101–110 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then again, most of the comments here don't have a whole lot to do with the job.
Yeah, they're not really making the best use of the opportunity:-/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize that the average man doesn't enjoy programming either, right? Why shit on the exceptional women who do? Also regarding kids -- my experience is that while there are differences in wiring, parents and friends do subtle things from even before birth that tend to skew things differently for different genders. Whoa anecdote deadlock. Why are you so angry? People rarely make sense when they're angry -- perhaps…
It's just so tiring people being offended by this sort of thing. Also, TBH, I kinda find it offensive to suggest that the only reason I started programming was because I'm a male, and because there's apparently some 'male friendly culture'. I'm angry because I hate the whole "Everyone is absolutely equal" movement. They're not. Everyone is not equal. We're all different. We all have different strengths and weaknesses…
It doesn't mean they're wrong, though. I've seen many examples of just gross sexism from techies who were convinced those other people with the shirt-bumps were just whiners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the rational argument is; if you are finding offense in an innocent phrase that was not intended (or even considered as) to imply a sexist attitude then you are a part of the problem you are observing. If someone said this to belittle or discriminate; that should generate an outcry. Sadly; it does not because examples like this get the same treatment. So, no, you probably shouldn't be offended by examples suc…
Disclaimer: Let me point out that I've entered what my wife calls "grad student mode". I'm continuing to argue this point out of proportion to how much it concerns me because I see what I believe is a flaw in your argument that you are failing to acknowledge or apparently unaware of. I want to debug your argument. Okay, the crux here is this term "innocent phrase". By describing it as such, you're presupposing that w…
No, it doesn't count in this instance.
Is there a systematic problem? The answer to that question is complex; and the solution is not here. In fact; it is persisting the problem.
You actually see the solution in one of your other posts. The woman who uses the phrase "nigger brown". Such things are simply not an issue for this generation. It will not take many generations before people forget what racism was. People may tell you there is a systemic racist attitude in the society - but try going back 50 years. There wasn't a load of overt racism, but the systemic problem was apparent and troublesome. The improvement is dramatic.
In the next generations there is unlikely to be a gender issue; we are just in a transition where gender differences previously not considered an issue are a problem. It's not a fast process; but it is kicked off. And we are approaching the end game. A point where it is crucial to be less sensitive about specific words and actively reject true sexism.
In the short term the best solution is to avoid taking personal offence at things that mean or have no offence. It's unavoidable that people will be over sensitive; that is a systemic problem too. But we can work on that also. And by applying common sense the real sexist will become irrelevant.
Does the wording of the title imply a possibly underlying sexist attitude in the company? Not in the slightest (especially given the context). Suggesting it does is recreating a problem we are fixing. :)
I apologise for going on about it; but this is an issue that strongly concerns me. I'll leave it for now; wrong forum :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The headliner is an apocryphal quote from Ernest Shackleton, leader of a doomed but famous Antarctic expedition in 1914. Nothing about the current state of tech was implied, nor about our desired employee pool. Obviously we welcome one and all.
It may be worth noting that although the expedition was a failure, that was pretty much a matter of bad luck with the behavior of the ice floes. And as awful an experience as it must have been for the men involved, it's also worth noting (perhaps especially in this context) that not a single person lost his life, owing largely to some incredible leadership from Shackleton, and amazing skills from much of his crew.
That's the fun of marketing: other people can quite reasonably take other things from your references than the meaning you tried to evoke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, call me too sensitive then: it is sexist. If they need to explicitly mention that "women are welcome" in a footnote, that pretty much confirms that their choice of headline is saying that women are somewhat less than welcome. I don't see why being too sensitive is seen as somehow worse in the startup/developer community than being too insensitive. You'd think it would be smarter to err in the other direction...
Anyone who is offended by a sexist title (this one is an apt historical reference as well) is probably going to have a problem in a startup where employees "[t]ell jokes that would make sailors blush". I bet a fair number of those jokes are sexist, too. This may be an effective filter for a sexual harassment lawsuit.
Is the job dangerous? Do they expect to accomplish something epic and historic?
No. It's bravado, nothing more.
Nice, but you'd be much better off with "Good men and women wanted for hazardous journey." There may be statistically fewer women in tech, but you'll never hear from them with a title like that!
The headliner is an apocryphal quote from Ernest Shackleton, leader of a doomed but famous Antarctic expedition in 1914. Nothing about the current state of tech was implied, nor about our desired employee pool. Obviously we welcome one and all.
Let's say, for the sake of devil's advocacy, the historical quote was "Women wanted for hazardous journey". If the ad had used that as its headline, would you males feel encouraged to apply?
If you have a problem with the title of this job post, then chances are you're not fit for the company, or most young startups for that matter.
Or is it that they might be more reasonable than defenders of the headline engaging in silly chest-pounding about "sensitive" people?
If you have a problem with the title of this job post, then chances are you're not fit for the company, or most young startups for that matter.
So, you're saying that the fact they rephrased the headline means that they aren't fit? Or is it that they might be more reasonable than defenders of the headline engaging in silly chest-pounding about "sensitive" people?
Edit: children, and men, and women.