No, it's very much active aggression, only covert. See also "politics".

I iPad-downvoted you, sorry-- I actually agree 100%. It's important to keep in mind in general that even members of oppressed classes can be discriminatory, and it's no less of a problem.

Argh, I knew I shouldn't have used a broad description of male behavior and narrow one of the female.

The male equivalent of what I described here would be when two managers shouting against each other in ever stronger terms that they are more important and have more authority than the other until one backs down.

Equally destructive I believe, but something you'd never see a woman engage in.

I think you're writing these comments with the best intentions but also that you should probably stop digging.

You're probably right. I tried to get a positive message across (i.e. 'Embrace your femininity to your advantage.')

I ended up sounding vindictive though, probably because I am at some level.

It's hard to publicly talk about this and even harder to find the right constructive tone between the indignation, anger and resentment that (for me) have accompanied my non-standard gender identity.

And even though I don't know what to make of the large number of downvotes, I'm still glad I tried. :)

> The fact that you think this form of behavior is more natural to women than men is actually quite sexist.

All gender generalizations are sexist? That doesn't make sense; there are generalizations that are true even if that population doesn't like those generalizations (ie: women are physically less capable than men) and in some situations it may be important to have them in mind.

What could be sexist is to speak out those generalizations in an environment where it could blur the qualities that are actually needed for the context (in this case her performance as a programmer) but not in places such as an open forum like this comment section.

For the most part, yes. Gender generalizations more or less define the concept "sexist". And his "boy's game" "girl's game" thing is a good example of that.

Thanks for the backup. People around here tend not to realize that sharing something like this leaves you feeling pretty darn vulnerable.

Not to put too fine a point on it but, forthrightness always makes one vulnerable. I'd say that's part of the reason it's valuable and part of the reason people are sometimes afraid to be so. When you openly (and kindly) share your grievances with someone, you give them a chance to respond, either with understanding or retaliation. It's entirely reasonable to fear retaliation because people often feel attacked as well when accused of something, but if we don't give people the chance to behave rightly, how can we blame them when they behave wrongly? People deserve the chance to be good and if they don't know they've wronged you, they haven't had that chance.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. When Charles Dickens originally wrote Oliver Twist he included the character of Fagin, who a stereotypical 'evil Jew.' Many Jewish people were rightly offended and later when Dickens made some Jewish friends they explained to him why they found the character so offensive. Dickens took what they said to heart and removed direct reference to the character's Jewishness in later reprints. Imagine if Dicken's friends, instead of reasoning with him, spread rumors about him and turned the world against him. Instead of making him less of an anti-Semite it would have merely made him more paranoid, and more afraid of Jews than ever.

People who are forthright and reasonable gain respect, people who aggressive, either sneakily or openly, gain fear, but not respect. I respect you for being honest here and I hope you continue to be so, but understand that I could not possibly trust someone who behaved in the manner you describe.

Yes; you probably also wouldn't trust the asshole-quarterback that's at the top of the 'male hierarchy' so that you don't trust the description of a bitch-queen at the top of the 'female hierarchy' is not that surprising ;)

I never consciously did something like the former although I knew I would have been able to do so and come out victorious in the same way some people know they can win a fist fight.

I did do the second example though and what's important to realize is that I can only say it in this way when looking back on it.

In the moment I just felt the need to share how Y hurt me with the people who for some inexplicable reason still supported X.

I agree with what you said and respect the vulnerable position you have put yourself in. No matter where you say what you just said it may be construed as sexist by some people.

There is some axis of reactionary behaviours, with "passive-aggressiveness / indirectness" on the left, and "meanness / directness" on the right, and in general women are further to the left and men are further to the right.

Anyway, I wrote a post based partly off the things you have written and hope that you do not disagree with anything I have wrote. I'd love to hear your feedback? You can read it here:

http://redd.it/r8bk5

Absolutely spot on and I really love that you took this and ran with it. I couldn't have thought of a greater compliment!

The only minor quip is that it feels slightly odd to be called a beta when I felt closer to being the alpha-female, but I agree that it works for the purpose of the story. Probably just my pride talking ;)