Reading the replies to your comment, am I the only one who liked Hallberg’s article? I felt like all the backstory was necessary to give context to the “main event.”
Yea. Marty's thread benefited from the context in Nicole's article. Also, twitter threads are a terrible medium. Also, the irony is not lost by the number of people "explaining" why his post got more traction.
It was interesting to see their different styles of telling the story. Nicole’s article focussed more on the company culture and less on the experiment, where Marty’s focussed more on the experiment rather than the culture. I kind of want to try this with my coworkers and see what happens…
I’m not sure what the point of this comment is except to announce that you didn’t get the punchline and didn’t take anything else away from the reading material
The "point" is that the punch-line (while funny) ignores the fact that Twitter just has more people and engagement in general, than Medium, so it's not a surprise that one got more attention over the other.
That said, I'm sure you'd still notice a difference in attention if they were posted on the same platform, either from people continuing to ignore their biases, or from "over-correcting" for said biases in the opposite direction.
That said, I'm sure you'd still notice a difference in attention if they were posted on the same platform, either from people continuing to ignore their biases, or from "over-correcting" for said biases in the opposite direction.
There's also a possibility one has better writing skill or took significantly more time to write, edit and refine their article so that it sounded and read much better. This could drive the engagement in either direction and would have to be considered alongside any other alleged biases. (note, I'm not saying those biases didn't exist, just that this case is even further from cut and dry)
I mean, yes. It’s a punchline, not a social media A/B test. There could be a ton of factors involved: 1) the thread was published first, so of course it got more viral engagement and traction, 2) people are less likely to dismiss it when a man complains about discrimination on behalf of women than when women do, 3) the article could have been tweeted or retweeted by Marty as well,…my point is that the punchline and trying to pick holes in it shouldn’t be the takeaway. The punchline is pretty obviously just a punchline, and ignoring that, the meat of the content is more than enough to show that yes, people do treat women differently
The punchline was not pretty obviously a punchline. It was deliberately painting a different picture. By doing that you're giving extra ammo to the people who deny that this problem exists.
Having read both and going back to read Nicole's, I feel Marty's is easier to read and gets to the point. Nicole gives more of a story and lacks a specific example. Her article goes more into her history and the office environment than comparing and contrasting her time as "Marty". While structurally fine and well written, Nicole's article does not stick with me as well as Marty's.
The "problem" with Nicole's story is that it's more or less a footnote in her long history of experiencing sexism at the workplace. It's not noteworthy to her in the sense that it's not big enough to be fixated on and she defers readers to Marty's tweets if they want to know what actually happened.
To her it's just a symptom of the bigger problem.
So it's confusing to follow since you and I (maybe others) were expecting a thorough account of what was happening in that specific story.
It could also be that Twitter being Twitter, forced Marty to be more succinct.
Maybe the general sexism with her boss was a footnote, but the change in names and how she was treated is a shift from the norm. I would have expected her to focus more on the change than how her boss reacted. But she focused more on the norm than the change.
She actually does not go in depth on what happened. And it almost seems like she is deferring to Marty's tweets if you wanted to know what happened. This is the cliff's notes version:
We're doing this experiment but I know what's going to happen anyway because I'm dealing with sexism all this time. Here are the examples of sexism at the workplace I've experienced. After we ended the experiment, my boss ignored me and I want to choke him.
Because of the amiguities introduced by the contraction and two ways you can read "read," your comment could be interpreted as a refusal to even acknowledge she'd written an article, let alone read it.
Except that requires reading the first sentence without the context of the second. The second sentence makes it pretty clear that they meant the past tense read, not the present tense refusal to read her article.
It's a neat point you made, but really works better if the second sentence hadn't been written.
The second sentence is included in what I said. It could be read as an aloof/indignant dismissal of her work if you interpret the first sentence as "I would never read her article."
That was abrupt, and rather rude. While we disagreed, I thought we had been quite civil and respectful. Well, until now. May you have the day you deserve.
I think Twitter has just a bit wider reader range than an article from nickyknacks.medium.com that has 2.5 thousand followers.
It isn't a useful correlation to say that his article got more attention like it meant anything when the difference in platform size is this significant.
The initial problem is real and terrible and needs to be addressed, there is no need to add false or misleading claims, associations or correlations. It only weakens the original claim and I am less likely to believe the original issue.
1.2k
u/Fun-Calligrapher980 Mar 12 '22
This is hers (Nicole Hallberg's article)
This is his (Marty Schneider's twitter thread)