Big deal, I can get tech into girls ..
The battery powered kind anyway.
Paris, well because ..
Ever since the dawn of time, it seems, the IT sector has noticed that it is staffed almost entirely by blokes and wondered how this could be changed. Now, through the unlikely agency of a psychology professor in America, it seems that change may finally be at hand. "Understanding what prevents women from entering computer …
The battery powered kind anyway.
Paris, well because ..
Sorry, know it's meant as a joke and all, but I don't think that's terribly helpful TBH, objectifying women does not create a comfortable environment to attract more into the industry much as nudie calendars don't leave women queueing up to become motor mechanics. I don't think driving women away is quite the same as failing to appeal to or engage them.
And there is one of the problems of getting women into *any* male orientated branch.
A question I am constantly asked is "What is is like to be one of the only women in the whole department and to work with men all day."
For the work, fine - I'm (almost) as geeky as they are. But yes there are the jokes, comments etc etc.
It doesn't bother me most of the time, but it can get too much...
The next thing you know, you'll be reporting us for finding the word "dongle" funny. Oh, hang on...
In what way is referring to a woman's sexuality "objectifying" them?
Sorry but vibrating dildos and "dongles" are objectifying men (they are an object that replaces the man). Not that I have any objection to objectification personally, but the feminists seem to be adamantly against it.
Wow dude you really attracted the pants too tight brigade with that comment. I do however notice that the wave of disapproval comes from 1 female and 3 males (based on username/comment). My feminist girlfriend recently decided to call me sexist. Yet after 5 minutes I proved that she was some man leering sexist. While it is true that some people are just pigs (both men and women) it is disturbing how the sense of humour is sacrificed to make everyone happy (I urge people to read that oxymoron again!).
Also why does anyone care if women want to do IT or not? Surely it is their choice and they shouldnt be herded for some quota. Some people can do IT some people cant. At what point does gender come into it? Harping on about it causes divide. The insistence that everyone must do everything regardless of what people want to do and highlighting which race/gender/age group is not doing their bit is not helpful.
.. that the wave of disapproval comes from 1 female and 3 males (based on username/comment)...
Be interesting to see how that ratio squares with the registers overall gender split, means nothing at all on its own.
Exactly, dildos etc are a replacement for men... empowering rather than objectifying I would say....
I've worked in IT for about 15 years, so far not one place I've worked has people that makes jokes that should be offensive to women more than men (the odd prat who is JUST offensive, yes), there may not be that many (if any) women working in the IT departments, BUT usually there are tons working in the office as project managers/account managers/arty folks/etc... so there is usually a fair few women working in the office..
Is this a USA thing? I am in the UK and so far I've not seen any racism or sexism in the workplace....
My current manager is in the USA and he was shocked that I've never encountered it..
Well, I'm a man who generally gets pissed off by political correctness and the dull morons who have humourectomies in the interest of reading The Guardian, but I still get pissed off that the first response of most Net geeks to even the mention of women is "Hurr, hurr, hurr, sex, hurr, hurr, hurr." To the fuckwits who don't get why this is a problem, would you get a job somewhere where all your colleagues laughed uproariously at graphic descriptions of anally raping you every single day? And then picked on you even more if you failed to pretend convincingly enough that you found it hilarious too? Or would you prefer to work with civilised people?
And those of you with daughters, would you be happy if they were having to put up with this at school?
"Dad, all the boys keep talking about fucking me all day."
"Well, maybe you should learn to appreciate their sense of humour, Sweety."
"Be interesting to see how that ratio squares with the registers overall gender split, means nothing at all on its own."
The ratio is fairly pointless. We have 1 guy makes an obviously humorous comment. We have 3 guys rush to rescue the damsel in distress. Yet their isnt one. The single female comment in response (coming after a knight steps in) stated first that she is constantly asked how it feels being the only women amongst a load of men and that sometimes their can be a few too many jokes/comments.
So if people stop pointing out she is the only woman then she enters the normal world where people joke around and have to tell each other to stop if it goes too far (I find that with men and women).
Womankind dont need protecting as some special needs group. Trust me there is no such protection if your one man working with many women. Accepting humour for humour and not looking to be the victim nor looking to protect a victim means that we can all just get along. This works for all people in general. A sexist comment is only a sexist comment if it is intended to insult. Otherwise its observational humour.
Sorry, which is it? That even mentioning that women are underrepresented in IT is divisive? Or that the inevitable first response to an article about women in IT being "Ha, ha, ha, I could stick objects into their vaginas" isn't divisive?
The issue isn't dildos. The issue is that, in response to an article about women working in IT that has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual intercourse, you are talking about dildos. Inevitably. Because that is what always happens in IT. Which is the problem.
I am guessing you work at some phone sex company? Or is this an assumption you make that guys just sit around talking about rape all day? I point out that you are the first I have seen to mention it.
You say your a man, does that matter? You then pretend you get bothered by all the PC, common emotional trick to present an argument as if PC actually offended you. Then you rant about a situation which (granted this is only my observations) have never ever seen or heard of not even in my school years. The key part to your post is where you then try further emotional blackmail talking about daughters in the fictional scenario you described.
So as your a man I wonder where you get your vision you clearly posted. Is that your behaviour? Did you encourage such behaviour? Or is this a fairytale you cling to as justification for demanding PC and blaming men for all the ills of this world?
You must work in some seriously dodgy jobs if that is your experience. I dont know any men or women who would accept that behaviour so I am seriously wondering what country and what industries you have worked in to become so enraged that people can possibly say something in humour.
*Sigh* OK I'll rise to debating with vapour this once for the validity of the wider point. I don't normally bother with anonymous cowards - speak up or don't.
,,,'after a knight steps in...' etc. Blah blah. Hardly a white knight rushing to protect any individual, just stating it as I see it - that's me, my own username, not as an AC. By some quirk of temporal linearity, I posted before the person who came after me FFS. So what?
Either you, or another AC seemed happy enough to flex some numbers based on a sample size of 4, you don't get to have it both ways. Does the 3:1 ratio mean anything at all in comparison with an unknown:1 population? Maybe there are just 3 men reading theregister, and many thousands of women, maybe the other way round. I don't know, I don't care. It doesn't change anything until people start using a population size of 4 to try to prove something.
Yep, see my first post, I conceded it was clearly meant to be a joke - aiming low and "I can stick things in women" is hardly the cream of 'observational humour'. Doesn't mean it isn't illustrative of a deeper problem. Not sure where this idea that womankind are a special group came from. Switch 'woman' for 'black', 'asian', 'blonde', 'child', whatever and the OP still reads poorly (and still isn't particularly funny, although yes I do see what they tried to do with the switching words around). Looking for victim blah... and your assertion that a comment is only sexist if it is meant to offend are not logically consistent. Do you feel as comfortable telling jokes about 'golliwogs'? Picking on someone for an irrelevant attribute is shitty, no matter whether you realise you're being sexist/racist or not. Tonight's AC is Jim Davidson, fresh from the 1970's.
Guess what, I agree, if you're a guy being singled out in the workplace for non-work related things I stand up for you too. With my own username for what that's worth. It seems to have affected you deeply.
"Sorry, which is it? That even mentioning that women are underrepresented in IT is divisive? Or that the inevitable first response to an article about women in IT being "Ha, ha, ha, I could stick objects into their vaginas" isn't divisive?"
I see you are looking to take offence (remembering you are a man) at a comment intended as humour. The division I mentioned was how women (identify the group) is under-represented in IT (all look now).
At what point is that good to say? Does it help them to point them out for scrutiny? Does that mean women should get the job regardless of qualifications? Does that mean that all men in that industry are pigs? Or that the men block the women? Or that the men are smarter than the women? Are the women not treated fairly or are they too stupid?
I now urge you swap the gender over or change it for any other label you want. Apply it to men in women exclusive industries. Or use race or religion, anything. I used to be a dance teacher, I would be highly offended if my reason for being there was put into question because apparently the group I am labelled as is 'under-represented'. If a woman wants to do IT just leave her to it, they are free to choose as any person is.
The freedom of choice does not come with a quota. If people choose to do what they want then they are free. If *insert label* are under-represented and we need to get more of them into *insert role* how is that free? Shouting out loud how we need to make more effort to promote *role* to *label* only puts eyes onto *label* and questions how they got into the *role*.
> Or is this an assumption you make that guys just sit around talking about rape all day? I point out that you are the first I have seen to mention it.
Seriously? You want to try that here? In this long list of comments about sticking objects into women in response to an article that mentioned women on an IT site?
Does anyone here seriously think that it would be possible to publish an article on any tech or IT site on the Web about women in IT to which one of the first replies wouldn't mention sex with said women, how large their breasts were, how sexily they dressed, etc?
> You say your a man, does that matter?
Well, only when responding to someone else who decided to bring up the matter of whether the commenters on this thread were men or women and try to divine something from it. You know, context. Do keep up.
> You then pretend you get bothered by all the PC, common emotional trick to present an argument as if PC actually offended you.
Google my username. Read my blog. Then tell me I'm a big fan of political correctness. If you can't be bothered (which is fair enough), you'll just have to take my word for it. But, if you want to accuse me of lying, you should maybe check the extremely easily available evidence.
> I dont know any men or women who would accept that behaviour
And yet I can read loads of comments, right here on this page, defending it. For the slow of thinking, "Ha ha, I can stick things into women's vaginas" is a rape joke. Yes, it was also a really crap pun. But it was still a rape joke. So defend it or tell me that rape jokes aren't acceptable in IT, but please don't try both.
If you think guys are sexist or make sexist innuendos, you should try working in a predominately female workplace.
Worked for a small electronics/engineering company a few years back, the PCB assembly line was staffed by 5 women and one guy. At one point he handed in his resignation because of the near constant stream of sexist comments.
I didn't have a problem when I needed to work with them as I gave as good as they gave me and we got along fine, but otherwise, they were like a wild cat spotting a weakness - straight in for the kill!! And as for "objectification"? It is definitely *not* a male only thing. And any women who claims otherwise is lying.
It didn't bother me, but for some it could be too much...
"Some people can do IT some people cant"
Maybe, but this isn't the problem; the problem is that around 50% of the people who *COULD* "do IT" don't want to because it doesn't appeal to them based on what they perceive in the media.
"highlighting which race/gender/age group is not doing their bit is not helpful"
WTF? What do you mean "not doing their bit"? The problem isn't that some genders or racial groups are "not doing their bit " but that some genders or racial groups don't want to others in their club; perhaps they think that these genders or racial groups aren't capable of "doing their bit"? maybe they think that the other genders or racial groups are inferior?
Highlighting where there are significant differences in gender or racial diversity is a pointer to where prejudice and barriers may exist; or are you saying that we should preserve the status quo? Women have been an underclass since Eve was blamed for us being kicked out of Eden, non-whites have been exploited and even traded like cattle because white men had the edge over them in technology; pretending we're all treated equally now and don't need to tackle prejudice is a massive fallacy.
> At what point is that good to say? Does it help them to point them out for scrutiny?
Just to be clear, you're saying that inevitable jokes about putting things into their vaginas are good to say and don't single them out for scrutiny?
"OK I'll rise to debating with vapour"
Better to rise than fall. And on your step up you might be called cliff, you might be called mickey mouse for all I know or care. In short you will rise to debate with another user name on this wide place called the internet.
"Hardly a white knight rushing to protect any individual"
You did comment first? To claim this somehow objectified women (he did mention an object). Or is the word play of getting tech into girls not obvious (what tech can you think of that girls insert?). How many floppy/hard drive/socket/dongle jokes have you heard? I mean without the intention of insulting anyone and yet maybe referring to either gender? As far as I am aware there are many male IT jokes. A sense of humour in general is what attracted me to IT in the first place.
"Either you, or another AC seemed happy enough to flex some numbers based on a sample size of 4, you don't get to have it both ways."
Both ways? That sounds like a dirty word! Queue Hugh Laurie from blackadder. Or dont you consider blackadders funny? Its fine if you dont but it was popular. Back to the point, yes I can. I did mention the number of guys who opposed the comment while pointing out the singular female response didnt seem to actually oppose the comment but it did raise another interesting point (I have mentioned). What it proved is that men are willing to interpret obvious humour (you said it yourself) and then use it as reason to step in for the defence of women. A defence not one woman seemed to ask for.
"aiming low and "I can stick things in women" is hardly the cream of 'observational humour'. Doesn't mean it isn't illustrative of a deeper problem"
Never said it was the best humour. I too agree there is a deeper problem but it seems more to do with the balance of humour/reality concept. How far removed is this guy telling a joke and the benign comments at the XBone presentation? Where do we draw the fuzzy line that one sense of humour is right and one is wrong (look back to the blackadder bit above). Or do we need to accept that people like to be happy and joke while opposing actual problems of discrimination?
"Do you feel as comfortable telling jokes about 'golliwogs'?"
Do you feel comfortable blacklisting words? Oh the outrage that a blackboard is now a chalkboard and you cant call it the other. Why? Because colour is offensive in its proper context? In charge the PC brigade because context seems to mean nothing any more. At what point did people stop thinking?
"Picking on someone for an irrelevant attribute is shitty, no matter whether you realise you're being sexist/racist or not."
I guess your not watching the apprentice then? The interesting point being that your statement is in direct conflict with career comedians who have a huge following. Dara being the consistent one. Where do we draw the line that language is wrong or that people need to learn context?
"Guess what, I agree, if you're a guy being singled out in the workplace for non-work related things I stand up for you too. With my own username for what that's worth. It seems to have affected you deeply."
Thanks but you would probably find I give as good as I get and enjoy some workplace banter. It helps pass the day. If someone was being plain offensive then I would take issue but when simple thought becomes too complicated I too will stick up for the guy who ment no offence, especially from a group not involved in the humour and just looking to make a victim. Sorry dude but I am standing up to you for Nicho. Not that he asked for my help but he seems to be taking unwarranted flack.
"the problem is that around 50% of the people who *COULD* "do IT" don't want to"
I would stop that statement about there. I could be a nurse or a child carer, I really dont find those jobs appealing but good on any person who does. The trick there being person. As long as they are able to do it why stop them? If they dont want to do it maybe it doesnt appeal to them. Why the great push to put women in IT? To fill a quota? Why not offer the same information to all the people and take on the ones who are interested? How is it representative that the uni took pictures of just the (few) females of the classes to put on promotional posters? Where was the rest of the class? Or even try to even out the posters? Nope we want women because their must be something wrong if they dont want to do everything! Why is it wrong for them to choose?
"perhaps they think that these genders or racial groups aren't capable of "doing their bit"? maybe they think that the other genders or racial groups are inferior?"
I tell you now you put the hammer to the nail spot on. And your points about women being the underclass through history I agree. So instead of pointing at them and saying something must be wrong because they dont want to do the job we should probably look at freedom instead. Instead of saying we must fill some quota in the name of fairness and herding women like cattle or patronising them my giving them special help we could look to giving them the same information as blokes. And if they choose to do a subject good for them and if they decide not to do a subject good for them. Instead of shifting them around like property and referring to them (the group) we could grow up and just let them do what they want as we expect to do. It applies for every person.
Interesting you should bring that up. If asked why they think it's OK to be offensive but they still object to Bernard Manning, most British and Irish comedians reply that there is a difference between being offensive to everyone and singling out certain groups, and that they think Manning's offensiveness all went one way.
And here we have an article about women in IT which has been immediately met, as all such articles always are, with a comment about doing something sexual to those women and a load of other comments saying how anyone who objects to the first comment has no sense of humour.
I happen to think that Bernard Manning had some great material -- some of his jokes were just first-class -- but taken as a whole, his act clearly did pick on particular groups, to their detriment. And, oddly enough, members of those groups tended to be a bit scarce in his audience. Women go to Jimmy Carr gigs and don't mind the sexist jokes because there are jokes about men and everyone else too. Not many black people went to Bernard Manning gigs, because they clearly weren't welcome there.
The vibrator joke in question was just meh. But the context is IT. If you want to recruit comedians to your defence here, you need to point out all the offensive sex jokes about men and black people and homosexuals that get made in IT. But you can't, because it happens an order of magnitude less than the sexual objectification of women.
So, thanks for providing such a perfect example of how wrong you are.
> Some people can do IT some people can't
Our software engineering workplace is trying to even things out by employing a lot of the latter
"We have 3 guys rush to rescue the damsel in distress. Yet their isnt one"
Erm, it is actually possible to be offended by a sexist comment without actually having a pair of breasts yourself you know.
"Just to be clear, you're saying that inevitable jokes about putting things into their vaginas are good to say and don't single them out for scrutiny?"
If he was intentionally being offensive I would have opposed it. If a woman had been offended then I am sure this discussion would have progressed into an enlightening progression of what some women are willing to deal with. In fact a worth while discussion could have been had as Stacy had something to say about the subject. But instead you wanted to rant about how bad guys are (ignoring that this can also be true for a man in a predominantly female role) and continue your defence of women (who have yet to ask you for it).
So instead I am actually standing up for equal opportunity humour. The one that entertained millions for many years before PC censorship banned people from speaking.
This is wrong. A thoughtless comment is thoughtless full stop --> . A sexist comment is sexist when it insults.
When someone calls my daughter who has down's syndrome a mong and she cries I don't really care whether they meant it jovially or not, it was insulting, offensive, degrading, thoughtless whether they meant it to be or not
Sq2 - look again. It's not an inevitable sexist first comment, it's a word play on the article title. You may care to observe the same level of groan-worthy humor in the title of a large number of el reg articles. The subject of women in IT has come up before however this is the first time the title wording has provided such a lay down misere.
"Erm, it is actually possible to be offended by a sexist comment without actually having a pair of breasts yourself you know."
Yes. When you are on the receiving end or are part of/closely connected to the recipient group of the comment. Which is why I am amused that while no woman has opposed this comment, which they legitimately could do, its only guys. What now interests me is why they feel this compulsion to take offence on behalf of others. What psychological issue/reasoning pushes them to take offence for others, especially when the target group has yet to show offence?
Are you telling me you dont want to know why the wrong group took offence?
However the joke was meant the point that many people have made stands out. An article about women in IT and the first comment was about sex. That is how it is viewed (kind of like playing on-line on the Xbox - that's a barrel of laughs for a woman...) and even if someone wanted to do something in IT they can be put off.
And yes, I do know that a group of women working with one man can also make their life just as interesting, and that is just as bad.
As to me needing a knight in shining armour before I commented. Hello? Have you seen the time of the comment? I'm in continental Europe so it was an hour later than that - but I had got into the office, got a coffee and had a quick read of El Reg.
I was not staring at the screen waiting for some guy to come to my defence before commenting. That insinuation is more insulting than the joke!
As for the commenter never having had issues with it - well done. Though I wonder at your username to be able to make that comment effectively. There are enough people who make the belittling comments without even realising it. When it's bad it's infuriating. I have been asked by a sales guy just how technical I was when he realised that I was there as administrator of a server we were upgrading. Not one of the others in the room was asked that question. His company did not get the job to help us, needless to say.
But no, it is not that I have a bad workplace here where I am under a constant barrage of attacks, actually it's a lot of fun and you do have to give as good as you get - just as the guys do to each other. But, yes, sometimes it goes to far and gets too much.
"Why is it wrong for them to choose?"
There's nothing wrong with choice, in fact it's a good thing, as long as the choice is made for positive reasons (I'd like to be a [career A], because that looks like a fun and fulfilling career) rather than negative ones (I don't want to be a [career B] because I've heard that it's no fun, and the rest of my gender thinks so too).
"If they dont want to do it maybe it doesnt appeal to them"
The point of the article was not the fact that "it doesn't appeal to them", but why "it doesn't appeal to them"; if we don't examine the "why" then we won't understand whether the gender differences are natural (like childbirth and pissing whilst standing) or "man-made" (like female clergy in the Catholic church).
I'm white. Am I allowed to take offense if someone makes a comment about stupid niggers? Or would I be in the wrong group?
OK, so go and spend a few minutes with Google and post the links here to an article on the Web about women in IT that is not followed by any belittling smutty comments about sex. If you can find a few, then you get to claim that it wasn't inevitable.
"As to me needing a knight in shining armour before I commented"
"I was not staring at the screen waiting for some guy to come to my defence before commenting. That insinuation is more insulting than the joke!"
Your telling the wrong person, I actually said women didnt need nor had they asked. If you got offended by the joke then you have every right to. You can even comment on this board (as you have). You could even justify the kind of rants from Squander Two. You are actually the one in the position to be offended. And yet your replies about it have been reasoned and constructive. That is 100% my point that these guys are trying to make an issue for women. How can people work together when the majority group try to create offence for the minority? You are obviously capable for speaking for yourself and in a very reasoned manor so why do these guys choose to blow something up into an offence and then take offence at it (For you)?
"And yes, I do know that a group of women working with one man can also make their life just as interesting, and that is just as bad."
We are all people. We all like a laugh and it is things out of the ordinary which make up humour. If the humour goes too far it is for the offend-able party to say so and collective responsibility to stop it there. This is the lack of thought I commented against. These people were attacking someone over a comment in jest yet none of those complaining had any reason to. As I said you could be offended by it. Yet none of these guys justified how they could be offended by it.
"But no, it is not that I have a bad workplace here where I am under a constant barrage of attacks, actually it's a lot of fun and you do have to give as good as you get - just as the guys do to each other. But, yes, sometimes it goes to far and gets too much."
And so you are in the workplace. I am sure you say when enough is enough? If they are causing actual problems I assume you speak to the person and if they persist their manager? Like everyone else has to. There are genuine issues in this world (the sales guy you mention being one of them) and I will step aside if you wish to have a go at the original commenter. However the jumping up and down brigade needed to be grounded for a few.
Are you really? All equal-opportunity humour?
A chink, a kike, and a wop walk into a bar....
"Are you really? All equal-opportunity humour?
A chink, a kike, and a wop walk into a bar...."
Interesting you try to prove your point with a simple joke format designed around racial stereotypes. Am I supposed to get offended as you did? Am I supposed to be all wound up and rant? I am more curious to which punchline you would go with.
You could swap the target of the humour to english. You could target men with it. Or an english IT man! I still wont be nor pretend to be offended just because you make a joke.
There's no "supposed" about it. Just interesting to note that, if someone on here started making racist jokes designed to demean their targets, you say you wouldn't mind. That sort of thing is used to enforce a hostile culture to keep people out -- hey, black people are perfectly welcome to work here, as long as they "have a sense of humour", i.e. join in the laughter while we spend all day insulting them and talking about what a stupid inferior race they come from. It happens less than it used to towards black people in this country; it still happens, though, and is still used plenty against certain other groups.
I actually like offensive jokes. As mentioned earlier, the problem in IT is that one particular kind of offense is constant, pervasive, and one-way, and that people like you will dig in their heels and fight tooth and nail against the mere suggestion that there might be something a bit wrong with that.
> You could swap the target of the humour to english. You could target men with it. Or an english IT man!
Yes, and yet, if an article is published about men working in IT, an insult aimed at men might turn up and might not; if an article is published about English people working in IT, an insult aimed at the English might turn up and might not; and if an article is published about women working in IT, one of the first comments, every single time, will be about fucking them.
Nicho's comment didn't refer to a woman's "sexuality." It referred to women as if they were, all in all, nothing more than a few handy orifices into which objects can be inserted.
"Objectifying" a human being means acting or speaking of them as if they have no brain or mind, no intellect or ability, but are only an object to be used for a physical purpose.
Whereas sexuality is a combination of the physical, mental and, for many people, the spiritual - sexuality is not a synonym for sexual activity, but a term referring to every aspect of one's intimate physical feelings and relationships - whether or not batteries are included.
Those who clam Nicho's comment is actually "objectifying" men rather than women are ignoring who is controlling the "getting into" part, and who is being treated as a brainless hole.
"There's no "supposed" about it. Just interesting to note that, if someone on here started making racist jokes designed to demean their targets, you say you wouldn't mind"
You seem to be moving goal posts here so maybe you dont understand. You say I wouldnt mind, I actually wouldnt care one way or the other unless it was intended to make offence. I could completely understand a target of that joke to be offended and say something. And they would be in the right to say its too far. However as I said I wont be offended, I cant be it has nothing to do with me. What is the point of me feigning offence at something which has nothing to do with me? Hence why I stated very clear that the guys are scrambling to be offended but the ones who could legitimately be offended dont seem to be. I wonder if you look to be the victim for any comment. I have dealt with manipulators who try to make a situation where none exist. They are also very prevalent in schools too (concerning your other comment "boorish tedious arseholes we knew when we were fourteen and who we thought might have grown out of it by now").
"I actually like offensive jokes."
You also hate PC and are very much on my side, except...... sod off. Seriously dude no. I have identified your manipulation already, repetition is not the key. The argument "I like this too but I dont like this" is too obvious and I will not entertain it. I know your looking to be offended and that is why you have continued to push offence instead of actually discussing or extending comments from stacy (the only female I have identified responding to the original comment). Instead you have drawn out generalisations, emotional blackmail and language manipulation to be the offended one. Yet you still havnt answered why you yourself are offended. As the comment has nothing to do with you nor any association to you (you said your a man).
"As mentioned earlier, the problem in IT is that one particular kind of offense is constant, pervasive, and one-way, and that people like you will dig in their heels and fight tooth and nail against the mere suggestion that there might be something a bit wrong with that."
Then look to yourself. You are as bad if not worse. I feel justified saying this due to your comment-
"I still get pissed off that the first response of most Net geeks to even the mention of women is "Hurr, hurr, hurr, sex, hurr, hurr, hurr." To the fuckwits who don't get why this is a problem, would you get a job somewhere where all your colleagues laughed uproariously at graphic descriptions of anally raping you every single day? And then picked on you even more if you failed to pretend convincingly enough that you found it hilarious too? Or would you prefer to work with civilised people?"
You feel it is wrong for the first commenter to play on the words of the article but you think you are right to brand 'net geeks' and brand us IT people with your offensive comment? So what do you say to all the 'net geeks' you have offended? Did you intend to offend the group you label? You obviously wernt doing any word play and made your feelings very strongly worded on this forum. You dont seem to have been making any attempt at humour. Net geeks btw are male and female. You use offensive language often enough in your posts when referring to us 'fuckwits'.
Do you think you are any better than the first commenter? I am sure you will justify yourself as better somehow and continue as before. But I responded in case the glimmer of hope brought you to realise that he intended humour while you intended to insult. And that is a huge difference.
"would you get a job somewhere where all your colleagues laughed uproariously at graphic descriptions of anally raping you every single day?"
Where the hell have you been working - a prison?
The comment was made by man and so is likely sexist.
If the focus of the comment is male then it is male posturing, if it is female, then the comment is demeaning and oppressive. Ideally men should not make any reference to sex, unless it is unambiguously complimentary to a female (after asking permission first in a non-confrontational manner)
All comments made by women regarding sex are empowering and should not be subject to patriarchal value judgments
Not being sexist isn't straightforward, but is worth the extra effort
"Well, maybe you should learn to appreciate their sense of humour, Sweety."
Why, that has precisely been my response to my now daughters. I also suggested a humour appreciation expression tool.
A 2x4 with nails sticking out of it.
"Because that is what always happens in IT. Which is the problem."
Strange, such conversations never were uttered in the various IT shops where I saw quite a few women working in.
But then, many of those IT shops were US DoD IT shops and most of those women were veterans who were perfectly capable of loosening the teeth of anyone making such speech.
Never caught wind of such in civilian, non-DoD IT shops either.
Perhaps this is a UK issue?
From the land that brought the world civilization and blood pudding... :P
The nerdy archetype is only the extreme case of the 'male brain'. It is that same group of attributes that correlate well with being able to mentally model the world analytically rather than emotionally, which is why they can translate one world to the other. It may be causal or correlation, but I can't see that everyone pretending it isn't true is going to help get the best people into the deeply techie stuff.
Apologies for broad brush strokes here, there are women with very male brains and men with very female ones of course it's a continuum, but generally there are stronger groupings at either end.
You can't model the world "emotionally".
Rather than model the world, perhaps the term percieve? As a classic example taken from coupling.
The female mind sees scatter cushions and thinks "they look nice, they're pretty, but do they go with teh sofa material" emotional and style oriented. The male mind goes "What's the point in having them, I'm just going to have to move them when I sit down" logic oriented.
It's also the reason men tend to be terrible at giving their opinions on things. When you ask us what we think about something our first thought isn't the same as your girlfriends of "It brings out your eyes / matches that nice pair of pumps you have" it's "it's a top, it fits, is it comfortable? If so buy it and lets get out of here"
But the point is also that a team of end-spectrum nerds is frequently not the most productive. Deep technical skills good, ability to apply to real world problems or timelines not so much.
Unless you're a pure technology company, having an IT person who can work with reality is pretty important, and the gender balance in many non-IT functions is equal or at least not so imbalanced.
@Richard?, I do very much agree, and I've been lucky enough to work in IT groups mixed about 50/50. The women in the group *tended* to gravitate towards support/empathy and the business side of things, the guys *tended* towards the development, theoretical end. Of course, both sides need each other, cannot operate in a vacuum etc.
@above poster "you cannot model the world emotionally" - I suggest you spend a day with my beloved, rooms "feel" right or wrong, colours of cushions matter in a way I will never understand, leaving things in their most convenient place plays second fiddle to where they feel right (even if it involves opening cupboards to take something or and return it several times a day). Her world is entirely modelled emotionally, it's good, it creates balance etc. Does my nut in sometimes, but no more than my rational reductionism and wanting to solve (not listen to) problems does hers in.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017