Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! We only shake you down once a year, but when we do we really mean it. It costs a lot to keep the site afloat, and our growing audience, well over TWO million unique viewers a month, eats up a lot of bandwidth — and bandwidth isn’t free. We aren’t supported by corporate donors, advertisers or big foundations. We survive solely on your support.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Pulling up the Ladder at Yahoo

by ALFREDO LOPEZ

The recent order by Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, forbidding Yahoo employees from doing their Yahoo work at home, might seem justified. After all, companies tell their employees what to do and Mayer might have good reasons for this edict. But the memo and its fallout raise serious and significant questions about technology, culture and women’s role in both.

Major technology corporations like Yahoo control so much of the information we have and how we exchange it that their policies find their way into our lives and help define our culture. This decision is a retrenchment in the collaborative way we work and the role of women in that collaboration. Its ironic that a woman who arises from collaborative culture would be an advocate for that retrenchment.

For many of us, life is like walking on a street of uneven pavement; at some point, you’re certain to stumble and fall. Marissa Mayer, in her 37 years of life, appears to have found an alternate route. Her profile reads like a fairy tale filled with corporate castles and technological blessings, begging the observer to search for some faustian bargain signed in computer code.

With a Master’s Degree from Stanford University, a top University for techies, she was one of the first employees at Google and ripped through 13 years of work there as a key team leader for, at one time or the other, Google Search, Google Images, Google News, Google Maps, Google Books, Google Product Search, Google Toolbar, iGoogle and Gmail. She earned a well-deserved rep — replete with profiles in the industry press — as one of the keys to that mega-company’s dizzying success.

In July 2012, Yahoo (Google’s principal Internet rival) announced that Mayer would take over its reins and she simultaneously announced that she was pregnant. The glowing articles tumbled. She was, in the view of many technology and business writers, a prime example of the “new woman executive”: one who could produce profitable companies while producing babies, manage staff while managing a relationship, look “gorgeous” while looking serious and use the “female tools” of perks, compliments and inspiring speeches to motivate some staff while using the “male tools” of threats, firing, and marginalization to discipline others.

Although the profile is filled with highly questionable dichotomies and falsely back-lit by the mass media myth of a hermaphroditic corporate culture, it’s accurate in one sense: by all accounts, Mayer is a highly effective corporate manager and an outstanding technologist.

To add shine to the gleam, while planning Yahoo’s recovery strategy and its more aggressive involvement in “mobile Internet” (the use of phones and other mobile devices to use the Net), she gave birth to the baby whom she and her husband Zachary Bogu, a lawyer and investor, named Macalister.

Is there anything that can top that? Mayer was ready.

After working from home the last couple of weeks of her pregnancy, she took a two week maternity leave of absence after Macalister’s birth and then came back to work. Debates in the technology media immediately started: was she nuts, a superwoman or an oblivious fool?

None of the above, it turns out. Mayer had Yahoo build her a private nursery right next to her office. She paid for it out of her own money but her money comes from Yahoo; she makes a million a year in salary, two to four million in bonus payments and an equity award of up to $12 million. That’s every year. She also received one time payments totaling $54 million.

With easy access to her baby, a staff of care-givers, and a fully equipped nursery a few feet from her desk, Marissa Mayer began modeling corporate culture’s revision of the “successful American woman”, one that excludes most American women.

In one statement, she expressed surprise that motherhood “isn’t that hard”. As a father of two sons in their thirties, I can tell you that the first five months of a baby’s life aren’t the best measure of how “hard” it is. But anybody, with or without children, can understand how insensitive and dismissive of women that statement is. And she’s not that great on feminism either.

“I don’t think that I would consider myself a feminist,” she said in the PBS documentary Makers. “I think that I certainly believe in equal rights. I believe that women are just as capable, if not more so, in a lot of different dimensions. But I don’t, I think, have sort of the militant drive and sort of the chip on the shoulder that sometimes comes with that. And I think it’s too bad, but I do think feminism has become, in many ways, a more negative word. There are amazing opportunities all over the world for women, and I think that there’s more good that comes out of positive energy around that than negative energy.”

Given that clueless disdain for what the average woman takes on in her life and ridiculous ignorance about what feminism has contributed to women’s lives (including hers), Mayer’s latest atrocity is hardly surprising.

Marissa Mayer is obsessed with data. It’s how she reportedly makes all her decisions and, in this case, she looked at data and realized that many of the people who work at home at Yahoo weren’t logging into the Yahoo system enough. Productivity, this data told her, was “sub-par”. That, as they say, was that.

“To become the absolute best place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-by-side,” reads the internal memo announcing Mayer’s decision from Yahoo’s HR head Jackie Reses. “That is why it is critical that we are all present in our offices.”

That reasonable-sounding memo says a lot more than it contains. Mayer runs a powerhouse in a specific industry based on a specific kind of technology about which two things are true: it has arisen through intense human collaboration and it is still controlled by white men. This decision serves to damage the first and institutionalize the second.

All human development — the very survival of the human race — has been a product of our instinctive drive to collaborate with others. We think collaboratively, we act collaboratively and we build societies that are collaborative. Corporations, with their peculiar newspeak, work tirelessly to bury that obvious truth.

Internet technology, one of the greatest collaborations in human history, counters that corporate propaganda. The process of developing most of the Internet’s tools (and that of the servers and computers that make it real) is a long road walked by millions of people who are constantly sharing ideas about what they’re doing and then collaboratively incorporate some of those ideas into the technology itself. It’s an open technology — anyone who can contribute to it effectively is encouraged to do so and anyone who uses it is encouraged to offer reactions, suggestions and criticisms.

But the stuff Yahoo does has little of the back and forth that has made the real Internet strong. That’s because real development requires open and public sharing of code and data, encouraging people to take and expand it. Companies hide their code because the only thing they want to expand is their profit. They restrict open collaboration because they want to “protect” the ideas they have taken from open source developers and copy-righted.

All of this open development is conducted by people who live far away from each and often have never never met in person. That’s the only way humanity can work together on software. It’s a model for the kind of society that makes corporations cringe.

Sure, sometimes “stay at home” policies don’t work but deciding what to do about that needs more than a data analysis. Maybe the problem isn’t lazy employees but that the structure of a corporation doesn’t advance the creativity and collaboration we all need. Maybe it is Mayer’s definition of “work”; maybe an employee spending a whole day surfing the web for ideas and conversations about some project he or she is working on is more valuable than logging into Yahoo’s main system.

I don’t know but it doesn’t matter. That kind of analysis is not going to come from Marissa Mayer. Like many technology corporate executives, she doesn’t “get” collaboration.

She also seems to be enveloped in a cloud about women.

Corporate technology’s virulent sexism may not be apparent to the average person because the industry does a good job of putting on a false face: there are women commentators and analysts who report and comment on the industry; there are women who work in the marketing and sales departments of big tech companies; there are women who “rep” these companies at conferences.

But the technology, the development teams that maintain, improve and broaden it, and the companies that market it are male-dominated. The big-time conferences are dominated by men. The major software and hardware development is dominated by men. Mayer is such a phenomenon herself because most technology companies are run and managed by men.

You can’t put a system in designer clothing, put it on a massage table, put a fruit drink in its hand and say it is no longer the exploitative, destructive mess-maker it has always been. Capitalism’s remarkable genius is the ability to make a few people’s lives materially better and then build a culture which convinces them that the rest of the world doesn’t exist. So we go to Happy Hour without thinking that a fifth of the human race has no drinking water and we applaud the rise of women executives without realizing that, world-wide, women are worse off than they have been in decades.

While women in the United States are confronting constant attempts to shave their fundamental rights of citizenship (such as the so-called “abortion debate”), they are also struggling to survive in this country and dying in many other parts of the world. Here in the United States, as the work of Barbara Ehrenreich has proven (especially in her book Nickeled and Dimed), most women can’t make ends meet on the salaries of the work available to them and, when they’re not being beaten, vilified as an occasion of sin, denied education and social advancement or pushed into some social closet, women in much of the rest of the world are starving.

To celebrate the rise of one woman to fame and fortune as an indication that things have changed for women is a bizarre instance of mega-myopia. Nothing’s changed in so many areas that the changes that have actually taken place become thinner and more ephemeral. You can’t change the reality of women by changing it for a few of them and when you do it that way, as our society has done, you end up frustrating the very reason for having women in leadership. You also create people who are capable of saying, about childbirth and feminism, what Marissa Mayer has said.

While many glibly tag feminism as being some kind of “opportunities for the gifted program” or make the easily disproven claim that all women benefit from the success of a few women, the only acceptable purpose in changing the gender demographics of centers of influence and power is to change the centers of influence and power. But most women who enter the ranks of corporate privilege don’t change these institutions; those institutions have changed them.

For decades now, these few women have been making that faustian deal. They rise to a position within a company and quickly learn to say “I don’t consider myself a feminist.” Nothing new there. It’s almost part of the culture of many industries — including, as I learned long ago, mainstream journalism — and it’s apparently part of Marissa’s world. That’s code. It says “I’m here. I’m a woman. But I’m not a threat. I’ll just try and act like you.”

They not only don’t change the technology industry’s culture but they actually serve to further entrench it.

When something is controlled by men, it starts to look, sound and act male. With its curt abbreviations, its “one sentence” communication, its nasty exchanges, its emphasis on arcane code and unclear logic, and its impatience with “the problems” caused by people who are actually using the stuff, the Internet technologist community can often be like a High School boys’ locker room in the late afternoon.

How would it be different with a strong presence of women? I don’t know; it hasn’t happened. But I do know how Yahoo’s deceptively simple order will make it much more difficult for women to integrate technology. It entrenches the limited choices women have to make — raise kids or work. It forces women into the arena of male domination as any woman who has worked in an office dominated by men will tell you. It makes company spying on female exployees work hours communications easier and can lead to cutting off the opportunity to collaborate with other women (outside the company) world-wide. It just makes work more difficult and that is something women definitely do not need right now.

Will all this happen with every woman? Absolutely not. Some will overcome these obstacles. But there is no good reason to force women to overcome obstacles in order to contribute to humanity’s life.

I don’t think Marissa Mayer is purposely targeting women. I think she just doesn’t care. Her action is a reflection of the jolting self-absorption that is the fulcrum of corporate executive culture.

There’s really only one way to combat this. We build on our own achievement: the huge, free, open and powerful Internet that is constantly reinventing itself as it reinvents our culture and forces us to embrace collaboration once again. We work consciously to build a culture in which women are comfortable, supported and encouraged to contribute. With our work and commitment, we answer Marissa Mayer’s comments and thinking and we march forward into a world that her data can’t describe.

ALFREDO LOPEZ is the newest member of the TCBH! collective. A long-time political activist and radical journalist, and founding member of the progressive web-hosting media service MayFirst/PeopleLink, he lives in Brooklyn, NY

Alfredo Lopez writes about technology issues for This Can’t Be Happening!

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyons
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]