What if she is wrong?

The problem with this discussion, and the reason I'm not otherwise participating in it, is that because I have a penis I'll automatically be accused of sexism if I do not agree with the author's claims.

This isn't about getting at what happened, this is about everyone needing to tip-toe on eggshells because whenever this topic is raised, everyone is automatically wrong. If you're a woman who brings up sexism, you're automatically too emotional or oversensitive. If you're a man who dares question a particular case of alleged sexism, you're sexist, but you're just too sexist to know that you're sexist.

I dislike your insinuation that someone who claims sexism can't be wrong. I also dislike the amount of psychoanalysis that's going on in this whole thread, including yours.

Everything in this thread eventually boils down to: you're a woman, you're emotional. You're a man, you're pig-headed. The whole thing is a gigantic exercise in absurd extremes that have little basis in reality.

>What if she is wrong?

And what if she is? Debating the correctness of her interpretation only distracts from her point that If you act in the way described towards an engineer you could make her feel like the author.

>I dislike your insinuation that someone who claims sexism can't be wrong.

The comments here focus on the event itself rather than dealing with the actual topic of the blog post. People care more about inconsequential details than the social and professional implications the author describes.

Yes, this. It's a blog post; she's relating an anecdote, not compiling evidence for a court case.

It's perfectly plausible, if you take for granted the context that she mentions -- in total & over time, it was frustrating enough that she left the job.

But the topic is "sensitive", so suddenly everyone turns into lawyers and now it's very important to find out if that particular experience is really sexism, because if not we don't have to have this excruciating conversation.

Who knew you could be sexist without, you know, groping someone or constantly making blonde jokes? This subtlety thing sucks; you have to actually think to avoid sexism, apparently.

So you really think that she did encounter sexism, based on her description of the dispute?

Because that's where I question her. This situation reeked to me of one engineer trying to shovel shit onto another one, and the response seemed to be that of a more level headed manager trying to defuse the situation so that nobody ended up fired.

Which is not something that I'm willing to pin on sexism without some evidence. Especially having been the relatively-level-headed manager (in a male-v-male situation) in the unfortunate position of being between one engineer and his rival, which is unfortunately not a very rare situation, given the types of personalities that take on sysadmin jobs. It's not pleasant, and given the expense of finding new engineers, trust me, you're willing to do anything to avoid having to fire the (seemingly competent, despite the intra-office-feuds that might arise) ones that you have, including telling the better sysadmins to shut the fuck up and stop complaining about their colleagues.

How do you suggest that a non-sexist person should deal with a situation like this, without privileging the claims of the writer?

Engage with behavior, not state of mind. "Your report was factually incorrect in X, Y and Z respects" would be fine. If by "too emotional" they meant "was yelling at me in the hall" then the correct response is "the way you are speaking to me is unacceptable" and to take it up with HR.

If she's wrong, that's what they should be engaging with. If she's treating them badly, that's what they should be engaging with. If they are just providing excuses not to take her seriously, they aren't dealing with a situation at all; they are just being jerks.

Basically, any approach should lead to concrete suggestions for changed behavior that would improve the bottom line of the company. "You are too emotional" is neither actionable nor measurable, so it is entirely unhelpful. "You were rough on S in there" is also neither actionable or measurable: if she didn't get any of the facts wrong and S looked bad, it's S's fault he acted in ways that looked bad, especially if she was responding to direct questions.

Any culture that prioritizes covering up responsibility rather than failing transparently, finding the root causes and fixing them is doomed in the long run anyway.