How gender norms affect speaking up in tech

"Oh... you're the founder?" "Oh... but this isn't a full-fledged business? Just a consultancy? "How are you so fluent in English? I thought you grew up in India…" Today, I want to highlight the mental toll of overcoming bias (because I'm tired!) Every woman, every immigrant woman in tech carries a second job: Managing other people's discomfort with our existence. The constant internal monologue to fit in is exhausting. I keep telling myself: "Bosky, Don't be too ethnic" "Bosky, sound confident but not aggressive" "Bosky, showcase your ambitious idea but make sure they know you're humble" "Bosky, don't come off as intimidating" A woman PM who just arrived in the US a couple of months ago asked me: "How do you handle being the only woman in C-Suite meetings?" "Do you also rehearse your presentations to sound less... foreign?" I wanted to hug her through the screen. But moreover, I was angry. Why did she have to go through this? Why do any of us? I still, very much : - Practice my speech to "neutralize" my accent - Over-explain my credentials - Laugh off inappropriate comments - Swallow my rage when interrupted And so, this is to every woman who has been: - Mistaken for the assistant - Interrupted by mediocre men - Told you're "surprisingly technical" - Asked, "Who helps you with the business side?" Please don't change. Keep being "surprisingly" good at everything they didn't expect you to be. Because every time you walk in and stay in a room that makes you feel like you don't belong, you make it easier for another woman to walk in. And if you're one of many handing out these inappropriate remarks, it's time to stop.

I'm starting to see a pattern among non-men going into software engineering roles. We go into new roles, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, excited to to work in software engineering and learn from those with experience. Until we start asking questions. Quickly, our questions become too much for some of our coworkers and superiors. Instead of being seen as collaborative and open to feedback, we're labeled as overly-dependent, lacking confidence, and sometimes even considered unfit for the jobs we worked so hard for. The more I see this happen to others, the more it becomes clear that this is a form of bias that has gone unaddressed. From the time that we start, we are expected to conform to the way that men interact with one another. Instead of being valued for our enthusiasm and collaborative inclinations, we're expected to be more stoic and told not to ask so many questions. Our enthusiasm is seen as immaturity and our questions are seen as a lack of accountability. To survive, we take the feedback and we internalize it. We adjust our expectations of working in a collaborative environment. We learn to rely less on the people who initially said they would support us. But why? Why is the masculine way of working considered superior, the gold standard we should aspire to? If workplaces continue to reinforce these ideas, I believe there will continue to be low numbers of women and non-men in tech fields. By design, encouraging people to work in isolation is exclusionary. Some people learn and work better through processes like code-pairing and real-time code reviews rather than working in isolation and getting sparse comments on a PR. Some of these people are nonmen. Some of these people are neurodivergent. There is an element of community and collaboration that seems to come late in a software engineer's career. It seems to be the norm to be isolated and work long hours from initiation. Maybe- just maybe- one day some of your coworkers will see how hard you've worked and acknowledge your existence. This way of working isn't healthy for anyone, including men. Young women and nonmen have to look outside of their teams and organizations for support, and to be reassured that they belong there. There are great organizations like the Society of Women Engineers and Rewriting the Code that do just that, but it shouldn't be the only way. We shouldn't be made to feel like we don't belong just because we ask questions. Or just because we don't get it right away. The focus shouldn't be on our confidence or whether we have impostor syndrome. We should be accepted as we are and allowed to exist fully, without having to contort ourselves to fit outdated ideas of what a good software engineer should be. #softwareDevelopment #representationMatters #womenInTech #nonbinaryInTech

Managers, Let’s Talk About Communication Bias in Tech In technical roles, we often hear that some employees "need to work on their communication skills." While feedback is valuable, this criticism is disproportionately applied to certain individuals—especially autistic employees and women. Women, whether autistic or not, are often labeled "too aggressive" for being direct, "too passive" for being collaborative, or "not confident enough" no matter what they do. Meanwhile, autistic employees are told they "lack soft skills" when, in reality, their communication style just doesn’t match neurotypical expectations. But let’s take a step back. Are we actually evaluating communication fairly, or just punishing people for not conforming to an unspoken norm? This is where Double Empathy Theory comes in. Research shows that communication breakdowns between autistic and non-autistic (allistic) people are not due to a "deficit" in autistic individuals, but a two-way gap. Autistic employees communicate well with each other but may struggle with neurotypical conventions—just as neurotypical employees may struggle with autistic communication. Yet, in workplaces, the burden is almost always placed on autistic employees to "fix" their style. Similarly, women (especially autistic women) are expected to strike an impossible balance—direct enough to be heard, but not so direct that they're seen as "bossy"; warm enough to be liked, but not so warm that they're "unprofessional." These contradictions create an unfair, shifting standard. So, as managers, how can we actually help employees develop communication skills in a meaningful, unbiased way? ✅ Give feedback that is specific and actionable—"You need better soft skills" is vague and useless. Instead, use the Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI) model: Situation: "In today’s meeting…" Behavior: "You provided great insights, but cut off some team members before they finished their thoughts." Impact: "That made it harder for others to engage, even though your ideas were strong." ✅ Recognize that different communication styles can be effective—not everyone needs to "speak up more" or "be more outgoing." Clarity, directness, and thoughtfulness matter too. ✅ Bridge communication gaps rather than forcing conformity—If an autistic employee prefers written over verbal communication, or struggles with unspoken social rules, work with them on solutions rather than labeling them as "poor communicators." ✅ Check for bias in how you give feedback—Are you holding women to a different standard? Are you interpreting autistic directness as "rudeness" when you wouldn’t apply the same label to a neurotypical man? Communication is a two-way street. Let’s stop making one group do all the work to meet in the middle. #Leadership #Neurodiversity #InclusiveWorkplaces #Autism #WomenInTech #CommunicationSkills

If you are a woman, you are interrupted 33% more than a man in any given conversation! (Source: Forbes) This stat isn't from a blog—it comes from a 2014 study at George Washington University highlighting a startling truth! Women are more likely to be talked over, dismissed, or asked to repeat their point. I am sure most men reading this will say - oh! but that's not the intention! So let me say it out loud to you - it is frustrating—infact it’s demoralizing. And if it helps, it shows the person interrupting is rude or even mannerless! No, I am not here to bash a gender but lay out the truth. Recently, I faced a similar challenge at work. In a high-stakes meeting with senior colleagues, I felt the familiar pressure rise: the room filling with voices, everyone leaning in—but mine. I was cut off mid-sentence, twice. It was discouraging, but it also lit a fire in me. Here’s how I reclaimed my voice: 1. Paused intentionally. I took a breath, made eye contact, and used calm but firm language: “Excuse me—if I finish this point, it might clarify things.” It worked. 2. Cued support. I made sure allies in the room understood when interruptions happened—and they corrected the flow for me. 3. Outlined ideas clearly. I started with a brief statement, followed by bullet points. This structure reduced vulnerability to being cut off. 4. Asked for turn-taking norms. I helped propose a roundtable format for discussions—giving each participant space to speak uninterrupted. This isn’t just about speaking up; it’s about shaping respectful dialogue. If you're navigating spaces where your voice isn’t heard, remember this: Your ideas are valid. Your presence matters. You belong in the conversation. Have you dealt with being interrupted or overlooked at work? Would love to know what strategy you follow or how did you deal with a similar situation—let’s support change and create workplaces that truly listen. #workplaceequity #communicationskills #womenleaders #confidence