My arguments against "we shouldn't tell women to not get drunk"

March 27, 2014

A friend of mine shared this post titled "Drunk Girls" on Twitter the other day and I got really, really fired up about it, so wanted to attempt to outline my objections to it in a more organized way.

First, a brief illustration for why I hate this whole anti-"don't get drunk" argument with the heat of thousands of fiery suns:

I’m Daisy Coleman, the teenager at the center of the Maryville rape media storm, and this is what really happened:
Matt emerged from one of the bedrooms with a bottle of clear alcohol he wanted me to drink. This is when one of Matt's friends suggested I drink from a tall shot glass, which they labeled the "bitch cup." About five shots tall, I drank it. I guess I didn't know how badly it would mess me up. But the boys who gave it to me did. Then it was like I fell into a dark abyss. No light anywhere. Just dark, dense silence -- and cold. That's all I could ever remember from that night. Apparently, I was there for not even an entire hour before they discarded me in the snow.
The key item in the "Drunk Girls" blog post that's different from the other anti-anti-drinking-to-reduce-rapes pieces that sprung up back when Emily Yoffe wrote a couple pieces on the same topic for Slate is its usage of a parallel in the civil rights movement. In particular, there's a reference to this really interesting piece on Martin Luther King: Most of you have no idea what Martin Luther King actually did

I understand that piece's main points as:
  1. "Dr. King ended the terror of living in the south...living in the south (and in parts of the midwest and in many ghettos of the north) was living under terrorism."
  2. "This constant low level dread of atavistic violence is what kept the system running. It made life miserable, stressful and terrifying for black people...White people also occasionally tried black people, especially black men, for crimes for which they could not conceivably be guilty."
  3. "before the civil rights movement, my father taught me many, many humiliating practices in order to prevent the random, terroristic, berserk behavior of white people."
  4. "If we do it all together, we'll be okay. They made black people experience the worst of the worst, collectively, that white people could dish out, and discover that it wasn't that bad... It was taking a severe beating, surviving and realizing that our fears were mostly illusory and that we were free."
So back to the "Drunk Girls" post, these are the points put forward there, as I understand them:
  1. It's inconceivable that we would also tell men not to get drunk.
  2. Not being assaulted while you're drunk is a right (that we don't infringe upon for men but we do try to curb for women).
  3. Telling women not to get drunk in order to prevent themselves from being assaulted is inextricably tied to victim blaming if they are assaulted while they're drunk.
  4. Getting drunk is an act of protest that is:
    1. analogous to Rosa Parks giving up her seat in an act of protest against racism.
    2. an equivalent stand against sexism like asking for a raise.
    3. a strike against perpetuating a culture of fear that keeps women oppressed.
    4. going to change rapists' minds that women are "less, inferior, subhuman."
  5. Individuals increasing their own personal risk of assault:
    1. decreases the risk of assault to all women at large.
    2. gets us closer to an egalitarian, rape-free world.
  6. Individuals trying to protect themselves (or their daughters) by giving advice to avoid getting drunk:
    1. will increase the risk to other women.
    2. is a message that women are inferior to men.
I have tried not to willfully misinterpret them, but please do let me know if I've made a mistake. This is honestly how I currently view the structure of the arguments in that post. I understand that some of the individual statements are likely intentionally extreme just to make a point, but for me, it's at an unacceptable level because I actually have no problems with this entire section:
Talk to them about politics, financial security, how to ask for a raise; send them on an advanced driving course so they don’t feel like they “drive like a girl”. Tell them to ask What do you mean?, to talk back, to speak up, and to be defiant.

Release your daughter from the old-world version of a woman. Be careful when you say, “My daughter is such a girl,” and “My son is such a boy,”
But I believe that bundling this in with being against telling women not to get drunk is extremely harmful for both the individuals that don't get the "don't get drunk" message and to the other goals in fighting sexism. If the example used instead were basically anything other than drinking, I probably would have the completely opposite attitude to it. So it is the drinking example that I am fixated on and want to address, largely due to disagreeing on point 4.2 that drunkeness is an equivalent stand-in for any other actions that challenge the patriarchy.

Now, to address the above points:

1. It's inconceivable that we would also tell men not to get drunk.
Maybe it's true that men (the "blue people" in the blog post) would "would react indignantly, with anger and defiance" if they were told not to get drunk. They should be told this anyway. Everyone should be aware of the risk they are taking on when they drink to the point where they cannot control their actions or defend themselves against others' actions.

2. Not being assaulted while you're drunk is a right (that we don't infringe upon for men but we do try to curb for women).
I absolutely, 100% agree that you have a right not to be assaulted no matter what gender you are and what state you're in: sober, sleeping, comatose, drunk, etc. etc. However, we can only prosecute violations of this right after you've been assaulted. If we fail to prosecute this more for women than men, that is a great injustice. But it is not an argument for increasing the chances that this prosecution needs to happen.

3. Telling women not to get drunk in order to prevent themselves from being assaulted is inextricably tied to victim blaming if they are assaulted while they're drunk.
I can see the argument that in our culture as it currently stands, these are so close as to be impossible to be untangled, or that telling other women not to drink sounds too much like a judgment on women who did drink and were assaulted and harms raped-while-drunk survivors more than it helps reduce rapes amongst other women. I disagree with those, but those arguments would be logical and honest. But at its core, this association isn't necessary. For example, we always tell bicyclists to get good locks to protect against their bikes being stolen, and yet the act of stealing someone else's bike is still a crime.

4.1 Getting drunk is an act of protest that is analogous to Rosa Parks giving up her seat in an act of protest against racism.
Just...no. To me, getting drunk is a voluntary choice that's not at all similar to refusing to give up your seat to someone else just based on their skin color.

4.2 Getting drunk is an act of protest that is an equivalent stand against sexism like asking for a raise.
Absolutely no on this again. By all means, be brave and take a stand against patriarchy on matters that will improve your own life and the lives of other women to come after you. Ask for a raise, question people when they say sexist things, teach your daughters to be independent and not have to rely on others to take care of themselves. These are all things that are clearly positive. I see getting drunk as a completely voluntary personal choice whose only benefit is whatever you personally enjoy out of the experience--which is a totally fine choice for you to make! But let's not dress it up as something more noble.

4.3 Getting drunk is an act of protest that is a strike against perpetuating a culture of fear that keeps women oppressed.
Maybe this is true. I don't think women are only oppressed through a culture of fear, and I don't believe that's even close to being the majority reason in the modern U.S., for the most part.

4.4 Getting drunk is an act of protest that is going to change rapists' minds that women are "less, inferior, subhuman."
This is basically the claim that I find the most absurd of all of them. Misogynists' minds are not going to be changed by having more drunk women around. Maybe people in general will shed more of their biases against women when they see more examples of women standing up to the patriarchy. But that's a stretch, when the act of protest is...getting drunk.

5.1 Individuals increasing their own personal risk of assault decreases the risk of assault to all women at large.
I could see this being true, actually, even if you assume that having more women around who can't defend themselves doesn't cause the overall number of rapists to go up from having greater opportunities. This could be true just through spreading the risk that a drunk woman will be assaulted over more women. I find this an extremely unpersuasive argument though, that more women should help shoulder the risk to drunk women (because again, I see getting drunk as an unnecessary, voluntary personal choice without any long term benefits to individuals or society).

5.2 Individuals increasing their own personal risk of assault gets us closer to an egalitarian, rape-free world.
I don't think we get closer to a rape-free world by creating more opportunities for rapes to happen more easily. The civil rights movement could overturn racial terrorism. Feminists can band together to fight the patriarchy together, but I don't see how in this case, the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.

6.1 Individuals trying to protect themselves (or their daughters) by giving advice to avoid getting drunk will increase the risk to other women.
This is maybe true, similarly to 5.1. If you're going to be perfectly frank about it, lots of advice on protecting yourself is mostly just about making yourself a harder target to hit so that predators go for easier pickings instead (I'm thinking of things like increasing your password complexity so that you're not one of the people who has a password of, "password"). I don't see how anyone could possible find this compelling enough to actually refrain from trying to help someone they care about, unless they were intimidated into doing so through being afraid to lose their right to call themselves a feminist or something.

6.2 Individuals trying to protect themselves (or their daughters) by giving advice to avoid getting drunk is a message that women are inferior to men.
I don't believe this at all. I only see this as a message that there are people in the world who will do harm to you, even when nothing you do could possibly make you deserve that harm. It does not make you inferior in any way that you would react to alcohol by being less able to defend yourself; that's what alcohol does, it's just the chemistry and biology of it. But as an individual, rather than be helpless about the situation and let danger happen to you, you can make choices that will help you not have to exercise your right not to be assaulted.

In conclusion, it is admirable when individuals sacrifice themselves for the greater good. But if you're going to encourage people to sacrifice themselves, it had better have an actual, and large, impact. Getting drunk to fight the patriarchy does not meet that bar.

Salary negotiation after Hackbright

March 25, 2014

Update 10/15/14: I still stand by what I wrote in this series, but if you're interested in reading more, you really should check out this piece on how to ask for raises by Jocelyn Goldfein, former Director of Engineering at Facebook. 
Update 4/15/17: Also this two part series from Haseeb Qureshi, who is a bootcamp grad that went from 120k to 250k in total compensation in the job offer negotiation process.

In the past few months, I’ve tried to help a few friends gear themselves up for their first salary negotiations, so I thought it might be useful to get those written down and organized a bit into a series of blog posts. Some of these are a bit more Hackbright-specific for getting your first job as a junior software engineer, where you might still be a little bewildered by just getting into the industry at all, but I hope that most of the advice can be generally applicable to your own situation. As with all career advice ever, take everything that follows with the appropriate size grain of salt. I would also love feedback on whether any of it seems like particularly good or bad advice so I can course-correct my ideas if needed.

To start with, here are a few points to be considered before you even get the offer:

Some companies will just give you their standard offer with all the numbers in there already, while others will more or less try to ferret out what your expectations are at various points along the way. I like this piece of advice from Ramit on just using this canned line when you get asked about your salary expectations:
"I'm sure we can discuss salary when the time is right, but for now I just want to see if there's a mutual fit for you and me."
Sometimes if it’s clear there’s going to be a severe mismatch though, the non-jerk thing to do is not to waste anyone’s time, of course. Try to turn the question back on the questioner with “why don’t you let me know what the range you’re thinking of is, and I’ll let you know if that’s potentially workable before we go any farther with this process?”

Still, I’m just bad at not answering a direct question honestly when it’s put to me, like “what do you make now?” If you are unable to resist the urge to answer this question, please be smarter than I was and give a number that’s your total compensation, which includes your bonuses and estimated value of your benefits on top of your base salary. I didn’t think to do this and worry that I could’ve put a better foot forward here, having worked at Google where I got a significant annual bonus and the benefits are very valuable. I thought oh, I’ll just give the base salary and compare the benefits after I get more details but I think it would’ve been better to put a higher number out there to start. Don’t know if it would’ve made any difference, but I’d have more peace of mind from leaving no stone left unturned in that arena.

Similarly for evaluating your current offer, if you can, you should try to talk to an HR or benefits person who can give you more details on what’s included. For example, my offer letter was very general about the various medical benefits available, but I wanted more details on what exactly the options were and how much it would cover or not, to inform what I’d want to negotiate for.

To set the stage for negotiating your salary, I think it’s good to lead in to it with a general request to “discuss the details of the offer”, which most people will understand as implying you want to negotiate your salary. It’s nice and neutral though, and you can also make sure you’re addressing the right person for the requests that you want to make. And bundling in your salary negotiation with other general questions you might have helps it feel less scary.

Next up, I have a few posts on how to prepare for the salary negotiation.


Update: here's the full series of posts
  1. Salary negotiation after Hackbright
  2. Preparing for salary negotiation, part 1: general perspectives to consider
  3. Preparing for salary negotiation, part 2: what to even ask for
  4. Preparing for salary negotiation, part 3: practicing for the negotiation
  5. Salary negotiation: the day of

Evolution of a talk proposal abstract

March 18, 2014

I'm speaking at RailsConf next month! Inspired by Julia Evans, I've made my talk proposal public. I also wanted to share a behind-the-scenes peek at what the process was like, since the feedback from the RailsConf organizers really helped me improve that abstract on top of the feedback I'd already gotten from friends and co-workers, as per their advice from that Write/Speak/Code Google Hangout last month.

Here's the abstract I originally submitted:
For developers that come from backgrounds other than a C.S. bachelor’s degree, frequently most of their focus is on acquiring technical knowledge. However, they very likely have many other skills, built up from when they weren’t studying computer science, that can help them in their roles immediately. This talk will discuss how to use non-technical skills such as relationship building and project management to ramp up more quickly and provide value to your team now.
The first piece of feedback I got was very encouraging on the appeal of the content and noted that I should try to get senior devs to come as well, since the organizer thought they'd be able to take something away from it too. In all fairness, Chuck had totally already given me this advice a couple weeks before when I was telling him about my idea, but I was worried about fitting enough details into the 500 characters allotted with what the organizers had said about not being afraid to "give away" more of the talk in the abstract. Here's v2:
For junior devs that don’t have C.S. degrees, frequently most of their focus is on acquiring technical knowledge. However, they bring with them many other skills, built up from when they weren’t studying C.S., that can help them in their roles immediately. This talk will discuss how junior devs can use non-technical skills such as relationship building and project management to provide value to their teams now, and how senior devs mentoring them can help them ramp up more quickly as a result.
I was feeling pretty good about this version. Then later on, I got more feedback from a different reviewer that again was very encouraging of the topic and proposed content but pointed out that phrasing was a bit awkward and run-on, particularly the first two sentences. She also encouraged me to think about ways to grab conference goers' attention to get them to come to my talk over the others that might be on at the same time. When I looked again at v2 again, I was a bit horrified that I'd used up all those characters across only 3 sentences! Hemingway would not approve. Here's the final version:
Are you from a non-C.S. background? What about someone you mentor? Many junior devs’ top focus is building technical knowledge. However, they already have other skills that can help them in their roles immediately! Some of these include helping their team focus on the right tasks and working well with stakeholders like PM and support. This talk will discuss the non-technical contributions junior devs can make now and how their senior dev mentors can help them ramp up more quickly as a result.
Much improved, yes? I'm glad the conference organizers pushed me on this, I think it's objectively much better than the original. Spending lots of time to say more with less, since 2014.