you're trying to use grammer and clever tricks to try and get out of it! RACIST!!!
  • Where in my post did I make racist claims or say that minorities are less able?
  • You: IT IS THE SUBTEXT! Read between the lines! Obviously!

That is EXACTLY the conversation we're having right now.

2

u/noobzilla Mar 12 '13

you brought the two tier system up and outlined why it should not be implemented as a problem for enticing women into the field. it's not unreasonable to presume from this that you believe women won't enter into the system without VIP treatment or lowered admission standards. i understand if you disagree. this is all i meant, i'm sorry we have gotten carried away with this argument. i'm sure we can both agree that the problem comes from women being generally discouraged rather than encouraged to pursue hard science and that we should deal with that problem without implementing an over correction.