The Programmiss and Male Services

« Return to Article
  • alnite 2011-08-23 15:16
    Send those e-males over. We need to approve them asap.
  • tom103 2011-08-23 15:17
    Are both words (male/mail) pronounced exactly the same? I'm not a native English speaker and my pronunciation isn't so good, so I'm not sure...
  • Medezark 2011-08-23 15:19
    tom103:
    Are both words (male/mail) pronounced exactly the same? I'm not a native English speaker and my pronunciation isn't so good, so I'm not sure...


    Yes in deedy, they are pronounced identically.
  • Matt 2011-08-23 15:20
    Yes, they are. 'ail and 'ale endings are almost always pronounced the same way (sail, sale, tail, tale)
  • Matt 2011-08-23 15:21
    The one about Programmiss is so depressing. Thank god for her sake she wasn't actually trying to get a programming job.
  • Max 2011-08-23 15:25
    (with Eastern-European accent): in Soviet Russia The Service mails YOU!
  • Old Crow T. Robot 2011-08-23 15:28
    Just enjoying the contrast of the two stories together. Well played.

    Captcha: jugis. Continuing the chauvinist theme nicely.
  • thistooshallpass 2011-08-23 15:36
    I was friend with a HR girl in a previous job, a mostly-male IT shop. She was attractive and single, and she was going crazy with all the invitations, creepy emails, anonymous love letters and late-night voicemails. When she gave her notice, she went to lunch with her replacement, which was even more attractive; they discussed the creep issue and my friend suggested that at first she should talk a lot about her (fake) boyfriend so people would not bother her. It worked.

    What does it mean? That if you are a male working in a mostly-male organization and the HR girl talks a lot about her boyfriend, she is probably lying so it's okay to send her creepy emails and invite her to VMWorld (all expenses paid).

  • Dani 2011-08-23 15:36
    Max:
    (with Eastern-European accent): in Soviet Russia The Service mails YOU!

    fail
  • ted 2011-08-23 15:39
    The second one reads like a shitty dear abby post or a narrative on that old show on premium cable that involved single women talking about their permiscuous sex experiences. They would dramatize them and there would be some generic lifeless voiceover reading it like a narrative. I don't recall the name of it. Something something bedtime stories?
  • Michael J. Swart 2011-08-23 15:53
    Today's WTF stands for Women in Technology Fail.
    Kinda depressing.
  • James 2011-08-23 15:56
    The first two sentences of Story #2 were the perfect antidote to the creepy ickiness of Story #1.

    On the other hand, my CAPTCHA word was "eros". I'm a bit creeped out again.
  • Zylon 2011-08-23 15:57
    This forum, of all places, I'd think you wouldn't have to tell people that the best way to kill a troll is to starve it to death.

    But I guess we get more than our share of extra-stupid IT folks here.
  • C-Octothorpe 2011-08-23 16:07
    I'm OK with poor proof-reading and the occasional sexist comment or joke, but christ on a bike man, WTF was THAT?!

    The second article wasn't too bad, but the first was just low brow dude... I'm not expecting stellar writing as I understand you have a FT job, but christ, at least have a look at the article before posting it.

    I think zunesis should send in an IT "story"... I'll bet that it'll make it to the front page untouched.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-23 16:12
    Fist cum mint? At least that's what it sounded like ...
  • Jun 2011-08-23 16:17
    To guys everywhere: please, for the love of god, don't be the dudes from the first story. It really isn't helping.
  • nick 2011-08-23 16:35
    TRWTF is women amiright?
  • No Fail 2011-08-23 16:37
    No....

    Fale
  • xoonaysys, despite fascist mods 2011-08-23 16:53
    Matt Westwood:
    Fist cum mint? At least that's what it sounded like ...
    Just make sure it's in that order.
  • Herosp 2011-08-23 16:55
    Well, I'm not a native english speaker, so I went to google translate to listen to the robotized voice and I noticed a slight difference. But anyway, I'd pronounced both identically.
  • Gunslinger 2011-08-23 16:57
    thistooshallpass:
    What does it mean? That if you are a male working in a mostly-male organization and the HR girl talks a lot about her boyfriend, she is probably lying so it's okay to send her creepy emails and invite her to VMWorld (all expenses paid).


    Who hasn't done this?
  • neveralull 2011-08-23 16:59
    Where on earth are you guys working? We've had lots and lots of female programmers everywhere I've worked for over 40 years now, from day one until now.
  • frits 2011-08-23 17:03
    The HR lady sounds hot. ;)
  • hoodaticus 2011-08-23 17:04
    Zylon:
    But I guess we get more than our share of extra-stupid IT folks here.
    I blame Jeff Attwood. His point-based reward system is straight out of B.F. Skinner - the concept of positive reinforcement. It works even on involuntary glands within your body, as proven by Pavlov.

    The very definition of intelligence in behavioral psychology is susceptibility to reward. Ergo, the smartest people are the most sucked-in by earning meaningless "points".

    Witness Jon Skeet, who some time ago transcended his mortal coil and is now the patron deity of Stack Overflow. We haven't seen him here since. I suspect this happened to a lot of the good ole' regulars here, or at least, the smartest ones.

    I am satisfied with my mere 99.8th percentile intelligence, and am immune to Stack Overflow's charms (with my measly 453 points). Unfortunately, I'm a troll, which makes it sad that this site is stuck with me.

    If this site had a point system, I bet at least Jon Skeet would come back :)
  • daily 2011-08-23 17:06
    I was expecting that in the second story, she will feel uncomfortable there and spontaneously decide she doesn't know what programming is (and blame HR).

    But sadly, it was a different story.
  • Voice of the Oppressed 2011-08-23 17:06
    Looks like I offended someone with the truth.

    You're all hypocrites, you know that? You love freedom when it lets you do what you want (you're not hurting anyone, right?), but when I want to do what I want, I deserve to be beaten into a pulp and shoveled away - silenced.
  • frits 2011-08-23 17:12
    hoodaticus:
    Zylon:
    But I guess we get more than our share of extra-stupid IT folks here.
    I blame Jeff Attwood. His point-based reward system is straight out of B.F. Skinner - the concept of positive reinforcement. It works even on involuntary glands within your body, as proven by Pavlov.

    The very definition of intelligence in behavioral psychology is susceptibility to reward. Ergo, the smartest people are the most sucked-in by earning meaningless "points".

    Witness Jon Skeet, who some time ago transcended his mortal coil and is now the patron deity of Stack Overflow. We haven't seen him here since. I suspect this happened to a lot of the good ole' regulars here, or at least, the smartest ones.

    I am satisfied with my mere 99.8th percentile intelligence, and am immune to Stack Overflow's charms (with my measly 453 points). Unfortunately, I'm a troll, which makes it sad that this site is stuck with me.

    If this site had a point system, I bet at least Jon Skeet would come back :)


    I'm not sure that helping n00bs with programming questions is necessarily a sign of intelligence.
  • davee123 2011-08-23 17:14
    We've got a fairly large chunk of female developers at my office. Somewhere around maybe 20% are female. ... All except one group on the other side of the wall.

    Back when I was hired, we noted that this one group had something like 6 women all reporting to 1 man, and nobody else in the group. So we dubbed their group "The Harem"-- although doing so may have violated some sexual harassment regulations.

    DaveE
  • Mr Sarcastic 2011-08-23 17:46
    I call shenanigans on the first one. Everyone knows HR does not make mistakes.
  • SQLDave 2011-08-23 17:46
    "But it all worked out in the end."

    Which is how she REALLY got the job.
  • Johnny 2011-08-23 17:47
    Medezark:
    tom103:
    Are both words (male/mail) pronounced exactly the same? I'm not a native English speaker and my pronunciation isn't so good, so I'm not sure...


    Yes in deedy, they are pronounced identically.

    Could've thrown "they're" in instead of "they are" - just for more confusions...
  • awpeoi 2011-08-23 17:55
    C-Octothorpe:
    I'm OK with poor proof-reading and the occasional sexist comment or joke, but christ on a bike man, WTF was THAT?!

    The second article wasn't too bad, but the first was just low brow dude... I'm not expecting stellar writing as I understand you have a FT job, but christ, at least have a look at the article before posting it.

    I think zunesis should send in an IT "story"... I'll bet that it'll make it to the front page untouched.

    Ease up! I always think these stories are more having a go at IT Males (and their attitudes when they find a woman in IT) rather than at the (perceived) scarcity of females in our field. Sadly, given the similarity in such attitudes that I've seen with people Ive worked with, I'm not sure what you think was so sexist (other than the sexist views deliberately portrayed).

    FFS mate, it's people like you who go out looking to find discrimination in everything that start wars.
    (BTW: The second one was equally sexist (with a touch of racism thrown in for good measure), but because it was written from a different viewpoint you don't seem to mind...)
  • hoodaticus 2011-08-23 17:56
    Mr Sarcastic:
    I call shenanigans on the first one. Everyone knows HR does not make mistakes.
    If HR at my company would check even one reference - once - I would be shocked.
  • whoami 2011-08-23 18:00
    hoodaticus:
    Zylon:
    But I guess we get more than our share of extra-stupid IT folks here.
    I blame Jeff Attwood. His point-based reward system is straight out of B.F. Skinner - the concept of positive reinforcement. It works even on involuntary glands within your body, as proven by Pavlov.

    The very definition of intelligence in behavioral psychology is susceptibility to reward. Ergo, the smartest people are the most sucked-in by earning meaningless "points".

    Witness Jon Skeet, who some time ago transcended his mortal coil and is now the patron deity of Stack Overflow. We haven't seen him here since. I suspect this happened to a lot of the good ole' regulars here, or at least, the smartest ones.

    I am satisfied with my mere 99.8th percentile intelligence, and am immune to Stack Overflow's charms (with my measly 453 points). Unfortunately, I'm a troll, which makes it sad that this site is stuck with me.

    If this site had a point system, I bet at least Jon Skeet would come back :)

    Surely the whole notion of posting is a 'reward system', because we only share opinions so that we feel good when others agree (which is why most people will happily defend even ridiculous posts, or slight oversights to the death).

    Given you post here more often than me, I put it to you that I am more intelligent....

    (and the person who doesn't post is probably more intelligent again - they don't need to prove their intelligence in some random forum because to them it's simply not a dick points contest)
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-23 18:05
    neveralull:
    Where on earth are you guys working? We've had lots and lots of female programmers everywhere I've worked for over 40 years now, from day one until now.


    These stories probably come from the US, where, from what we see in the TV we get from them, they have always had a difficult time integrating male and female social and business circles.
  • breaker 2011-08-23 18:06
    Voice of the Oppressed:
    Looks like I offended someone with the truth.

    You're all hypocrites, you know that? You love freedom when it lets you do what you want (you're not hurting anyone, right?), but when I want to do what I want, I deserve to be beaten into a pulp and shoveled away - silenced.
    We have a winner.

    The demographic here accurately reflects the rest of the westernized world. Almost everyone claims freedom is a good thing, then complains when other people exercise their freedom. True Freedom leads to Anarchy. Sometimes we have to accept that Freedom must (somewhere) have its limitations.

    It's interesting (to me anyways) that the Americans who see, to often have the loud voices on rights to freedom and the like still use capital punishment. If people are free to do what they want, why do you have to kill them (or, for that matter, incarcerate them) when they do what they want?

    <disclaimer>
    I'm not for a minute suggesting that Anarchy is a good thing or that freedom is or isn't a great ideal, however I think people have to accept that rules (which are essentially infringements on freedom) are a necessity in society - this means that absolute freedom is not possible.
  • BentFranklin 2011-08-23 18:08
    In this town there is a scandal about a certain CEO who was gung ho with all kinds of motivational tools. One of them was apparently that each employee had to go into his office and be hypnotized. It turned out that the women were being partially disrobed and fondled. He got busted because some of them started to come out of hypnosis or weren't in too deep, and then a lot of others recalled finding their shirt buttons done wrong later in the day or their shirt tails tucked in the wrong places under their skirts.

    Guess what? It has nothing to do with IT! You are all perfectly normal males to have such feelings about female co-workers and do nothing worse about it than hang around HR too much or write love notes. So, go for it. It doesn't even come close to creepy, and you might get lucky.

  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-23 18:08
    awpeoi :
    Ease up! I always think these stories are more having a go at IT Males (and their attitudes when they find a woman in IT) rather than at the (perceived) scarcity of females in our field. Sadly, given the similarity in such attitudes that I've seen with people Ive worked with, I'm not sure what you think was so sexist (other than the sexist views deliberately portrayed).

    FFS mate, it's people like you who go out looking to find discrimination in everything that start wars.
    (BTW: The second one was equally sexist (with a touch of racism thrown in for good measure), but because it was written from a different viewpoint you don't seem to mind...)


    Pointing out the fact that different nations have different languages and speak with different accents is not "racism" you stupid Yank. And if you're not a yank then you're talking like one.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-23 18:10
    breaker:
    Voice of the Oppressed:
    Looks like I offended someone with the truth.

    You're all hypocrites, you know that? You love freedom when it lets you do what you want (you're not hurting anyone, right?), but when I want to do what I want, I deserve to be beaten into a pulp and shoveled away - silenced.
    We have a winner.

    The demographic here accurately reflects the rest of the westernized world. Almost everyone claims freedom is a good thing, then complains when other people exercise their freedom. True Freedom leads to Anarchy. Sometimes we have to accept that Freedom must (somewhere) have its limitations.

    It's interesting (to me anyways) that the Americans who see, to often have the loud voices on rights to freedom and the like still use capital punishment. If people are free to do what they want, why do you have to kill them (or, for that matter, incarcerate them) when they do what they want?

    <disclaimer>
    I'm not for a minute suggesting that Anarchy is a good thing or that freedom is or isn't a great ideal, however I think people have to accept that rules (which are essentially infringements on freedom) are a necessity in society - this means that absolute freedom is not possible.


    Anarchy would be a brilliant thing if only it were allowed to flourish unmolested. Trouble is, it always falls foul to fascism.
  • thistooshallpass 2011-08-23 18:41
    hoodaticus:
    If HR at my company would check even one reference - once - I would be shocked.

    This is not part of their job definition. They are paid to print resumes, ignore the opinions they requested from other employees, and accuse people of being bigots if they insist that the [insert your favorite minority here] candidate is not qualified.

    This is entirely different from headhunters, who share the same expertise but also are experts at making checklists of skills and counting everything in YOE (years of experience).

  • plaidfluff 2011-08-23 19:20
    And with attitudes like these, good luck attracting women into IT careers. Jesus Christ, people, women are human beings, not slabs of meat.
  • Microeconomist 2011-08-23 19:42
    Matt Westwood:
    Anarchy would be a brilliant thing if only it were allowed to flourish unmolested. Trouble is, it always falls foul to fascism.


    Anarchy falls foul to economics. Simply put, it is more efficient to specialize and trade than to attempt to do everything by one's self.

    Because such trades are so very useful, every group of people will inevitably create a system where trades are required to be voluntary, and voluntary agreements to trade are enforced.

    The only other alternative is that every single person has to own a weapon and act like a soulless predator; taking whatever they can, and defending whatever they have.

    But but but, you say, couldn't you get together with some friends and agree to defend each other? (Yep, precisely. Please see "every group of people will inevitably create a system" above.)

    Once you understand microeconomics, you will know why anarchy will always fail.
  • hoodaticus 2011-08-23 20:27
    Matt Westwood:
    neveralull:
    Where on earth are you guys working? We've had lots and lots of female programmers everywhere I've worked for over 40 years now, from day one until now.


    These stories probably come from the US, where, from what we see in the TV we get from them, they have always had a difficult time integrating male and female social and business circles.
    Right. You come from some mystical utopia across the seas where women are sane.
  • hoodaticus 2011-08-23 20:29
    whoami:
    (and the person who doesn't post is probably more intelligent again - they don't need to prove their intelligence in some random forum because to them it's simply not a dick points contest)
    By your logic, Nothingness is the Supreme Being. I figured out who you are, Jean Sartre!
  • EmEtib 2011-08-23 21:17
    tom103:
    Are both words (male/mail) pronounced exactly the same? I'm not a native English speaker and my pronunciation isn't so good, so I'm not sure...


    It depends upon the sex. Females pronounce "male" as "disgusting pig".
  • fluffy 2011-08-23 21:35
    thistooshallpass:
    I was friend with a HR girl in a previous job, a mostly-male IT shop. She was attractive and single, and she was going crazy with all the invitations, creepy emails, anonymous love letters and late-night voicemails. When she gave her notice, she went to lunch with her replacement, which was even more attractive; they discussed the creep issue and my friend suggested that at first she should talk a lot about her (fake) boyfriend so people would not bother her. It worked.

    What does it mean? That if you are a male working in a mostly-male organization and the HR girl talks a lot about her boyfriend, she is probably lying so it's okay to send her creepy emails and invite her to VMWorld (all expenses paid).


    s/which/who/
  • Friedrich the Great 2011-08-23 22:32
    Microeconomist:
    Matt Westwood:
    Anarchy would be a brilliant thing if only it were allowed to flourish unmolested. Trouble is, it always falls foul to fascism.


    Anarchy falls foul to economics. Simply put, it is more efficient to specialize and trade than to attempt to do everything by one's self.

    Because such trades are so very useful, every group of people will inevitably create a system where trades are required to be voluntary, and voluntary agreements to trade are enforced.

    The only other alternative is that every single person has to own a weapon and act like a soulless predator; taking whatever they can, and defending whatever they have.

    But but but, you say, couldn't you get together with some friends and agree to defend each other? (Yep, precisely. Please see "every group of people will inevitably create a system" above.)

    Once you understand microeconomics, you will know why anarchy will always fail.


    All other things being equal, an organized group of people will overcome the anarchistic individual.
  • Konstantin Lopyrev 2011-08-23 23:11
    I disagree. They are pronounced very slightly differently.
  • lucidfox 2011-08-23 23:19
    So autism is now an excuse for sexist incidents?
  • Harrow 2011-08-23 23:29
    breaker:
    ...If people are free to do what they want, why do you have to kill them...?
    Duuh -- because that's what *I* want to do.

    -Harrow.
  • lucidfox 2011-08-23 23:35
    thistooshallpass:
    When she gave her notice, she went to lunch with her replacement, which was even more attractive

    So apparently not only is it okay for news submissions to judge women solely by their looks, they don't even deserve the word "who" anymore. Because of course *everyone knows* that women are "whiches".
  • junior 2011-08-24 00:02
    Herosp:
    Well, I'm not a native english speaker, so I went to google translate to listen to the robotized voice and I noticed a slight difference. But anyway, I'd pronounced both identically.


    Of course they are pronounced differently.

    Firstly, native English speakers don't hear the difference, because in English both sounds represent the same phoneme, and,
    Secondly, programmers are not trained linguists: they are programmers.

    Most people (and no programmers) I speak with don't even notice the differences in pronunciation of 'the' and 'the' in English.
  • senior 2011-08-24 00:07
    thistooshallpass:
    they discussed the creep issue and my friend suggested that at first she should talk a lot about her (fake) boyfriend so people would not bother her. It worked.


    That is what a Wedding Ring is for.
  • trtrwtf 2011-08-24 00:37
    senior:
    thistooshallpass:
    they discussed the creep issue and my friend suggested that at first she should talk a lot about her (fake) boyfriend so people would not bother her. It worked.


    That is what a taser is for.


    ftfy
  • Zoredache 2011-08-24 01:33
    Reminds me of the old userfriendly comic from 2001-05-19.

    http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/read.cgi?id=20010519
  • EVIL US HACK0R!! 2011-08-24 03:59
    Max:
    (with Eastern-European accent): in Soviet Russia The Service mails YOU!


    YOU SKUMBAG I AM FROM SOVIET RUSIA ONCE. IN SOVIYT RUSSIA THE PARTY WOULD HAEV SEND YU GULAG!!!!!

    CAPAAATCHAAA!!!!!! LUDUS!!!!!!!!!
  • Kill Bill #3 2011-08-24 04:08
    junior:
    Herosp:
    Well, I'm not a native english speaker, so I went to google translate to listen to the robotized voice and I noticed a slight difference. But anyway, I'd pronounced both identically.


    Of course they are pronounced differently.

    Firstly, native English speakers don't hear the difference, because in English both sounds represent the same phoneme, and,
    Secondly, programmers are not trained linguists: they are programmers.

    Most people (and no programmers) I speak with don't even notice the differences in pronunciation of 'the' and 'the' in English.


    Of course, they are pronounced the same:

    mail [meyl] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mail
    male [meyl] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/male

    Any native Innglander can only distinguish the two *identical sounds* by (1) context in spoken form, or (2) spelling in written form.

    It is only people that learned Innglish from books that initially attempt to pronounce each letter, and later construct phenomes from them.

    PS: 'the' and 'the' are, naturally, pronounced entirely differently. Unlike 'lead' (canine) and 'lead' (plumbus) which sound the same.



  • lucidfox 2011-08-24 04:29
    EVIL US HACK0R!!:
    Max:
    (with Eastern-European accent): in Soviet Russia The Service mails YOU!


    YOU SKUMBAG I AM FROM SOVIET RUSIA ONCE. IN SOVIYT RUSSIA THE PARTY WOULD HAEV SEND YU GULAG!!!!!

    CAPAAATCHAAA!!!!!! LUDUS!!!!!!!!!

    Being an actual Russian, I would advise you to cut the insanity.
  • Rob 2011-08-24 04:38
    Oh god, when I worked as a programmer, there were four women (in the entire IT department)

    1) Boss' secretary: Little old lady roughly 3 minutes away from retirement
    2) Operator (loaded tapes, monitored hardware, whatever): 400+ pounds. NOT an exaggeration. I think she took the job because the mainframe room was cold so she'd sweat the least there. Only able to perform her job through the miracle of roller chairs
    3) Senior programmer: Around 50, angry, and reeked of coffee and cigarettes at all times. My immediate supervisor and 75% of the reason I quit IT work for good
    4) Junior programmer: Early 30's, boring in every way, and conspicuously married
  • lucidfox 2011-08-24 05:00
    C-Octothorpe:
    I'm OK with poor proof-reading and the occasional sexist comment or joke, but christ on a bike man, WTF was THAT?!

    I'm not even okay with the occasional sexist comment, but the administration would have to take active steps to discourage those kinds of mindsets on the site, and sadly I doubt they would.
  • /dev/null 2011-08-24 05:37
    <frank_slade>
    The tails in the tail HA!!!
    </frank_slade>
  • kyrsoronas 2011-08-24 05:56
    you've got male !
  • QJo 2011-08-24 06:10
    Kill Bill #3:
    junior:
    Herosp:
    Well, I'm not a native english speaker, so I went to google translate to listen to the robotized voice and I noticed a slight difference. But anyway, I'd pronounced both identically.


    Of course they are pronounced differently.

    Firstly, native English speakers don't hear the difference, because in English both sounds represent the same phoneme, and,
    Secondly, programmers are not trained linguists: they are programmers.

    Most people (and no programmers) I speak with don't even notice the differences in pronunciation of 'the' and 'the' in English.


    Of course, they are pronounced the same:

    mail [meyl] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mail
    male [meyl] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/male

    Any native Innglander can only distinguish the two *identical sounds* by (1) context in spoken form, or (2) spelling in written form.

    It is only people that learned Innglish from books that initially attempt to pronounce each letter, and later construct phenomes from them.

    PS: 'the' and 'the' are, naturally, pronounced entirely differently. Unlike 'lead' (canine) and 'lead' (plumbus) which sound the same.





    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.
  • QJo 2011-08-24 06:13
    Kill Bill #3:


    ...

    It is only people that learned Innglish from books that initially attempt to pronounce each letter, and later construct phenomes from them.

    ...


    And finally, to score some cheap points: "phenome": is this a reference to language evolving organically?

    boom-tsh
  • QJo 2011-08-24 06:17
    Reminds me of when Sparks (remember them?) had just released their top-selling single This Town Ain't Big Enough For Both Of Us back in the early 1970s. The DJ announced the record by saying "That was the Mael brothers - and that's not a stupid as it sounds."
  • Jon H 2011-08-24 06:25
    Matt:
    Yes, they are. 'ail and 'ale endings are almost always pronounced the same way (sail, sale, tail, tale)


    `Mine is a long and a sad tale!' said the Mouse, turning to Alice, and sighing.

    `It IS a long tail, certainly,' said Alice, looking down with wonder at the Mouse's tail; `but why do you call it sad?'

    http://www.literaturepage.com/read/aliceinwonderland-16.html
  • Silas 2011-08-24 06:39
    Medezark:
    tom103:
    Are both words (male/mail) pronounced exactly the same? I'm not a native English speaker and my pronunciation isn't so good, so I'm not sure...


    Yes in deedy, they are pronounced identically.


    Well then it doesn't speak for her if she wasn't able to understand a common IT term.
  • Bob 2011-08-24 07:16
    plaidfluff:
    Jesus Christ, people, women are human beings, not slabs of meat.


    At the end of the day we're all just slabs of meat.

  • Bob 2011-08-24 07:19
    EVIL US HACK0R!!:
    Max:
    (with Eastern-European accent): in Soviet Russia The Service mails YOU!


    YOU SKUMBAG I AM FROM SOVIET RUSIA ONCE. IN SOVIYT RUSSIA THE PARTY WOULD HAEV SEND YU GULAG!!!!!

    CAPAAATCHAAA!!!!!! LUDUS!!!!!!!!!


    True story, for a period I worked with an ex-pat Russian Java developer who was a Scientist specializing in the development of nuclear weapons back during the days of Communist Russia. That generation of Russians are a hard people.
  • hoodaticus 2011-08-24 07:39
    Bob:
    EVIL US HACK0R!!:
    Max:
    (with Eastern-European accent): in Soviet Russia The Service mails YOU!


    YOU SKUMBAG I AM FROM SOVIET RUSIA ONCE. IN SOVIYT RUSSIA THE PARTY WOULD HAEV SEND YU GULAG!!!!!

    CAPAAATCHAAA!!!!!! LUDUS!!!!!!!!!


    True story, for a period I worked with an ex-pat Russian Java developer who was a Scientist specializing in the development of nuclear weapons back during the days of Communist Russia. That generation of Russians are a hard people.
    Seriously - their personality seeps a Siberian winter breeze. My Russian former nuclear scientist now works as an actuary at MetLife.
  • hoodaticus 2011-08-24 07:40
    QJo:
    Reminds me of when Sparks (remember them?)
    No.
  • Im_rich 2011-08-24 07:53
    neveralull:
    Where on earth are you guys working? We've had lots and lots of female programmers everywhere I've worked for over 40 years now, from day one until now.


    I am so calling BS on this one. My first company had 2 and the one looked like a guy so we always joked we only had one. I work at a much larger company and we just got our second female in IT (if you exclude mgmt). So I want to know where it is that there are IT shops just overflowing (exageration neveralull's) with chicks (and they don't have to be hot)
  • Shinobu 2011-08-24 08:06
    Silas:
    Well then it doesn't speak for her if she wasn't able to understand a common IT term.
    Maybe the guy wasn't a native speaker and pronounced it like ‘mail services’ and that caused the confusion?
  • J. McCarthy 2011-08-24 08:34
    lucidfox:
    So autism is now an excuse for sexist incidents?

    I am greatly offended by your choice of words. I have a son that had autism, and let me assure you that it is not a matter to joke about.

  • Lucent 2011-08-24 08:43
    lucidfox:
    thistooshallpass:
    When she gave her notice, she went to lunch with her replacement, which was even more attractive

    So apparently not only is it okay for news submissions to judge women solely by their looks, they don't even deserve the word "who" anymore. Because of course everyone knows that women are bitches.
    FTFY

    And you just proved it too! The guy can't make a simple grammatical error without being dubbed the Antichrist? What crawled up your cunt?
  • Jane 2011-08-24 08:47
    Oh god, when I worked as a programmer, there were four women (in the entire IT department)

    1) Boss' secretary: Little old lady roughly 3 minutes away from retirement
    2) Operator (loaded tapes, monitored hardware, whatever): 400+ pounds. NOT an exaggeration. I think she took the job because the mainframe room was cold so she'd sweat the least there. Only able to perform her job through the miracle of roller chairs
    3) Senior programmer: Around 50, angry, and reeked of coffee and cigarettes at all times. My immediate supervisor and 75% of the reason I quit IT work for good
    4) Junior programmer: Early 30's, boring in every way, and conspicuously married


    Funny... I'm the only female in an all male department and I could use 2 - 4 to describe my male coworkers...
    Those archetypes are definitely not gender based.
  • Lucent 2011-08-24 08:49
    Matt Westwood:
    My quixotic ideal would work great if this stupid reality didn't get in the way.
    FTFY
  • Kiss me I'm Polish 2011-08-24 08:55
    I was on a phone screening for a job in IT. The conversation was held in English, and my interviewer had quite a heavy accent. The most notable moment was when he asked me about "chase root". He insisted that it was a common tool and I must had used it in the past, while I had no idea what he was talking about.
    Convinced that I would fail the screening I asked him to spell the word, blaming the sound quality on my end of the phone. "Why of course," he said. "It's chase root, T. R. A. C. E. R. O. U. T. E."
    Things went pretty straightforward from there.
  • Lucent 2011-08-24 08:55
    Matt Westwood:
    These stories probably come from the US, where, from what we see in the TV we get from them...
    Isn't getting your impressions of a country from TV the kind of thing you'd accuse an American of doing?

    Matt Westwood:
    Pointing out the fact that different nations have different languages and speak with different accents is not "racism" you stupid Yank.
    Actually, it's from Europe that hear patriotism confused with "racism".

    You're REALLY full of shit today, is something wrong?
  • Fedor 2011-08-24 08:58
    lucidfox:
    EVIL US HACK0R!!:
    Max:
    (with Eastern-European accent): in Soviet Russia The Service mails YOU!


    YOU SKUMBAG I AM FROM SOVIET RUSIA ONCE. IN SOVIYT RUSSIA THE PARTY WOULD HAEV SEND YU GULAG!!!!!

    CAPAAATCHAAA!!!!!! LUDUS!!!!!!!!!

    Being an actual Russian, I would advise you to cut the insanity.

    Congratulations on avoiding being a victim of human trafficking.
  • Alvaro 2011-08-24 08:59
    That's why you should not advertise you have a hotmail account...
  • TheHF 2011-08-24 09:05
    My girlfriend is a military officer, which makes her a reasonably rare flower. She wears a ring (we're not married or engaged) just to keep the pestering down to a minimum.

    Even that doesn't stop them. Sometimes you're ashamed of your Y chromosome...
  • Rob 2011-08-24 09:05
    Jane:
    Oh god, when I worked as a programmer, there were four women (in the entire IT department)

    1) Boss' secretary: Little old lady roughly 3 minutes away from retirement
    2) Operator (loaded tapes, monitored hardware, whatever): 400+ pounds. NOT an exaggeration. I think she took the job because the mainframe room was cold so she'd sweat the least there. Only able to perform her job through the miracle of roller chairs
    3) Senior programmer: Around 50, angry, and reeked of coffee and cigarettes at all times. My immediate supervisor and 75% of the reason I quit IT work for good
    4) Junior programmer: Early 30's, boring in every way, and conspicuously married


    Funny... I'm the only female in an all male department and I could use 2 - 4 to describe my male coworkers...
    Those archetypes are definitely not gender based.


    Heh, now that you mention it, I can match up #2-4 with people from the same company working at the same time.

    The male #2 had the obligatory neckbeard (and may have only been 350), the male #3 wasn't so abrasive and unpleasant, but wasn't as senior either, and the male #4 was either me or the guy in the cubicle next to me if you change 30's to 20's, and remove either the married part (in my case) or the boring part (in his case).
  • anon 2011-08-24 09:06
    Didn't you know? autism is an excuse for everything! It's like the new ADD

    p.s. captca said 'eros'
  • eVil 2011-08-24 09:18
    Konstantin Lopyrev:
    I disagree. They are pronounced very slightly differently.


    Maybe in your Russian accent.

    However, if you pronounce them differently in English, then you're doing it wrong. This is irrefutable.
  • The Great Lobachevsky 2011-08-24 09:36
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.
  • QJo 2011-08-24 09:46
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.


    Yowch, I hope not. Being likened to *anything* like Paula Deen would be a fate worse than being Bob.
  • frits 2011-08-24 09:49
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.


    I'm originally from the Philadelphia area, and I pronounce them slightly different. "Mail" sounds like "Ma-yull" and "male" sounds like it's spelled (no exaggerated diphthong).
  • Severity One 2011-08-24 09:55
    J. McCarthy:
    lucidfox:
    So autism is now an excuse for sexist incidents?
    I am greatly offended by your choice of words. I have a son that had autism, and let me assure you that it is not a matter to joke about.
    Two things:

    1) There's very likely a parent and/or other family members on the autistic spectrum, or at least with autistic traits; if so, probably it's you.

    2) You don't 'had' autism. It's not an illness that can be cured: it's a condition. You can have therapy and try and work around your shortcomings particularly in communication, but that doesn't make you neurotypical all of a sudden. You're still on the autistic spectrum, but it doesn't show so much.

    Trust me on this one.
  • J. McCarthy 2011-08-24 10:02
    Severity One:
    J. McCarthy:
    lucidfox:
    So autism is now an excuse for sexist incidents?
    I am greatly offended by your choice of words. I have a son that had autism, and let me assure you that it is not a matter to joke about.
    Two things:

    1) There's very likely a parent and/or other family members on the autistic spectrum, or at least with autistic traits; if so, probably it's you.

    2) You don't 'had' autism. It's not an illness that can be cured: it's a condition. You can have therapy and try and work around your shortcomings particularly in communication, but that doesn't make you neurotypical all of a sudden. You're still on the autistic spectrum, but it doesn't show so much.

    Trust me on this one.


    Actually, since his autism was caused by mercury in vaccines, I was able to cure him through chelation therapy.
    YMMV
  • QJo 2011-08-24 10:05
    J. McCarthy:
    Severity One:
    J. McCarthy:
    lucidfox:
    So autism is now an excuse for sexist incidents?
    I am greatly offended by your choice of words. I have a son that had autism, and let me assure you that it is not a matter to joke about.
    Two things:

    1) There's very likely a parent and/or other family members on the autistic spectrum, or at least with autistic traits; if so, probably it's you.

    2) You don't 'had' autism. It's not an illness that can be cured: it's a condition. You can have therapy and try and work around your shortcomings particularly in communication, but that doesn't make you neurotypical all of a sudden. You're still on the autistic spectrum, but it doesn't show so much.

    Trust me on this one.


    Actually, since his autism was caused by mercury in vaccines, I was able to cure him through chelation therapy.
    YMMV


    At least you think you did. Are you completely sure you're not a delusional retard?
  • ThingGuy McGuyThing 2011-08-24 10:08
    Severity One:

    ...

    2) You don't 'had' autism. It's not an illness that can be cured: it's a condition.


    Fair enough, I don't 'had' metabolism, or nerve function, or even a hangover. They're not illnesses, they're conditions. It's not possible to have conditions.
  • Coyne 2011-08-24 10:22
    thistooshallpass:
    I was friend with a HR girl in a previous job, a mostly-male IT shop. She was attractive and single, and she was going crazy with all the invitations, creepy emails, anonymous love letters and late-night voicemails. When she gave her notice, she went to lunch with her replacement, which was even more attractive; they discussed the creep issue and my friend suggested that at first she should talk a lot about her (fake) boyfriend so people would not bother her. It worked.

    What does it mean? That if you are a male working in a mostly-male organization and the HR girl talks a lot about her boyfriend, she is probably lying so it's okay to send her creepy emails and invite her to VMWorld (all expenses paid).



    Wow. I mean, wow! That last bit takes creepy to a whole new level!
  • anon 2011-08-24 10:27
    QJo:
    J. McCarthy:
    Severity One:
    J. McCarthy:
    lucidfox:
    So autism is now an excuse for sexist incidents?
    I am greatly offended by your choice of words. I have a son that had autism, and let me assure you that it is not a matter to joke about.
    Two things:

    1) There's very likely a parent and/or other family members on the autistic spectrum, or at least with autistic traits; if so, probably it's you.

    2) You don't 'had' autism. It's not an illness that can be cured: it's a condition. You can have therapy and try and work around your shortcomings particularly in communication, but that doesn't make you neurotypical all of a sudden. You're still on the autistic spectrum, but it doesn't show so much.

    Trust me on this one.


    Actually, since his autism was caused by mercury in vaccines, I was able to cure him through chelation therapy.
    YMMV


    At least you think you did. Are you completely sure you're not a delusional retard?


    If you really think Jenny McCarthy is posting here, you might be the delusional tard.
  • Eoin 2011-08-24 10:27
    Medezark:
    tom103:
    Are both words (male/mail) pronounced exactly the same? I'm not a native English speaker and my pronunciation isn't so good, so I'm not sure...

    Yes in deedy, they are pronounced identically.

    Hence the infamous site, hotmale.com, which supposedly gets a lot of accidental traffic.
  • itsmo 2011-08-24 10:29
    Bob:
    plaidfluff:
    Jesus Christ, people, women are human beings, not slabs of meat.


    At the end of the day we're all just slabs of meat.



    Yes, life is nature's way of keeping meat fresh.

    (or it is meet?)
  • lucidfox 2011-08-24 10:33
    hoodaticus:
    Bob:
    EVIL US HACK0R!!:
    Max:
    (with Eastern-European accent): in Soviet Russia The Service mails YOU!


    YOU SKUMBAG I AM FROM SOVIET RUSIA ONCE. IN SOVIYT RUSSIA THE PARTY WOULD HAEV SEND YU GULAG!!!!!

    CAPAAATCHAAA!!!!!! LUDUS!!!!!!!!!


    True story, for a period I worked with an ex-pat Russian Java developer who was a Scientist specializing in the development of nuclear weapons back during the days of Communist Russia. That generation of Russians are a hard people.
    Seriously - their personality seeps a Siberian winter breeze. My Russian former nuclear scientist now works as an actuary at MetLife.


    So apparently not only are sexist jokes considered fair game here, but also tossing stupid ethnic stereotypes.
  • itsmo 2011-08-24 10:57
    Eoin:
    Medezark:
    tom103:
    Are both words (male/mail) pronounced exactly the same? I'm not a native English speaker and my pronunciation isn't so good, so I'm not sure...

    Yes in deedy, they are pronounced identically.

    Hence the infamous site, hotmale.com, which supposedly gets a lot of accidental traffic.


    Mmmm... also - try getting info on the Unix 'find' command by Googling 'man find' and you will get some v unexpected hits
  • Zylon 2011-08-24 11:03
    QJo:
    J. McCarthy:
    Actually, since his autism was caused by mercury in vaccines, I was able to cure him through chelation therapy.
    YMMV

    At least you think you did. Are you completely sure you're not a delusional retard?

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.
  • Some damn Yank 2011-08-24 11:26
    thistooshallpass:
    ... she went to lunch with her replacement, which was even more attractive;
    So, which was 'even more attractive', the replacement or the lunch?

    I think you meant to say "who was even more attractive". Using a word like "which" (or "that", as in "we hired someone that really knew php") to describe a human is really objectifying them - at best rude, at worst creepy.
  • operagost 2011-08-24 11:29
    breaker:
    Voice of the Oppressed:
    Looks like I offended someone with the truth.

    You're all hypocrites, you know that? You love freedom when it lets you do what you want (you're not hurting anyone, right?), but when I want to do what I want, I deserve to be beaten into a pulp and shoveled away - silenced.
    We have a winner.

    The demographic here accurately reflects the rest of the westernized world. Almost everyone claims freedom is a good thing, then complains when other people exercise their freedom. True Freedom leads to Anarchy. Sometimes we have to accept that Freedom must (somewhere) have its limitations.

    It's interesting (to me anyways) that the Americans who see, to often have the loud voices on rights to freedom and the like still use capital punishment. If people are free to do what they want, why do you have to kill them (or, for that matter, incarcerate them) when they do what they want?

    Your argument only makes sense when you point it at specific crimes. In the USA, death is the penalty only for murder and treason. It's pretty hard to claim that those are victimless crimes. If you were to, say, make the claim that prostitution is a victimless crime and no one should be penalized for participating in it, that would be a valid argument.
  • neminem 2011-08-24 11:34
    Eoin:
    Medezark:
    tom103:
    Are both words (male/mail) pronounced exactly the same? I'm not a native English speaker and my pronunciation isn't so good, so I'm not sure...

    Yes in deedy, they are pronounced identically.

    Hence the infamous site, hotmale.com, which supposedly gets a lot of accidental traffic.

    Which is funny, but not as funny as hotboy.com, back when hotbot was vaguely relevant. (And of course, they all pale in comparison to the king of trick adult sites, whitehouse.com. I learned about that in newsweek, of all places.)

    Anyway, yeah, vast majority of dialects, at least, would pronounce the mail/male pair identically. And I took several ling classes in college, including one on phonetics; that's sort of like being a trained linguist, right? :p
  • Some damn Yank 2011-08-24 11:34
    hoodaticus:
    Zylon:
    But I guess we get more than our share of extra-stupid IT folks here.
    I blame Jeff Attwood. His point-based reward system is straight out of B.F. Skinner - the concept of positive reinforcement. It works even on involuntary glands within your body, as proven by Pavlov.

    The very definition of intelligence in behavioral psychology is susceptibility to reward. Ergo, the smartest people are the most sucked-in by earning meaningless "points".

    Witness Jon Skeet, who some time ago transcended his mortal coil and is now the patron deity of Stack Overflow. We haven't seen him here since. I suspect this happened to a lot of the good ole' regulars here, or at least, the smartest ones.

    I am satisfied with my mere 99.8th percentile intelligence, and am immune to Stack Overflow's charms (with my measly 453 points). Unfortunately, I'm a troll, which makes it sad that this site is stuck with me.

    If this site had a point system, I bet at least Jon Skeet would come back :)
    This comment is worth 100,000 points! (because points are free)
  • neminem 2011-08-24 11:36
    Some damn Yank:
    hoodaticus:
    If this site had a point system, I bet at least Jon Skeet would come back :)
    This comment is worth 100,000 points! (because points are free)

    I grant some damn yank +5 internets.
  • hoodaticus 2011-08-24 11:54
    frits:
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.


    I'm originally from the Philadelphia area, and I pronounce them slightly different. "Mail" sounds like "Ma-yull" and "male" sounds like it's spelled (no exaggerated diphthong).
    Which is exactly how it's supposed to be pronounced.
  • hoodaticus 2011-08-24 11:55
    Some damn Yank:
    This comment is worth 100,000 points! (because points are free)
    I'm not smart enough for that to work on me.
  • operagost 2011-08-24 11:55
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.

    Have you heard that lady say, "spiral ham"? SPAAGHRAL oh how I wanted to punch her through the TV.
  • frits 2011-08-24 11:59
    hoodaticus:
    frits:
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.


    I'm originally from the Philadelphia area, and I pronounce them slightly different. "Mail" sounds like "Ma-yull" and "male" sounds like it's spelled (no exaggerated diphthong).
    Which is exactly how it's supposed to be pronounced.

    We do have one of the older surviving dialects of English. It even predates RP and most of the other current British accents.
  • christine 2011-08-24 12:07
    Daily WTF, I just wanted to say thank you for this post.


  • iToad 2011-08-24 12:26
    Where I work, the number of women working as programmers has dropped off a lot. Way back in the day (the 1970s - 1980s), it was not unusual to see programming shops with up to half the staff being women. Today, not so much.
  • Zylon 2011-08-24 12:29
    operagost:
    Have you heard that lady say, "spiral ham"? SPAAGHRAL oh how I wanted to punch her through the TV.

    SPATCHLER, Y'ALL!
  • Some damn Yank 2011-08-24 12:32
    operagost:
    The Great Lobachevsky:

    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.

    Have you heard that lady say, "spiral ham"? SPAAGHRAL oh how I wanted to punch her through the TV.
    I had a home-ec teacher who said "parmeesian" and "ingreedienses". Made me question everything else she taught us.

    Captcha: acsi - computer code for dyslexics.
  • ObiWayneKenobi 2011-08-24 12:42
    I've worked with very few female programmers. One of them was quite hot (and married, unfortunately, and was like 5 years older than me at the time so I wouldn't have had a shot with her anyways) and knew I had a huge crush on her, but we worked well.
  • Patrick 2011-08-24 12:48
    Easy reader edition #1: "A girl? A GIRL! A GIRL! A real girl? An actual girl? What does it look like? I want one! Hello... girl. Do you come here often?"
    "Actually, I don't think I'm supposed to be here."


    Easy reader edition #2: Everyone is being professional. Girl lets slip that she has a dirty mind. Hijinks ensue. Girl is accepted into tribe.
  • trtrwtf 2011-08-24 12:54
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    One of them was quite hot (... and was like 5 years older than me at the time so I wouldn't have had a shot with her anyways)


    The mind boggles. Five years difference is a deal-killer in your world?
  • Mr Keith 2011-08-24 12:56
    frits:
    hoodaticus:
    frits:
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.


    I'm originally from the Philadelphia area, and I pronounce them slightly different. "Mail" sounds like "Ma-yull" and "male" sounds like it's spelled (no exaggerated diphthong).
    Which is exactly how it's supposed to be pronounced.

    We do have one of the older surviving dialects of English. It even predates RP and most of the other current British accents.


    Yo: I don't know if your assertion would hold wooder at the Ac-a-me: Smith and Tangier Islands in the Chesapeake have the real older surviving dialects of English. But it is a treat to hear the dulcet Philly tones of television ranters Chris Matthews and Jim Cramer.
  • BillClintonsThirdTerm 2011-08-24 12:58
    frits:
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.


    I'm originally from the Philadelphia area, and I pronounce them slightly different. "Mail" sounds like "Ma-yull" and "male" sounds like it's spelled (no exaggerated diphthong).


    Yeah, and we say "woodher" instead of "wah-ter", and "crick" instead of "creek"
  • My Dad, the expert fisher 2011-08-24 13:07
    BillClintonsThirdTerm:
    frits:
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.


    I'm originally from the Philadelphia area, and I pronounce them slightly different. "Mail" sounds like "Ma-yull" and "male" sounds like it's spelled (no exaggerated diphthong).


    Yeah, and we say "woodher" instead of "wah-ter", and "crick" instead of "creek"

    Hey, now. Everyone knows that the difference between a crick and a creek is that a creek has fish in it.
  • frits 2011-08-24 13:11
    trtrwtf:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    One of them was quite hot (... and was like 5 years older than me at the time so I wouldn't have had a shot with her anyways)


    The mind boggles. Five years difference is a deal-killer in your world?

    In my world, it makes her about 10 years too old (and counting...).
  • trtrwtf 2011-08-24 13:15
    frits:
    trtrwtf:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    One of them was quite hot (... and was like 5 years older than me at the time so I wouldn't have had a shot with her anyways)


    The mind boggles. Five years difference is a deal-killer in your world?

    In my world, it makes her about 10 years too old (and counting...).


    Well yeah, but you're old.
  • Arnold 2011-08-24 13:24
    thistooshallpass:
    I was friend with a HR girl in a previous job, a mostly-male IT shop. She was attractive and single, and she was going crazy with all the invitations, creepy emails, anonymous love letters and late-night voicemails. When she gave her notice, she went to lunch with her replacement, which was even more attractive; they discussed the creep issue and my friend suggested that at first she should talk a lot about her (fake) boyfriend so people would not bother her. It worked.

    What does it mean? That if you are a male working in a mostly-male organization and the HR girl talks a lot about her boyfriend, she is probably lying so it's okay to send her creepy emails and invite her to VMWorld (all expenses paid).


    This is why we can't have nice things, other dudes!

    CAPTCHA: dolor. Yup, that's an accurate description.
  • RealWTF 2011-08-24 13:25
    The real wtf is all the sexism.

    Signed,
    A female developer
  • Hortical 2011-08-24 13:41
    RealWTF:
    The real wtf is all the sexism.

    Signed,
    A female developer

    I, too, hate these negative attitudes about men and how we should be ashamed of ourselves for the behavior of other men. Judging "men" as one big group as if each one's words or actions somehow reflect on all of us (i.e. sexism).

    On the brighter side, the women in the stories are both portrayed in a perfectly dignified light - one was misdirected by HR and the other is a perfectly competent developer that misheard a word that sounds just like another word.

    Observations that there aren't many women in IT are a simple, sad statistically reality, but explanations are given other than how terrible men in the profession are. Which doesn't make any sense, if men in general are terrible, why are they any worse in an unmasculine environment like IT?

    So, yeah, I agree totally. I hate sexism. Science and technology can be so sexist.
  • Zylon 2011-08-24 13:43
    RealWTF:
    The real wtf is all the sexism.

    I'll have you know that I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What do I call it? "Sexlexia".
  • Galapharm 2011-08-24 13:46
    True Freedom leads to Anarchy


    Only if you live near lots of dicks. I reckon there are a fair few people could have 'true freedom' without resorting to anarchy, but probably not enough.
  • Z00n3$!$ 2011-08-24 13:48
    Zylon:
    I'll have you know that I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What do I call it? "Sexlexia".

    Sexlexia - [Sex][Word/Language][Syndrome]

    So that's what my condition is called.




    Apart from "hung like a mule".
  • Jay 2011-08-24 13:48
    Matt Westwood:

    Anarchy would be a brilliant thing if only it were allowed to flourish unmolested. Trouble is, it always falls foul to fascism.


    At least anarchy is better than no government at all.
  • Anon 2011-08-24 13:52
    Careful, your privilege is showing.

    As a woman in IT, I'm so glad I'm married. It heads off a lot of potential drama. Most guys are fine, although the 'ooh, a female!' reaction gets old after a while.
  • Anon 2011-08-24 13:54
    Aargh, this was supposed to quote this:

    Hortical:
    RealWTF:
    The real wtf is all the sexism.

    Signed,
    A female developer

    I, too, hate these negative attitudes about men and how we should be ashamed of ourselves for the behavior of other men. Judging "men" as one big group as if each one's words or actions somehow reflect on all of us (i.e. sexism).

    On the brighter side, the women in the stories are both portrayed in a perfectly dignified light - one was misdirected by HR and the other is a perfectly competent developer that misheard a word that sounds just like another word.

    Observations that there aren't many women in IT are a simple, sad statistically reality, but explanations are given other than how terrible men in the profession are. Which doesn't make any sense, if men in general are terrible, why are they any worse in an unmasculine environment like IT?

    So, yeah, I agree totally. I hate sexism. Science and technology can be so sexist.
  • Hortical 2011-08-24 13:55
    Galapharm:
    I reckon there are a fair few people could have 'true freedom' without resorting to anarchy, but probably not enough.
    Oh, I think there's a great number of people with which one could build such a fair, peaceful utopia that's tolerant of new ideas and different ways of life.

    But the presence of most people would screw it up, and they'd want in once they saw how nice it was. So you'd have to build walls and guns and guards and have strict laws about who's allowed in and remove anyone who doesn't uphold the utopia and the people in this utopia would end up being much more well-off than the people outside and they'll banging on the walls...

    Whoops.
  • Hortical 2011-08-24 14:00
    Anon:
    Careful, your privilege is showing.
    Are you saying I shouldn't flaunt the privileged reasoning capabilities of my male brain? I'll be more careful.
  • lucidfox 2011-08-24 14:11
    Hortical:
    I, too, hate these negative attitudes about men and how we should be ashamed of ourselves for the behavior of other men.

    I think you're missing the point. The original post is only a part of the problem. Many of the comments here are sexist in their own right ("TRWTF is women", "What did you get up your cunt?", etc.), and their authors should be ashamed of themselves and rethink their attitudes.

    Meanwhile, even though I give Alex the points for coupling the submission with another one, its mere appearance in this form on the front page sends a signal to commenters basically telling them that sexist comments are fair game, which is what triggered this thread of fail in the first place.
  • annoyed guy 2011-08-24 14:13
    plaidfluff:
    Jesus Christ, people, women are human beings, not slabs of meat.
    I'll stop looking at women like they're slabs of meat when women stop looking at me like I'm an overflowing bank vault.
  • anonymouser 2011-08-24 14:13
    iToad:
    Where I work, the number of women working as programmers has dropped off a lot. Way back in the day (the 1970s - 1980s), it was not unusual to see programming shops with up to half the staff being women. Today, not so much.


    Back in the 70's and 80's they taught COBOL in business school.
  • anonymouser 2011-08-24 14:15
    Some damn Yank:
    operagost:
    The Great Lobachevsky:

    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.

    Have you heard that lady say, "spiral ham"? SPAAGHRAL oh how I wanted to punch her through the TV.
    I had a home-ec teacher who said "parmeesian" and "ingreedienses". Made me question everything else she taught us.

    Captcha: acsi - computer code for dyslexics.

    That's the part that would make me question anything she taught.
  • lucidfox 2011-08-24 14:17
    annoyed guy:
    plaidfluff:
    Jesus Christ, people, women are human beings, not slabs of meat.
    I'll stop looking at women like they're slabs of meat when women stop looking at me like I'm an overflowing bank vault.

    Get out of the feeder, troll.
  • Hortical 2011-08-24 14:20
    lucidfox:
    I think you're missing the point... Many of the comments here are sexist in their own right ("TRWTF is women", "What did you get up your cunt?", etc.)
    I think it's pretty obvious that you're the one missing the point of those comments.

    And what was sexist about the original article again? Both of them seemed to underline negative behaviors of men. It seemed to me that the portrayals of men were negative and the portrayals of women were neutral or positive. If there's sexism, it's a negative sexist stereotype of men, not women.

    And the sexism of the comments is just a vector to pissing people off, they could have been about VisualBasic, the motivation and effect would have been the same.
  • Anon 2011-08-24 14:20
    Hortical:
    Anon:
    Careful, your privilege is showing.
    Are you saying I shouldn't flaunt the privileged reasoning capabilities of my male brain? I'll be more careful.


    Ever wanted to know what sexism looks like? It looks like shouting down and belittling the other side when they bring up their concerns, and pointing out how YOU have it SO much worse. Cry me a river, little boy.
  • annoyed guy 2011-08-24 14:25
    lucidfox:
    annoyed guy:
    plaidfluff:
    Jesus Christ, people, women are human beings, not slabs of meat.
    I'll stop looking at women like they're slabs of meat when women stop looking at me like I'm an overflowing bank vault.
    Women are never shallow!
    Of course not.
  • Short Guy 2011-08-24 14:30
    I like my women shallow ;)
  • Anon 2011-08-24 14:31
    Hortical:
    And what was sexist about the original article again? Both of them seemed to underline negative behaviors of men. It seemed to me that the portrayals of men were negative and the portrayals of women were neutral or positive. If there's sexism, it's a negative sexist stereotype of men, not women.


    Original article: Women in a mostly male workforce often get unwanted attention. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's really not.

    Comments: Mix of everything.

    You: Waaahhh, it's not fair to point out real problems with other men's behavior because it's prejudiced against men!!!!

    Me: Playing the world's smallest violin, just for you.
  • Hortical 2011-08-24 14:33
    Anon:
    Ever wanted to know what sexism looks like? It looks like shouting down and belittling the other side when they bring up their concerns, and pointing out how YOU have it SO much worse. Cry me a river, little boy.
    I don't have it worse. But my position is not the result of any arbitrary privilege afforded only to males. I see women have a higher representation in schools, higher grades, opportunities specially for women, higher employment, higher average pay...

    What privilege did I have?
  • Jay 2011-08-24 14:33
    Matt Westwood:
    These stories probably come from the US, where, from what we see in the TV we get from them, they have always had a difficult time integrating male and female social and business circles.


    If you think the United States is like what you see on our TV shows, I think you need to learn to distinguish fiction from reality.

    Just for example:

    TV: The average policeman shoots and kills at least three or four people every week. Real life: I once saw some statistics that said that, not counting practice on the shooting range, the average policeman fires his gun about once every three years, and never kills anyone in his entire career.

    TV: Buying the right model car or using the right shampoo will instantly make you irrestible to women. Real life: If only it were that easy.

    TV: A handgun can fire approximately 50 bullets without reloading. A machine gun can fire pretty much forever. Real life: Most automatic pistols have magazines that hold ten to twelve bullets. The average machine gun can fire for about four seconds without reloading. The average infantryman carries enough ammo for about 30 seconds of continuous firing.

    TV: The average office is filled with sexy women who come to work in provocative clothing, and co-workers routinely trade sexual banter. Real life: Maybe I just don't work for the right companies, but anyplace I've worked, that kind of thing will promptly get you a meeting with the HR department to discuss appropriate workplace behavior.

    TV: Most violent crimes are committed by either brilliant but corrupt businessmen or crazed fundamentalist religious fanatics. Real life: Most violent crimes are committed by not-particularly-bright street thugs. Rich businessmen almost never commit violent crimes. (I'd theorize because they have the wealth and political power to achieve their goals in legal ways.) And you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of violent crimes committed by fundamentalist extremists -- more people have been killed by environmentalist extremists than fundamentalist extremists.

    TV: America is filled with beautiful and sexy women who can not only beat up any man in the room, but can beat up all the men in the room simultaneously. Real life: No such luck.

    TV: About 20% of the population are homosexuals. Real life: About 2% of Americans are homosexuals.

    Etc etc.
  • genitus 2011-08-24 14:33
    lucidfox:
    annoyed guy:
    plaidfluff:
    Jesus Christ, people, women are human beings, not slabs of meat.
    I'll stop looking at women like they're slabs of meat when women stop looking at me like I'm an overflowing bank vault.

    Get out of the feeder, troll.

    So are you volunteering yourself as troll food or brillantly "trolling" everyone by appearing as an easy target?
  • Hortical 2011-08-24 14:36
    Anon:
    You: Waaahhh, it's not fair to point out real problems with other men's behavior because it's prejudiced against men!!!!
    I'm sorry if it came off that way. There's a trend of blaming men for women's lack of success in a given field when I see little evidence of it. I don't like having blanket blame being cast over me for something I had no part in.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-24 14:41
    trtrwtf:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    One of them was quite hot (... and was like 5 years older than me at the time so I wouldn't have had a shot with her anyways)


    The mind boggles. Five years difference is a deal-killer in your world?


    As I remember, when you're twelve it can seem a bit too much of a challenge, can't it OWK?
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-24 14:44
    Galapharm:
    True Freedom leads to Anarchy


    Only if you live near lots of dicks. I reckon there are a fair few people could have 'true freedom' without resorting to anarchy, but probably not enough.


    True freedom *is* anarchy, surely? Or is "anarchy" one of those scarey-words they indoctrinate you into bursting into tears at when you're in first-grade?
  • neminem 2011-08-24 14:46
    Hortical:
    if men in general are terrible, why are they any worse in an unmasculine environment like IT?

    The issue isn't that IT is masculine. The issue is that IT attracts nerds. Nerds who, and I will admit fully to being one of these people, I'm just not as loud about it, are not generally the most socially ept people on the planet. Take the average guy-who-sucks-at-talking-to-people (so, the average guy in IT :p), stick an attractive female in the room with him - especially one who also likes the same things he likes - and you would generally see one of two things: no talking (I generally go that way), or attempting to talk... badly.

    Now, I don't think the fact that guys suck are *entirely* to blame for the depressing gender ratio in most computer-related fields, but it certainly doesn't help, either.

    Signed,
    a male developer

    p.s. I'm pretty sure that 2% ratio you quoted is only true if you're only counting 100% pure homosexuals that have 0 interest in women (as opposed to merely leaning strongly towards men.) Pretty sure I'd heard the "guys with at least nonzero attraction to other guys" ratio is closer to 10% or so.)
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-24 14:47
    Hortical:
    Galapharm:
    I reckon there are a fair few people could have 'true freedom' without resorting to anarchy, but probably not enough.
    Oh, I think there's a great number of people with which one could build such a fair, peaceful utopia that's tolerant of new ideas and different ways of life.

    But the presence of most people would screw it up, and they'd want in once they saw how nice it was. So you'd have to build walls and guns and guards and have strict laws about who's allowed in and remove anyone who doesn't uphold the utopia and the people in this utopia would end up being much more well-off than the people outside and they'll banging on the walls...

    Whoops.


    We've already got one of those in the world, I think it's called "orstrilea" or something like that. Been trying to find out where it is, sounds real cool.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-24 14:57
    neminem:
    Hortical:
    if men in general are terrible, why are they any worse in an unmasculine environment like IT?

    The issue isn't that IT is masculine. The issue is that IT attracts nerds. Nerds who, and I will admit fully to being one of these people, I'm just not as loud about it, are not generally the most socially ept people on the planet. Take the average guy-who-sucks-at-talking-to-people (so, the average guy in IT :p), stick an attractive female in the room with him - especially one who also likes the same things he likes - and you would generally see one of two things: no talking (I generally go that way), or attempting to talk... badly.

    Now, I don't think the fact that guys suck are *entirely* to blame for the depressing gender ratio in most computer-related fields, but it certainly doesn't help, either.

    Signed,
    a male developer

    p.s. I'm pretty sure that 2% ratio you quoted is only true if you're only counting 100% pure homosexuals that have 0 interest in women (as opposed to merely leaning strongly towards men.) Pretty sure I'd heard the "guys with at least nonzero attraction to other guys" ratio is closer to 10% or so.)


    A serious post for once in which I am going to try not to cause deliberately gratuitous offence ...

    The real WTF is that neither party in this social encounter can get past this awkwardness. "Society" thinks it's funny and out of that collective amusement (let's face it, laughing at aspies is even funnier than laughing at retards, he says with bitter irony) comes a stereotype that causes your averagely socially-adjusted woman to have a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of "Gross! eeeew! A nerd!" because of memories of the head cheerleader and her squad giving her a bog-wash because she smiled at the awkward-but-nice kid who always had his head in a book that looked fascinating.

    The women who actually manage to break through this destructive bit of social engineering tend to find that the nerd they've pulled makes an excellent life partner for many reasons.

    I have no answer for any of the above than to suggest it's all a bit unfortunate and sad (except for that last paragraph).
  • Hortical 2011-08-24 14:59
    Matt Westwood:
    Hortical:
    Galapharm:
    I reckon there are a fair few people could have 'true freedom' without resorting to anarchy, but probably not enough.
    Oh, I think there's a great number of people with which one could build such a fair, peaceful utopia that's tolerant of new ideas and different ways of life.

    But the presence of most people would screw it up, and they'd want in once they saw how nice it was. So you'd have to build walls and guns and guards and have strict laws about who's allowed in and remove anyone who doesn't uphold the utopia and the people in this utopia would end up being much more well-off than the people outside and they'll banging on the walls...

    Whoops.
    We've already got one of those in the world, I think it's called "orstrilea" or something like that. Been trying to find out where it is, sounds real cool.
    Drop some acid and you'll find it real quick. Unfortunately, that's the only way to get there.
  • lucidfox 2011-08-24 15:03
    Jay:
    TV: Buying the right model car or using the right shampoo will instantly make you irrestible to women.


    Statements like this reveal implicit assumptions in the speaker's mode of thinking.

    By "you" here, I presume you were referring to straight men here (it's hard to imagine that kind of ads catering to lesbians), ignoring the existence of other categories of readers here.

    TV: The average office is filled with sexy women who come to work in provocative clothing, and co-workers routinely trade sexual banter.


    I suggest you revise what shows you watch, because I doubt the ones you describe can teach you anything positive.

    TV: Most violent crimes are committed by either brilliant but corrupt businessmen or crazed fundamentalist religious fanatics. Real life: Most violent crimes are committed by not-particularly-bright street thugs. Rich businessmen almost never commit violent crimes. (I'd theorize because they have the wealth and political power to achieve their goals in legal ways.) And you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of violent crimes committed by fundamentalist extremists -- more people have been killed by environmentalist extremists than fundamentalist extremists.

    TV: America is filled with beautiful and sexy women who can not only beat up any man in the room, but can beat up all the men in the room simultaneously. Real life: No such luck.


    Luck to whom?
  • Jay 2011-08-24 15:15
    To put in my two cents on the discussion about freedom:

    It seems to me that when people use the word "freedom", they mean three very different things by it.

    1. I can do whatever I want as long as everyone involved is a willing participant, i.e. no one is being forced at gun point or tricked into it.

    2. I can do whatever I want as long as it is a fair and just and responsible thing to do.

    3. I can do whatever I want and if you don't like it you must be forced to go along.

    For example, a libertarian might say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, then they should be allowed to do that as long as Al and Bob agree on the working conditions, salary, etc." Definition #1. But a liberal would say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, they should be allowed to do so as long as Al pays the state-mandated minimum wage, provides adequate benefits such as satisfactory health insurance, and provides a safe working environment, and as long as Bob meets the government licensing requirements to prove that he is qualified." Definition #2.

    Or suppose Sally wants to be a construction worker. George owns a construction company but he refuses to hire her because he believes that woman should stay at home and have babies or, if they must have outside jobs, they should get "girl jobs" like teacher or computer programmer. By definition #1, Sally must find someplace else to work. By definition #3, George should be forced to hire her despite his personal beliefs.

    Or take gay marriage. By definition #2, the government might ban gay marriage on the grounds that it is immoral. By definition #1, the government would have to allow it as long as both parties want to get married. By definition #3, not only must it be legal, but all ministers must be required by law to perform such weddings upon request regardless of their own religious beliefs.
  • Hortical 2011-08-24 15:49
    Jay:
    Or take gay marriage. By definition #2, the government might ban gay marriage on the grounds that it is immoral. By definition #1, the government would have to allow it as long as both parties want to get married. By definition #3, not only must it be legal, but all ministers must be required by law to perform such weddings upon request regardless of their own religious beliefs.
    Marriage is not a freedom, it's a privilege - a benefit that everyone else collectively supports. It's not a matter of the government "allowing" people to engage in a relationship, it's a matter of the government not recognizing the value of their relationship and giving them economic and legal benefits in turn.

    You could make arguments that certain kinds of relationships should be recognized as valuable to society and therefore given the same benefits as others, but receiving benefits is not a matter of freedom.
  • Former Child Actor 2011-08-24 16:08
    ted:
    The second one reads like a shitty dear abby post or a narrative on that old show on premium cable that involved single women talking about their permiscuous sex experiences. They would dramatize them and there would be some generic lifeless voiceover reading it like a narrative. I don't recall the name of it. Something something bedtime stories?

    I'm sure I was in a film called something like that when I was a kid.

    For some reason they never showed us the final film.

    I'm sure that was just because they forgot, right?
  • Philosopher 2011-08-24 16:11
    Jay:
    To put in my two cents on the discussion about freedom:

    It seems to me that when people use the word "freedom", they mean three very different things by it.

    1. I can do whatever I want as long as everyone involved is a willing participant, i.e. no one is being forced at gun point or tricked into it.

    2. I can do whatever I want as long as it is a fair and just and responsible thing to do.

    3. I can do whatever I want and if you don't like it you must be forced to go along.

    For example, a libertarian might say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, then they should be allowed to do that as long as Al and Bob agree on the working conditions, salary, etc." Definition #1. But a liberal would say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, they should be allowed to do so as long as Al pays the state-mandated minimum wage, provides adequate benefits such as satisfactory health insurance, and provides a safe working environment, and as long as Bob meets the government licensing requirements to prove that he is qualified." Definition #2.

    Or suppose Sally wants to be a construction worker. George owns a construction company but he refuses to hire her because he believes that woman should stay at home and have babies or, if they must have outside jobs, they should get "girl jobs" like teacher or computer programmer. By definition #1, Sally must find someplace else to work. By definition #3, George should be forced to hire her despite his personal beliefs.

    Or take gay marriage. By definition #2, the government might ban gay marriage on the grounds that it is immoral. By definition #1, the government would have to allow it as long as both parties want to get married. By definition #3, not only must it be legal, but all ministers must be required by law to perform such weddings upon request regardless of their own religious beliefs.


    Or take the Center for Disease Control, a government agency that prevents infectious diseases, parasites, and disease carrying pests from entrenching themselves in an environment and running rampant over the United States.

    By definition #1, I'm free to avoid paying for this service.

    Or take automobile emission standards and the use of catalytic converters on automobiles.

    By definition #1, I'm free to remove the catalytic converter from my car.

    The problem with libertarian government is that it looks great on paper; right up the point where large groups of people are required to cooperate in small things in order to accrue bigger personal benefits or prevent bigger personal liabilities.

    That is to say, it's much better to live in a country with clean air and lack of plague carrying rats. Libertarians have no solutions for this, other than to hope people won't be selfish; while simultaneously claiming that being free to pursue selfish interest is the best way to govern a society.

    This contradiction makes it impossible to create a sustainable libertarian government.
  • Abso 2011-08-24 16:13
    Jay:
    To put in my two cents on the discussion about freedom:

    It seems to me that when people use the word "freedom", they mean three very different things by it.

    1. I can do whatever I want as long as everyone involved is a willing participant, i.e. no one is being forced at gun point or tricked into it.

    2. I can do whatever I want as long as it is a fair and just and responsible thing to do.

    3. I can do whatever I want and if you don't like it you must be forced to go along.

    For example, a libertarian might say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, then they should be allowed to do that as long as Al and Bob agree on the working conditions, salary, etc." Definition #1. But a liberal would say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, they should be allowed to do so as long as Al pays the state-mandated minimum wage, provides adequate benefits such as satisfactory health insurance, and provides a safe working environment, and as long as Bob meets the government licensing requirements to prove that he is qualified." Definition #2.

    Or suppose Sally wants to be a construction worker. Several men in the area own construction companies but refuse to hire her because they all believe that woman should stay at home and have babies or, if they must have outside jobs, they should get "girl jobs" like teacher or computer programmer. By definition #1, Sally must get a "girl job". By definition #2, the construction company owners shouldn't be able to unjustly and unfairly block her career because of their personal beliefs.

    Or take gay marriage. By definition #2, the government must allow allow gay marriage on the grounds that it is unfair and unjust not to. By definition #1, the government would have to allow it as long as both parties want to get married. By definition #3, not only must it be legal, but all civil officials must be permitted by law to refuse to grant marriage licenses to gay couples if they want, and gay couples must be forced to put up with it.


    FTFY (examples two and three)

    Example one is fine, except for failing to mention that the libertarian is an idiot if he doesn't think that economic pressure won't force Bob to accept the job even if the working conditions are dangerous and the pay won't buy enough food for Bob's kids.
  • Abso 2011-08-24 16:15
    Abso:
    [T]he libertarian is an idiot if he thinks that economic pressure won't force Bob to accept the job even if the working conditions are dangerous and the pay won't buy enough food for Bob's kids.

    FTFM
  • boog 2011-08-24 16:26
    Hortical:
    I, too, hate these negative attitudes about men and how we should be ashamed of ourselves for the behavior of other men. Judging "men" as one big group as if each one's words or actions somehow reflect on all of us (i.e. sexism).

    On the brighter side, the women in the stories are both portrayed in a perfectly dignified light - one was misdirected by HR and the other is a perfectly competent developer that misheard a word that sounds just like another word.

    Observations that there aren't many women in IT are a simple, sad statistically reality, but explanations are given other than how terrible men in the profession are. Which doesn't make any sense, if men in general are terrible, why are they any worse in an unmasculine environment like IT?

    So, yeah, I agree totally. I hate sexism. Science and technology can be so sexist.
    It seemed to me that the first article was a clear demonstration of immaturity among a team of male developers (apparently submitted by a male developer, and presumably unmodified by Alex), and the second was about a female developer whose past experience clearly supports her negative view of male developers (including male developers telling her that she's "hot" and her accent "really adds some points"), and who learns through her own error that not all men are bad guys.

    So I'm not sure how either article (or the comment to which you replied) indicate that men are being judged as "one big group as if each one's words or actions somehow reflect on all of us". But hey, I see you're on a soapbox, so I'll leave you to it.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-24 16:26
    Jay:
    To put in my two cents on the discussion about freedom:

    It seems to me that when people use the word "freedom", they mean three very different things by it.

    1. I can do whatever I want as long as everyone involved is a willing participant, i.e. no one is being forced at gun point or tricked into it.

    2. I can do whatever I want as long as it is a fair and just and responsible thing to do.

    3. I can do whatever I want and if you don't like it you must be forced to go along.

    For example, a libertarian might say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, then they should be allowed to do that as long as Al and Bob agree on the working conditions, salary, etc." Definition #1. But a liberal would say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, they should be allowed to do so as long as Al pays the state-mandated minimum wage, provides adequate benefits such as satisfactory health insurance, and provides a safe working environment, and as long as Bob meets the government licensing requirements to prove that he is qualified." Definition #2.

    Or suppose Sally wants to be a construction worker. George owns a construction company but he refuses to hire her because he believes that woman should stay at home and have babies or, if they must have outside jobs, they should get "girl jobs" like teacher or computer programmer. By definition #1, Sally must find someplace else to work. By definition #3, George should be forced to hire her despite his personal beliefs.

    Or take gay marriage. By definition #2, the government might ban gay marriage on the grounds that it is immoral. By definition #1, the government would have to allow it as long as both parties want to get married. By definition #3, not only must it be legal, but all ministers must be required by law to perform such weddings upon request regardless of their own religious beliefs.


    The real WTF is getting hot under the collar at the thought of same-sex relationships having a legal status that protects the other partner should one of them die. Or is the real WTF the people who believe that marriage is more than just a convenient legal contract and an excuse to indulge in extremes of vanity by throwing a great big party at which you demand that everybody pretends you're important?
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-24 16:30
    Abso:
    Abso:
    [T]he libertarian is an idiot if he thinks that economic pressure won't force Bob to accept the job even if the working conditions are dangerous and the pay won't buy enough food for Bob's kids.

    FTFM


    And the real WTF here is Bob having children when he's clearly not intellectually developed enough to get a job that pays sufficiently without it seriously compromising his safety.
  • Anon 2011-08-24 16:36
    Hortical:
    I don't have it worse. But my position is not the result of any arbitrary privilege afforded only to males. I see women have a higher representation in schools, higher grades, opportunities specially for women, higher employment, higher average pay...

    What privilege did I have?


    Inform thyself. Go here: http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination/#publications and read the one titled "The gender wage gap by occupation". The data's all from the US Census. Women's pay is at about 80% of men's, even when you break it down by occupation. It gets worse if you're not white. Programming is better than most, women are making a full 90% of the usual male wage. Yes, women are better represented in college right now, but it isn't doing them any good in the real world.

    Male privilege: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ If you can't understand that, I don't know how else to explain it to you.

    Hortical:
    Anon:
    You: Waaahhh, it's not fair to point out real problems with other men's behavior because it's prejudiced against men!!!!
    I'm sorry if it came off that way. There's a trend of blaming men for women's lack of success in a given field when I see little evidence of it. I don't like having blanket blame being cast over me for something I had no part in.


    This isn't about success in a given field, it's about crappy behavior that permeates society so well that everyone here understands what's being discussed. It's like petty crime - you may not be shoplifting, but you've still got a moral responsibility to be aware of it and try and discourage it when you can. No need to get super defensive.

    Matt Westwood:
    A serious post for once in which I am going to try not to cause deliberately gratuitous offence ...

    The real WTF is that neither party in this social encounter can get past this awkwardness. "Society" thinks it's funny and out of that collective amusement (let's face it, laughing at aspies is even funnier than laughing at retards, he says with bitter irony) comes a stereotype that causes your averagely socially-adjusted woman to have a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of "Gross! eeeew! A nerd!" because of memories of the head cheerleader and her squad giving her a bog-wash because she smiled at the awkward-but-nice kid who always had his head in a book that looked fascinating.

    The women who actually manage to break through this destructive bit of social engineering tend to find that the nerd they've pulled makes an excellent life partner for many reasons.

    I have no answer for any of the above than to suggest it's all a bit unfortunate and sad (except for that last paragraph).


    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.
  • fu2uf 2011-08-24 16:37

    RealWTF:
    The real wtf is all the sexism.

    Signed,
    A female developer


    Sexism and lewd innuendo is often just a sign of emotional immaturity.

    So WTF? I once worked for a company where my blatantly bisexual married female manager constantly made crass remarks about other women. Either about coworkers in office, women seen in public at company functions, or celebrities in media. Comments such as 'Oh yeah! I'd definitely do her...' were common. Often times she was far worse than most men are in their lacking stages of emotional maturity and development. Executive management thought it was cute, but then the rumor mill proposed she was orally gratuitous with them as well.

    Incidentally, I worked for another company more recently where sexual innuendo was rampant amongst the staff, both male and female. That place had a drug policy. If you needed to score your illegal drug of choice, just contact the cofounder, CIO or CTO. I was fired from that position, for breach of workplace etiquette, which is another WTF altogether and separate discussion in its entirety.

  • boog 2011-08-24 16:42
    Anon:
    Matt Westwood:
    ...because of memories of the head cheerleader and her squad giving her a bog-wash because she smiled at the awkward-but-nice kid who always had his head in a book that looked fascinating.
    I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds.
    Clearly you don't watch a lot of movies.
  • DistantSuns 2011-08-24 16:47
    About two years ago we got the go ahead to hire second client side engineer to support me in the role I had been playing for about 10 years by myself. I was looking forward to pass my least favorite projects off to someone else for once. But getting someone who had all of the requirements (SQL, Java, MFC, Windows Mobile, Mac) was pretty tough. Finally a resume came through that looked pretty promising. I was scheduled as the third person to interview the candidate. I did pass by the conference room and took a peek, and saw that the candidate was a girl, er. woman. Tall, brunette, well dressed, at least from the back as she was facing away from the room's glass door.

    Finally my time came up and as the previous interviewers handed me off to her, I got a funny look from them. Something like the "you're in for it now." kind of grin. As I turned to introduce myself to her, or should I say "her." The deep voice and other characteristics suggested that our candidate didn't used to be a woman. So I interviewed her for about 45 minutes all the time thinking "wow, what a great Daily WTF Story!" As it turned out he or she was very sharp and probably would have easily picked up the skills that she didn't have. When finally we got together to discuss her, the others suggested that she was to high level for just being a coding jockey, as much more of a systems architect. Being a devout Christian, I surprised the others when I suggested that I could work with her but they were probably right about her being unqualified for just a coding role. So we passed. But it made for a very funny story to tell future generations.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-24 16:49
    Anon:

    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.


    "Learn some social skills" ... Oh get over yourself.

  • neminem 2011-08-24 16:56
    fu2uf:
    the rumor mill proposed she was orally gratuitous with them as well.

    That... is an interesting euphemism.

    And of course the rich businessmen aren't gonna go out and commit violent crimes - they can pay people to do it for them. Or, if they're smart, pay people to create shell companies to pay other third parties to do it for them untraceably.

    Addendum (2011-08-24 17:17):
    Yes, I know, I watch too much tv, too. But still. You don't think, with all the scumbag companies out there, that *none* of them have taken any clues from organized crime? I'd be surprised. (Though there probably aren't as many as exist on tv. Most are probably happy remaining technically within the law, not that that makes them all that much less scumbaggy.)
  • Anon 2011-08-24 17:28
    Matt Westwood:
    Anon:

    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.


    "Learn some social skills" ... Oh get over yourself.



    Er, my apologies? The usual definition of 'nerd' is 'lacking in social skills', at least the way I've always heard it used. Perhaps I should have said that they need to learn *more* social skills?
  • Abso 2011-08-24 17:40
    Matt Westwood:
    Abso:
    Abso:
    [T]he libertarian is an idiot if he thinks that economic pressure won't force Bob to accept the job even if the working conditions are dangerous and the pay won't buy enough food for Bob's kids.

    FTFM


    And the real WTF here is Bob having children when he's clearly not intellectually developed enough to get a job that pays sufficiently without it seriously compromising his safety.


    Sadly, he's not intellectually developed enough to understand why the withdrawal method keeps failing for him.
  • Mojomonkeyfish 2011-08-24 17:48
    A friend of mine once told me, the worst part of being a woman in IT is that if you even mention how people treat you differently, or stop being "one of the guys", you'll immediately get lectured on how "sexism isn't real".

    She was a brilliant programmer, but left the field because she was simply tired of dealing with male engineers, and their stupid "truths" about sexism. You know, because being males in a truly male-dominated field, they definitely know exactly how it is.

    It's not about sexual innuendo, or lewd comments. It was never about that for her. Dealing with awkward come-ons is part of being a woman. Attraction is biological, and nobody, not even the hardlinest feminist, is blaming men for being attracted to women. It's not about getting slapped on the ass, or called "toots". Hell, that would almost be a welcome anachronism. She dealt with awkward advances, and wasn't offended by them. Hell, her husband was the result of such an awkward advance.

    It's about men, EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW that you know more than they do about something, feeling the need to explain to you how you're wrong, ALL THE TIME. They're not being mean, they're trying to help, and that help is fucking obnoxious. Try to tell them it's obnoxious and they'll explain how it isn't, and you're just too sensitive.

    I couldn't help myself, I told her "men do that to each other". She gave me a really dirty look, "Thanks for explaining. I didn't know that. I thought it was sexism."

    Maybe it is actually autism, or something. Except, it isn't. It's just a general attitude among programmers that we're always right, 100%, about everything. We've read the wikipedia page, so we know our shit. Combine that with the usual male attitude towards women, and it's a perfect storm.

    To be honest, I didn't really her that seriously until I was dating my wife. At some point, months into the relationship, she finally tells me to stop explaining things to her unless she asks, because it's really annoying. It took months to get that behavior under control. Man, I felt like a total tool.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-24 17:49
    Anon:
    Matt Westwood:
    Anon:

    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.


    "Learn some social skills" ... Oh get over yourself.



    Er, my apologies? The usual definition of 'nerd' is 'lacking in social skills', at least the way I've always heard it used. Perhaps I should have said that they need to learn *more* social skills?


    Look, you're the one complaining that you don't want to work in IT because all male coworkers are socially inept. Quite frankly I don't care where you work (although having someone as crabby as you in my office won't work for me). If you want to work in IT then get out from up your arse and lighten up.

    And maybe if you weren't so precious about your princesshood maybe those around you would also loosen up and we all wouldn't be tiptoeing through a minefield ever time we think of something funny to say.

    You claim that there aren't enough women in IT because you don't like the nerdishness of male engineers. I claim there aren't enough women in IT because it's far easier for a woman to earn money by prancing around on stage in her underwear.

    25 years ago I was in an office (software development) where the ratio of men to women was 50-50. Now I work in one where the ratio is more like 20% women. For what it's worth. The reason for this, if you were to believe the statistics coming out of the official government offices, is because women aren't studying maths etc. as much as they were. The reason for this, again if you believe the social monitoring services, is that the fact that sexual roles are once more being polarised by a reactionary political environment and an increase in the "proud to be stupid" attitude.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-24 17:55
    Mojomonkeyfish:
    A friend of mine once told me, the worst part of being a woman in IT is that if you even mention how people treat you differently, or stop being "one of the guys", you'll immediately get lectured on how "sexism isn't real".

    She was a brilliant programmer, but left the field because she was simply tired of dealing with male engineers, and their stupid "truths" about sexism. You know, because being males in a truly male-dominated field, they definitely know exactly how it is.

    It's not about sexual innuendo, or lewd comments. It was never about that for her. Dealing with awkward come-ons is part of being a woman. Attraction is biological, and nobody, not even the hardlinest feminist, is blaming men for being attracted to women. It's not about getting slapped on the ass, or called "toots". Hell, that would almost be a welcome anachronism. She dealt with awkward advances, and wasn't offended by them. Hell, her husband was the result of such an awkward advance.

    It's about men, EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW that you know more than they do about something, feeling the need to explain to you how you're wrong, ALL THE TIME. They're not being mean, they're trying to help, and that help is fucking obnoxious. Try to tell them it's obnoxious and they'll explain how it isn't, and you're just too sensitive.

    I couldn't help myself, I told her "men do that to each other". She gave me a really dirty look, "Thanks for explaining. I didn't know that. I thought it was sexism."

    Maybe it is actually autism, or something. Except, it isn't. It's just a general attitude among programmers that we're always right, 100%, about everything. We've read the wikipedia page, so we know our shit. Combine that with the usual male attitude towards women, and it's a perfect storm.

    To be honest, I didn't really her that seriously until I was dating my wife. At some point, months into the relationship, she finally tells me to stop explaining things to her unless she asks, because it's really annoying. It took months to get that behavior under control. Man, I felt like a total tool.


    Miaou (crack)

    Or maybe women don't enter or stay in IT because they're rubbish at their jobs. I've worked with quite a few women in IT and none of them have been particularly good programmers. Competent and literate, some of the time, but cringeingly bad when it came to some proper task analysis. And add to that a tendency to micromanage in a really bossy way. I'm actually more than happy to not have women in IT as it's just not all that pleasant.
  • hoodaticus 2011-08-24 17:58
    Hortical:
    Marriage is not a freedom, it's a privilege - a benefit that everyone else collectively supports. It's not a matter of the government "allowing" people to engage in a relationship, it's a matter of the government not recognizing the value of their relationship and giving them economic and legal benefits in turn.
    Nice thoughts. To me, marriage is an agreement between two people and the rest of the world that those two people will be exclusively intimate and responsible for each others' well-being. Society needs to recognize the relationship as a marriage for it to really be one, IMO.

    When government steps into the marriage business, it is acting as an abstraction of society. If government recognizes what society does not (or fails to recognize what society does recognize) government loses its authority as a proxy for the society it governs. This is the same as saying that government has lost a portion of its legitimacy when it regulates social matters contrary to consensus.

    For this reason, a government that cares for its own stability and legitimacy (from which it derives its power) will need to rule on social matters according to the majority opinion. Therefore, having a just government in the long term depends entirely on the moral character of the people it governs.

    It follows that it is best for government not to rule over social matters, such as marriage, since it must otherwise be subject to the will of the majority or eventually collapse under the weight of its own illegitimacy, neither of which is conducive to justice.
  • boog 2011-08-24 18:18
    Matt Westwood:
    Or maybe women don't enter or stay in IT because they're rubbish at their jobs. I've worked with quite a few women in IT and none of them have been particularly good programmers. Competent and literate, some of the time, but cringeingly bad when it came to some proper task analysis. And add to that a tendency to micromanage in a really bossy way. I'm actually more than happy to not have women in IT as it's just not all that pleasant.
    My experience has been similar, but without the consequent bias. Most women I've worked with were lousy programmers. But to be fair, a few of them weren't that bad. And a lot of men I've worked with were bad programmers too, while a few of them did okay.

    To be perfectly honest, I don't see any correlation. There are a lot of men and women in IT, and most of them are terrible programmers.
  • Anon 2011-08-24 18:37
    Matt Westwood:
    Look, you're the one complaining that you don't want to work in IT because all male coworkers are socially inept. Quite frankly I don't care where you work (although having someone as crabby as you in my office won't work for me). If you want to work in IT then get out from up your arse and lighten up.

    And maybe if you weren't so precious about your princesshood maybe those around you would also loosen up and we all wouldn't be tiptoeing through a minefield ever time we think of something funny to say.

    You claim that there aren't enough women in IT because you don't like the nerdishness of male engineers. I claim there aren't enough women in IT because it's far easier for a woman to earn money by prancing around on stage in her underwear.

    25 years ago I was in an office (software development) where the ratio of men to women was 50-50. Now I work in one where the ratio is more like 20% women. For what it's worth. The reason for this, if you were to believe the statistics coming out of the official government offices, is because women aren't studying maths etc. as much as they were. The reason for this, again if you believe the social monitoring services, is that the fact that sexual roles are once more being polarised by a reactionary political environment and an increase in the "proud to be stupid" attitude.


    I guess not trying to cause gratuitous offense was limited to just that one post, eh?

    I think we ended up talking about different things. I don't believe I complained about the IT world being mostly male, that's never bothered me. Nor does it bother me if they tend to like anime and video games. It does bother me when women try to point out shit that's not fair, or shit that makes them uncomfortable, and then get told that the issue is all in their head. If pointing that out makes me too bitchy for you, good riddance.
  • hoodaticus 2011-08-24 18:37
    Matt Westwood:
    The real WTF is getting hot under the collar at the thought of same-sex relationships having a legal status that protects the other partner should one of them die.
    So THAT'S why common law courts refuse to enforce the wills, living wills, joint tenancies, trusts, and powers of attorney of homosexuals. I had always wondered...

    Oh wait, I had never wondered, because it's completely false.

    There are many reasons why people oppose the government revising the definition of marriage. In descending order of importance:

    1. Natural, inborn revulsion at the thought of intermale eroticism
    2. Religious objections to being part of a society that recognizes and rewards "abomination"
    3. The pre-political-correctness-era consensus in psychology (and "common sense" view of the majority even today) that strong homosexual disposition and compulsion is a mental illness
    4. The conservative view that an institution as old as human civilization should not be revised so as to encompass every traditional perversion in the book, or any of them
    5. The lack of any justification whatsoever why one group has a right to change the definition of marriage to include their situation, but not any other group (man-animal, siblings [if infertile], parent-child [if infertile], man-object, polygamy), thus triggering the slippery slope meme
    6. The absence of any perceived benefit to society for intervening in the private lives of homosexuals, who cannot produce children themselves and whose relationships are therefore not the best context for regulating the well-being of children

    It's not fair to say that people are foaming at the mouth because they don't want homosexuals protected. They overwhelmingly do, no matter what their stance is on marriage.

    Personally, I don't see the point of the debate. Marriage is already gay; including homosexuals in its franchise will finally make that fact obvious to everyone.

    Not that I don't hope for a wife and kids one day, but I have no desire for legal status, or for her to be theoretically bound against her will from leaving me. If she's unhappy, let her go. If she leaves, I'd say we were never truly married at all.
  • lucidfox 2011-08-24 22:08
    hoodaticus:
    Marriage is already gay; including homosexuals in its franchise will finally make that fact obvious to everyone.

    Um what?

    That's not right. That's not even wrong. It just doesn't make any sense.

    Signed, a lesbian.
  • anonycoward 2011-08-24 22:54
    lucidfox:
    hoodaticus:
    Marriage is already gay; including homosexuals in its franchise will finally make that fact obvious to everyone.

    Um what?

    That's not right. That's not even wrong. It just doesn't make any sense.

    Signed, a lesbian.
    s/everyone/almost everyone/;
  • none 2011-08-24 23:10
    I think you two should go out.
  • trtrwtf 2011-08-25 00:19
    [quote user="Matt Westwood"]

    [quote]
    You claim that there aren't enough women in IT because you don't like the nerdishness of male engineers. I claim there aren't enough women in IT because it's far easier for a woman to earn money by prancing around on stage in her underwear.
    [/quote]

    Autogoal!
  • trtrwtf 2011-08-25 00:21
    I'll try that again:


    Matt Westwood:

    You claim that there aren't enough women in IT because you don't like the nerdishness of male engineers. I claim there aren't enough women in IT because it's far easier for a woman to earn money by prancing around on stage in her underwear.


    Autogoal!
  • lucidfox 2011-08-25 00:48
    What does "marriage is already gay" even mean, anyway?
  • Maybe, Maybe not 2011-08-25 01:04
    Matt Westwood:
    Jay:
    To put in my two cents on the discussion about freedom:

    It seems to me that when people use the word "freedom", they mean three very different things by it.

    1. I can do whatever I want as long as everyone involved is a willing participant, i.e. no one is being forced at gun point or tricked into it.

    2. I can do whatever I want as long as it is a fair and just and responsible thing to do.

    3. I can do whatever I want and if you don't like it you must be forced to go along.

    For example, a libertarian might say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, then they should be allowed to do that as long as Al and Bob agree on the working conditions, salary, etc." Definition #1. But a liberal would say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, they should be allowed to do so as long as Al pays the state-mandated minimum wage, provides adequate benefits such as satisfactory health insurance, and provides a safe working environment, and as long as Bob meets the government licensing requirements to prove that he is qualified." Definition #2.

    Or suppose Sally wants to be a construction worker. George owns a construction company but he refuses to hire her because he believes that woman should stay at home and have babies or, if they must have outside jobs, they should get "girl jobs" like teacher or computer programmer. By definition #1, Sally must find someplace else to work. By definition #3, George should be forced to hire her despite his personal beliefs.

    Or take gay marriage. By definition #2, the government might ban gay marriage on the grounds that it is immoral. By definition #1, the government would have to allow it as long as both parties want to get married. By definition #3, not only must it be legal, but all ministers must be required by law to perform such weddings upon request regardless of their own religious beliefs.


    The real WTF is getting hot under the collar at the thought of same-sex relationships having a legal status that protects the other partner should one of them die. Or is the real WTF the people who believe that marriage is more than just a convenient legal contract and an excuse to indulge in extremes of vanity by throwing a great big party at which you demand that everybody pretends you're important?

    Or perhaps the real WTF is people who somehow think that family life (which must surely revolve around procreation) is the same as sticking your dick up someone's ass for fun. Marriage derives from various religious traditions. Traditionally, homosexuality upsets almost every religion. I can see a big incompatibility there...
    The problem is that the argument is always about marriage, when in reality gay people want their relationships recognised legally (not religiously - good luck with that otherwise), while the other crowd objects not so much to the idea of rights, but to the idea of this being considered a marriage. Perhaps this is just semantics, but question anyone in the anti crowd, and you'll soon find they object to the idea of calling it a "marriage". If gay people dropped the big fight to call it "marriage", and instead focused on better recognition of de facto relationships both sides might be happy to leave each other alone.

    While I'm on me soapbox, I might add that this is not an 'equal rights' issue. Every man has a right to marry (or not marry_) any girl who is willing and vice versa. This is equality. All men have the same right, and all women have the same right. Equally (except in some parts of certainly the US, and perhaps the rest of the world) No man has the right to marry another man, and no woman has the right to marry another women. Again, no man has the right to marry a bovine (despite what I've seen on Jerry Springer) and no woman has the right to marry a bull either. What the gay communities are asking for is not equality, but a new definition - a further reason not to call it a marriage - it is not the same thing.
    Although people do (apparently) get married for reasons other than family, it must surely be the principle for such a relationship. Whether Gay people like it or not, they would not be here were it not for such family relationships, and any pretence that a relationship whose purpose is anything other than family life is merely making a mockery of their parents - and must be one hell of a slap in the face for them.

    I accept that some people are gay, and choose to live in homosexual relationships - indeed, this is their freedom. But I cannot accept that such relationships are in any way similar to those of a young heterosexual couple setting out to boost the world's population, and celebrating this benefit to mankind in a lavish liturgy deriving much of its ceremony from various religious rites (from a host of different religions).
  • lucidfox 2011-08-25 01:21
    The above post contains numerous implicit assumptions.

    1. Assumption that only young people get married. It uses "man", but "girl", singling out young women (or just those whom the author considers "hawt").
    2. Assumption that marriage is a religious tradition. That depends on the country. In the US, it typically is, but, for example, in Russia, marriage is secular since 1918. Church marriage on its own is legally void, and most marriages are carried out in ZAGS departments.
    3. Assumption that the sole purpose of marriage is to have children. Some couples do it merely to celebrate their love, with no intention to procreate.
    4. Assumption that the only way to start a family is sexual reproduction, as opposed to, say, adoption or artificial insemination.

    Furtermore, the majority argument doesn't hold. Saying gay marriage should be banned because most straight people are against it is like saying in early 20st century US that racism should continue because most white people were in favor of it. It's called "tyranny of the majority", and generally speaking, the majority is incompetent.

    Again, no man has the right to marry a bovine (despite what I've seen on Jerry Springer) and no woman has the right to marry a bull either.


    This quote makes me alert, because it reveals the author's heterocentric thinking. While bestiality is not the subject of this discussion, it makes it seem that even when arguing across species, the author sees different-sex relationships as the default and same-sex relationships as a deviation.

    That being said, I'm myself against marriage being a legal concept in general, straight or not.
  • Anon 2011-08-25 01:26
    trtrwtf:
    I'll try that again:


    Matt Westwood:

    You claim that there aren't enough women in IT because you don't like the nerdishness of male engineers. I claim there aren't enough women in IT because it's far easier for a woman to earn money by prancing around on stage in her underwear.


    Autogoal!


    Heh, yeah. Between that and "maybe women don't enter or stay in IT because they're rubbish at their jobs... I'm actually more than happy to not have women in IT as it's just not all that pleasant", this dude is making my points better than I can. Sexism: it's not usually that blatant, but it is alive and well, folks.
  • Another Anon 2011-08-25 01:32
    Anon:
    Hortical:
    I don't have it worse. But my position is not the result of any arbitrary privilege afforded only to males. I see women have a higher representation in schools, higher grades, opportunities specially for women, higher employment, higher average pay...

    What privilege did I have?


    Inform thyself. Go here: http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination/#publications and read the one titled "The gender wage gap by occupation". The data's all from the US Census. Women's pay is at about 80% of men's, even when you break it down by occupation. It gets worse if you're not white. Programming is better than most, women are making a full 90% of the usual male wage. Yes, women are better represented in college right now, but it isn't doing them any good in the real world.

    Male privilege: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ If you can't understand that, I don't know how else to explain it to you.

    There is much problems with these sort of debates (and I'll admit wages and things are not my area). When it comes to x% of Executives are men, this is expected (and perhaps a good thing at the moment). Equal opportunities is about allowing the best candidate a position, irrespective of any other factors. In a world where people work their way to the top (which, sadly, is disappearing - and this is where bad managers come from), it stands to reason that an industry that has long been male dominated those reaching the top will come from last generations domination. Gradually, (very gradually) the proportions at the top will come to a balance, but the balance first needs to fill the bottom layers (assuming of course, that an equal number of women and men have the desire, ability etc to enter the field - it is, of course, possible that it will continue to be a male-dominated field if women aren't interested, and it is equally possible that it could become a female-dominated industry if there is significant female interest in IT). Even then, it is likely that there will be a slight imbalance. Studies often show that women have certain management skills that men struggle with (and perhaps the same could be said the other way too), so the exact proportions at the top will always be affected by a plethora of different factors, but assuming everyone is equal other than gender (can of worms), it would take a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNG time for anything resembling equality to appear at the top. This is not unfair - quite the opposite, in fact - it stands to reason that (kepping in mind earlier assumptions) men who have worked in the industry for 15..20...30 years are better qualified to move up the ladder than women who might have been in the industry for 5 or 10. As I say, over time, this will change.

    The wage stuff is partially related. A lot of places have almost guaranteed rises in salary, and someone who has worked in a role for 5-10 years probably has a higher salary than an equivalent in that role for 1-3 - and if they move on, they demand it to be matched or bettered. A further concern (which may be sexist, but not necessarily as expected) with regards to wage equality is that men and women are fundamentally different. Men cannot have babies. Generally, reasonably significant parental leave is afforded women, with a token leave allowed for men. This, of course, is required, because a man doesn't actually need time to recover from childbirth. Unfortunately (particularly for the career focussed women who may never bear children), the possibility that a company may have to allow maternity leave several times during a woman's career means that their wage is offset to cater for this. Now we really stand on some thin ice. The whole concept of leave is not a very fair thing. Why should someone who has children have rights for "Carer's leave" - or someone whose grandparents are unwell have rights to attend to them, while someone who tragically lost them during childhood must work on? Why should someone who is prone to getting sick (and therefore less valuable to the organisation because they are able to do their job less often), have rights to days off while the healthy slug out a full year?
    As with the political stuff (and all the rants about freedom), there is no silver bullet. Life isn't fair. Let me repeat that, because people don't seem to understand it. Life isn't fair, and never will be. You can live with it, or you can whinge about it, or you can live with it while you whinge about it, but the fact of the matter is there are too many variations (some 7 billion different categories we could find) in people to allow everyone to be considered sufficiently for any fairness to exist. Some poor people are born into starving families, others are born into luxurious riches - perhaps one thing to remember (so you don't all get depressed at the unfairness of it all), is even to be born we have to be the winning sperm....so we are all winners. Equality, like Freedom, may well be an admirable thing to aspire to, but it simply ain't possible.

    Totally off the topic....
    Some psychological research was once done, whereby everyone was given some amount (not necessarily equal) of (hypothetical) coins. Two thirds they could keep, and one third they had to give to someone else (and they were permitted to find out how many coins other people started with before they made their decision, but not how other people had distributed their funds). A large majority gave their coins to people that were richer than them. It seems people were afraid to people less well off than themselves - in case they became 'wealthier'...
  • doozy wat 2011-08-25 01:40
    Mojomonkeyfish:
    A friend of mine once told me, the worst part of being a woman in IT is that if you even mention how people treat you differently, or stop being "one of the guys", you'll immediately get lectured on how "sexism isn't real".

    She was a brilliant programmer, but left the field because she was simply tired of dealing with male engineers, and their stupid "truths" about sexism. You know, because being males in a truly male-dominated field, they definitely know exactly how it is.

    It's not about sexual innuendo, or lewd comments. It was never about that for her. Dealing with awkward come-ons is part of being a woman. Attraction is biological, and nobody, not even the hardlinest feminist, is blaming men for being attracted to women. It's not about getting slapped on the ass, or called "toots". Hell, that would almost be a welcome anachronism. She dealt with awkward advances, and wasn't offended by them. Hell, her husband was the result of such an awkward advance.

    It's about men, EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW that you know more than they do about something, feeling the need to explain to you how you're wrong, ALL THE TIME. They're not being mean, they're trying to help, and that help is fucking obnoxious. Try to tell them it's obnoxious and they'll explain how it isn't, and you're just too sensitive.

    I couldn't help myself, I told her "men do that to each other". She gave me a really dirty look, "Thanks for explaining. I didn't know that. I thought it was sexism."

    Maybe it is actually autism, or something. Except, it isn't. It's just a general attitude among programmers that we're always right, 100%, about everything. We've read the wikipedia page, so we know our shit. Combine that with the usual male attitude towards women, and it's a perfect storm.

    To be honest, I didn't really her that seriously until I was dating my wife. At some point, months into the relationship, she finally tells me to stop explaining things to her unless she asks, because it's really annoying. It took months to get that behavior under control. Man, I felt like a total tool.

    <sexism alert>
    Yup. Men like to fix problems. They assume that any interaction with other people is a request to solve a problem. Women, on the other hand, like to collaborate. They discuss things to make sure they have the best solution. Men don't understand this, because they genuinely think that they have been invited to offer their (unequaled) expertise. IMO I think this arrogance can be very valuable in support roles where we just need to fix it, while the collaborative approach is probably a lot more effective in Project work.

    Being 100% right is not just a thing with programmers, it is a male thing. I am the best programmer. My father-in-law is the best at anything manual (he always tells me) and a host of men on public transport always explain to me how they understand the state of the world better than politicians. Frankly, it makes life fun!
  • lucidfox 2011-08-25 01:42
    Another Anon:
    is that men and women are fundamentally different.


    Typical essentialist bull. Fundamentally how? Women aren't bipedal primates with opposable thumbs? Perhaps they look like amoebas? Or maybe men and women's thoughts are somehow so drastically alien to each other - despite coexisting within the same culture - that they cannot possibly hope to comprehend each other? Or perhaps there are white-collar jobs that either men or women are somehow inherently unsuited for, even in principle?

    Regarding parental leave, that seems like the age-old perception of women as baby factories. You shouldn't pay for what you don't use, and just because someone has a uterus (contrary to popular belief, not only women do) doesn't mean they're going to use it while holding this specific job. Pregnancies and childbirths are relatively rare, especially in Western societies.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-25 01:44
    Maybe, Maybe not:
    Matt Westwood:
    Jay:
    To put in my two cents on the discussion about freedom:

    It seems to me that when people use the word "freedom", they mean three very different things by it.

    1. I can do whatever I want as long as everyone involved is a willing participant, i.e. no one is being forced at gun point or tricked into it.

    2. I can do whatever I want as long as it is a fair and just and responsible thing to do.

    3. I can do whatever I want and if you don't like it you must be forced to go along.

    For example, a libertarian might say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, then they should be allowed to do that as long as Al and Bob agree on the working conditions, salary, etc." Definition #1. But a liberal would say, "If Al wants to hire Bob to work for him, they should be allowed to do so as long as Al pays the state-mandated minimum wage, provides adequate benefits such as satisfactory health insurance, and provides a safe working environment, and as long as Bob meets the government licensing requirements to prove that he is qualified." Definition #2.

    Or suppose Sally wants to be a construction worker. George owns a construction company but he refuses to hire her because he believes that woman should stay at home and have babies or, if they must have outside jobs, they should get "girl jobs" like teacher or computer programmer. By definition #1, Sally must find someplace else to work. By definition #3, George should be forced to hire her despite his personal beliefs.

    Or take gay marriage. By definition #2, the government might ban gay marriage on the grounds that it is immoral. By definition #1, the government would have to allow it as long as both parties want to get married. By definition #3, not only must it be legal, but all ministers must be required by law to perform such weddings upon request regardless of their own religious beliefs.


    The real WTF is getting hot under the collar at the thought of same-sex relationships having a legal status that protects the other partner should one of them die. Or is the real WTF the people who believe that marriage is more than just a convenient legal contract and an excuse to indulge in extremes of vanity by throwing a great big party at which you demand that everybody pretends you're important?

    Or perhaps the real WTF is people who somehow think that family life (which must surely revolve around procreation) is the same as sticking your dick up someone's ass for fun. Marriage derives from various religious traditions. Traditionally, homosexuality upsets almost every religion. I can see a big incompatibility there...
    The problem is that the argument is always about marriage, when in reality gay people want their relationships recognised legally (not religiously - good luck with that otherwise), while the other crowd objects not so much to the idea of rights, but to the idea of this being considered a marriage. Perhaps this is just semantics, but question anyone in the anti crowd, and you'll soon find they object to the idea of calling it a "marriage". If gay people dropped the big fight to call it "marriage", and instead focused on better recognition of de facto relationships both sides might be happy to leave each other alone.

    While I'm on me soapbox, I might add that this is not an 'equal rights' issue. Every man has a right to marry (or not marry_) any girl who is willing and vice versa. This is equality. All men have the same right, and all women have the same right. Equally (except in some parts of certainly the US, and perhaps the rest of the world) No man has the right to marry another man, and no woman has the right to marry another women. Again, no man has the right to marry a bovine (despite what I've seen on Jerry Springer) and no woman has the right to marry a bull either. What the gay communities are asking for is not equality, but a new definition - a further reason not to call it a marriage - it is not the same thing.
    Although people do (apparently) get married for reasons other than family, it must surely be the principle for such a relationship. Whether Gay people like it or not, they would not be here were it not for such family relationships, and any pretence that a relationship whose purpose is anything other than family life is merely making a mockery of their parents - and must be one hell of a slap in the face for them.

    I accept that some people are gay, and choose to live in homosexual relationships - indeed, this is their freedom. But I cannot accept that such relationships are in any way similar to those of a young heterosexual couple setting out to boost the world's population, and celebrating this benefit to mankind in a lavish liturgy deriving much of its ceremony from various religious rites (from a host of different religions).


    So the real WTF is religion. Kill it, kill it with fire.
  • jiuy 2011-08-25 01:53
    lucidfox:
    The above post contains numerous implicit assumptions.

    1. Assumption that only young people get married. It uses "man", but "girl", singling out young women (or just those whom the author considers "hawt").
    2. Assumption that marriage is a religious tradition. That depends on the country. In the US, it typically is, but, for example, in Russia, marriage is secular since 1918. Church marriage on its own is legally void, and most marriages are carried out in ZAGS departments.
    3. Assumption that the sole purpose of marriage is to have children. Some couples do it merely to celebrate their love, with no intention to procreate.
    4. Assumption that the only way to start a family is sexual reproduction, as opposed to, say, adoption or artificial insemination.

    Furtermore, the majority argument doesn't hold. Saying gay marriage should be banned because most straight people are against it is like saying in early 20st century US that racism should continue because most white people were in favor of it. It's called "tyranny of the majority", and generally speaking, the majority is incompetent.

    Again, no man has the right to marry a bovine (despite what I've seen on Jerry Springer) and no woman has the right to marry a bull either.


    This quote makes me alert, because it reveals the author's heterocentric thinking. While bestiality is not the subject of this discussion, it makes it seem that even when arguing across species, the author sees different-sex relationships as the default and same-sex relationships as a deviation.

    That being said, I'm myself against marriage being a legal concept in general, straight or not.

    1) Might be locality. I know a lot of people who talk about men and girls. Or maybe he's an older gentleman.
    2) I read it as marriage <i>derives</i> from religious traditions, rather than <i>marriage is a religious institution</i>
    3) I think the OP actually mentioned that...
    4) I think the OP actually said that too...

    I looked at the articles above that (just in case), and given you quote part of it, you must be talking about the same post, but it doesn't look like you read it....

    I must say, irrespective of the abilities to create kids in ways other than the fun one, it would seem hetrocentric thinking is how people have survived in the world. Sure there have been prominent gay people (kings, queens (lol), and a host of other high profile figures have been known for homosexuality and all sorts of deviance too) but they're hardly the people who the general populus today has come from (although some of them did have hetrosexual marriages that may have yielded children, I suppose).

    Given where most of us came from, heterocentric thinking should be the norm, no?
  • Another Anon 2011-08-25 02:08
    lucidfox:
    Another Anon:
    is that men and women are fundamentally different.


    Typical essentialist bull. Fundamentally how? Women aren't bipedal primates with opposable thumbs? Perhaps they look like amoebas? Or maybe men and women's thoughts are somehow so drastically alien to each other - despite coexisting within the same culture - that they cannot possibly hope to comprehend each other? Or perhaps there are white-collar jobs that either men or women are somehow inherently unsuited for, even in principle?

    Regarding parental leave, that seems like the age-old perception of women as baby factories. You shouldn't pay for what you don't use, and just because someone has a uterus (contrary to popular belief, not only women do) doesn't mean they're going to use it while holding this specific job. Pregnancies and childbirths are relatively rare, especially in Western societies.

    You'll notice I never said that differences based in leave are justified. Further, (I thought it was clear, maybe I gotta spell it out more clearly) the whole point of the post is that Life ain't fair.

    I'm sure google would reveal any host of studies that show men and women think and act differently. Not better or worse, just different.

    What do you mean by "Pregnancies and childbirths are relatively rare, especially in Western societies." Relative to what? Surely the world's population is increasing.

    Clearly you are a lesbian, so you don't have this issue, but just ask any straight couple you know (you do no some, right?) how similarly they think. I suspect you'll be surprised how often distinct couples report the same traits about the male from the female perspective and the female from the male perspective. It's uncanny - or perhaps it's true, men and women do not generally think the same way (of course, there will be a lot of variety, and occasionally there might be some overlap, even reversal. You seem to assume yourself a spokesperson for all women - and it appears this assumption is based on the presumption that every woman wants to be you. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I really don't think this is necessarily the case.

    Just in case you're still unclear on my previous post, I'll sumnmarise it in 6 words: Life isn't fair! Get Over it!!

    <nb>
    I find it interesting that you only ever pop up when there is a discussion/fight/war about sexism, and then you get your knickers in a twist about some triviality when you interpret something incitefully. If you go looking for trouble, you will always find it, even where it doesn't exist.
  • Bob 2011-08-25 02:10
    fu2uf:

    RealWTF:
    The real wtf is all the sexism.

    Signed,
    A female developer


    Sexism and lewd innuendo is often just a sign of emotional immaturity.

    So WTF? I once worked for a company where my blatantly bisexual married female manager constantly made crass remarks about other women. Either about coworkers in office, women seen in public at company functions, or celebrities in media. Comments such as 'Oh yeah! I'd definitely do her...' were common. Often times she was far worse than most men are in their lacking stages of emotional maturity and development. Executive management thought it was cute, but then the rumor mill proposed she was orally gratuitous with them as well.

    Incidentally, I worked for another company more recently where sexual innuendo was rampant amongst the staff, both male and female. That place had a drug policy. If you needed to score your illegal drug of choice, just contact the cofounder, CIO or CTO. I was fired from that position, for breach of workplace etiquette, which is another WTF altogether and separate discussion in its entirety.



    Yeah, some of the women I've worked with have also been really crude. I guess immaturity has no gender boundries.

    Do tell us your story, if nothing else I need to brighten my day.
  • Willy Wagtail 2011-08-25 02:11
    My Goodness!

    Forget to post 1 day, and this descends to a war about Women's rights, Freedom, Gay Marriage - with hints of religion!!....

    Better post an article soon, before the nukes get launched!!
  • Bob 2011-08-25 02:17
    Matt Westwood:
    Mojomonkeyfish:
    A friend of mine once told me, the worst part of being a woman in IT is that if you even mention how people treat you differently, or stop being "one of the guys", you'll immediately get lectured on how "sexism isn't real".

    She was a brilliant programmer, but left the field because she was simply tired of dealing with male engineers, and their stupid "truths" about sexism. You know, because being males in a truly male-dominated field, they definitely know exactly how it is.

    It's not about sexual innuendo, or lewd comments. It was never about that for her. Dealing with awkward come-ons is part of being a woman. Attraction is biological, and nobody, not even the hardlinest feminist, is blaming men for being attracted to women. It's not about getting slapped on the ass, or called "toots". Hell, that would almost be a welcome anachronism. She dealt with awkward advances, and wasn't offended by them. Hell, her husband was the result of such an awkward advance.

    It's about men, EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW that you know more than they do about something, feeling the need to explain to you how you're wrong, ALL THE TIME. They're not being mean, they're trying to help, and that help is fucking obnoxious. Try to tell them it's obnoxious and they'll explain how it isn't, and you're just too sensitive.

    I couldn't help myself, I told her "men do that to each other". She gave me a really dirty look, "Thanks for explaining. I didn't know that. I thought it was sexism."

    Maybe it is actually autism, or something. Except, it isn't. It's just a general attitude among programmers that we're always right, 100%, about everything. We've read the wikipedia page, so we know our shit. Combine that with the usual male attitude towards women, and it's a perfect storm.

    To be honest, I didn't really her that seriously until I was dating my wife. At some point, months into the relationship, she finally tells me to stop explaining things to her unless she asks, because it's really annoying. It took months to get that behavior under control. Man, I felt like a total tool.


    Miaou (crack)

    Or maybe women don't enter or stay in IT because they're rubbish at their jobs. I've worked with quite a few women in IT and none of them have been particularly good programmers. Competent and literate, some of the time, but cringeingly bad when it came to some proper task analysis. And add to that a tendency to micromanage in a really bossy way. I'm actually more than happy to not have women in IT as it's just not all that pleasant.


    Woah there tiger. I've had one or two nightmare experiences but for the most part my dealings with women in an IT environment have been positive. I can say that about my experience with men in IT as well. You get idiots of all genders.
  • QJo 2011-08-25 03:53
    lucidfox:
    Another Anon:
    is that men and women are fundamentally different.


    Typical essentialist bull. Fundamentally how? Women aren't bipedal primates with opposable thumbs? Perhaps they look like amoebas? Or maybe men and women's thoughts are somehow so drastically alien to each other - despite coexisting within the same culture - that they cannot possibly hope to comprehend each other? Or perhaps there are white-collar jobs that either men or women are somehow inherently unsuited for, even in principle?

    Regarding parental leave, that seems like the age-old perception of women as baby factories. You shouldn't pay for what you don't use, and just because someone has a uterus (contrary to popular belief, not only women do) doesn't mean they're going to use it while holding this specific job. Pregnancies and childbirths are relatively rare, especially in Western societies.


    Oh dearie, dearie me. You do sound cross, my poor love. Time of month?
  • QJo 2011-08-25 04:10
    jiuy:


    ...

    I must say, irrespective of the abilities to create kids in ways other than the fun one, it would seem hetrocentric thinking is how people have survived in the world. Sure there have been prominent gay people (kings, queens (lol), and a host of other high profile figures have been known for homosexuality and all sorts of deviance too) but they're hardly the people who the general populus today has come from (although some of them did have hetrosexual marriages that may have yielded children, I suppose).

    Given where most of us came from, heterocentric thinking should be the norm, no?


    It might be worth at this point mentioning something I read somewhere but unfortunately can't place with certainty - it might have come from Elaine Morgan's "Descent of Woman" - but apparently if you concentrate large numbers of certain types of animals (the experiment was done on rats, probably), then (perhaps as a direct natural response to overcrowding) homosexual relationships started to form between the members of the group.

    This can (rightly or wrongly) clearly be interpreted as a pro-survival trait (causing the reduction of a birthrate which would otherwise severely exacerbate the conditions of overcrowding). It can equally be hypothesised (again, correctly or incorrectly, according to your prejudices) that this behaviour has a parallel among today's humanity. There's perhaps a subconscious, visceral perception that there's just too many of us to breed unchecked, and so (chemically, perhaps, but definitely under the direct radar of consciousness) one finds oneself attracted to those of the opposite gender.

    Fascists who wish to discriminate against this tendency because the very concept of it is personally distasteful are perhaps the real WTF here.

    Just sayin' ...

    Captcha (appropriately): uxor (it's Latin for "wife", which, incidentally, stands for "washing, ironing, feeding, etc.").
  • Kill Bill #3 2011-08-25 04:11
    Galapharm:
    True Freedom leads to Anarchy


    Only if you live near lots of dicks. I reckon there are a fair few people could have 'true freedom' without resorting to anarchy, but probably not enough.


    Umm, no.

    Anarchy = self rule; absence of external police / government.

    Media Version of Anarchy = Rioting.

    Words can get a bad name by misuse... like "cunt".
  • lucidfox 2011-08-25 04:24
    QJo:

    Oh dearie, dearie me. You do sound cross, my poor love. Time of month?

    Go on, I've almost crossed out an entire sexist arguments bingo card.
  • Latebound 2011-08-25 07:12
    jiuy:
    Given where most of us came from, heterocentric thinking should be the norm, no?


    That's the most irrelevant arguments of all. It's not even an argument. Or would you agree that since most of children in the history of humanity before 1900's were the fruit of downright rapes by our present standards (forced marriage = rape, under-16 relationship = rape, unwilling marital sex = rape), it should be the norm?
  • frits 2011-08-25 08:04
    lucidfox:
    What does "marriage is already gay" even mean, anyway?

    You seem intelligent enough to understand that words can have more than one meaning. Hoodaticus was making a joke based on the fact that gay can also mean "lame".

    Sincerely,
    A Married Guy
  • lucidfox 2011-08-25 08:36
    frits:
    lucidfox:
    What does "marriage is already gay" even mean, anyway?

    You seem intelligent enough to understand that words can have more than one meaning. Hoodaticus was making a joke based on the fact that gay can also mean "lame".

    Sincerely,
    A Married Guy

    I hoped it wouldn't be this meaning, because, I honestly expected more from this community. This... This is just so straight.
  • Severity One 2011-08-25 08:38
    J. McCarthy:
    Actually, since his autism was caused by mercury in vaccines, I was able to cure him through chelation therapy.YMMV
    Presuming for a moment that you're playing the devil's advocate here, but suppose that you're not, that theory has been discredited and the doctor in question has been stricken off the medical register.
  • Severity One 2011-08-25 08:40
    ThingGuy McGuyThing:
    Fair enough, I don't 'had' metabolism, or nerve function, or even a hangover. They're not illnesses, they're conditions. It's not possible to have conditions.
    Yeah, whatever. But did the point come across? Being on the autistic spectrum is like having brown hair. You can dye it another colour, but it doesn't change the fact that your natural hair colour is brown.
  • frits 2011-08-25 08:44
    lucidfox:
    frits:
    lucidfox:
    What does "marriage is already gay" even mean, anyway?

    You seem intelligent enough to understand that words can have more than one meaning. Hoodaticus was making a joke based on the fact that gay can also mean "lame".

    Sincerely,
    A Married Guy

    I hoped it wouldn't be this meaning, because, I honestly expected more from this community. This... This is just so straight.


    Some of the readers of this site, like me, are knuckle-dragging neanderthals. It takes all types.
  • frits 2011-08-25 08:46
    Severity One:
    J. McCarthy:
    Actually, since his autism was caused by mercury in vaccines, I was able to cure him through chelation therapy.YMMV
    Presuming for a moment that you're playing the devil's advocate here, but suppose that you're not, that theory has been discredited and the doctor in question has been stricken off the medical register.

    Do you think for one second that mere facts will slow down a juggernaut like Jenny McCarthy? There are books to sell and fame to be preserved.
  • Rootbeer 2011-08-25 10:08

    A programmer who is female is called a "programmer."

    Possibly, in certain colloquial contexts, a "programmeress".

    Never "programmiss" or "programmis". Those words are non-semantic nonsense.
  • Zylon 2011-08-25 10:54
    Rootbeer:

    A programmer who is female is called a "programmer."

    Possibly, in certain colloquial contexts, a "programmeress".

    Never "programmiss" or "programmis". Those words are non-semantic nonsense.

    We would also accept "programmatrix", for the froody double meaning.
  • sreagsgio 2011-08-25 11:28
    CSB:

    Ages ago, we were looking for a new programmer. We actually did get a few resumes from females, and a couple of them has really good credentials. So we lined up some interviews.

    Well, the first female was hot. Incredible blonde, great body, and a very skimpy outfit - miniskirt that just barely covered her bottom, and a white see-through blouse with most of her cleavage unbuttoned.

    Anyhow, the interview actually went well. She actually knew stuff. But her outfit was so inappropriate, we couldn't hire her. It showed a staggering lack of judgement on her part.

    We ended up hiring another lady - she actually dressed like a normal person in her interview, and she knew stuff, and she's had a long IT career since then, so there you go.
  • Anon 2011-08-25 12:52
    Another Anon:

    There is much problems with these sort of debates (and I'll admit wages and things are not my area).


    Fully agreed! I was mostly trying to point out the gaping hole in Hortical's argument that women have all the privleges. (I want to live in his world!) That said, I do disagree with a few of your points.

    Another Anon:

    This is not unfair - quite the opposite, in fact - it stands to reason that (kepping in mind earlier assumptions) men who have worked in the industry for 15..20...30 years are better qualified to move up the ladder than women who might have been in the industry for 5 or 10. As I say, over time, this will change.

    The wage stuff is partially related. A lot of places have almost guaranteed rises in salary, and someone who has worked in a role for 5-10 years probably has a higher salary than an equivalent in that role for 1-3 - and if they move on, they demand it to be matched or bettered.


    I disagree with your premise that women in the workforce are, on average, less experienced than their male counterparts. I'm pulling stats from a document based on Department of Labor numbers: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104673.html Women made up 30% of the work force in 1950, 38% in 1970, 45% in 1990, and 44% in 2008. The numbers for women's employment hasn't really changed since the late '80s, which means that by now the same proportion of women are retiring as are entering the workforce, the same as men. Portraying women as generally new to the working world (and therefore logically making less) isn't accurate.


    Another Anon:

    A further concern (which may be sexist, but not necessarily as expected) with regards to wage equality is that men and women are fundamentally different. Men cannot have babies. Generally, reasonably significant parental leave is afforded women, with a token leave allowed for men. This, of course, is required, because a man doesn't actually need time to recover from childbirth. Unfortunately (particularly for the career focussed women who may never bear children), the possibility that a company may have to allow maternity leave several times during a woman's career means that their wage is offset to cater for this. Now we really stand on some thin ice.


    Yup, it's very thin ice, but lucidfox already ripped into you for that, so I won't. The average maternity leave is roughly six weeks. For the average woman who has 2.3 children, that means she's out for an extra three and a half months out of a forty-year career. That's a fraction of one percent, if you're doing the math. Plus, most men do take paternity leave at this point. The majority of the companies I've worked for give the same amount of paternity leave as maternity. So the gap narrows even further. It's not a compelling reason to pay women less. That's why there are federal laws against discriminating on that basis.


    Another Anon:
    Life isn't fair. Let me repeat that, because people don't seem to understand it. Life isn't fair, and never will be.


    I'm aware of that, thanks. Contrary to what you might expect, I don't use this stuff to make excuses in my personal life. For each individual person, yeah, life isn't fair, and you just have to play the hand you're dealt. That's not going to keep me from pointing out systemic biases and suggesting that we correct them when possible.


    Some of the gender gap in wages is attributable to other things we've discussed, but I suspect that the majority of the gap comes from this: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitate Women are far less likely to negotiate their starting salary or ask for a raise than men are. They don't want to be seen as too aggressive, and it's an accurate fear - both men and women have a neutral response to a man who asks for more money, but have a negative response to a woman who does the same. There's research that bears this out, it's discussed in the NPR article.

    I don't think anyone's doing that deliberately, men or women. I'm not suggesting any grand conspiracies of oppression. I do think it's worth pointing out so we can all be aware of it and possibly rethink some of our own opinions. Hopefully this will change over time as well.
  • Sparky 2011-08-25 12:52
    I have never in my long career gone to HR to complain about anything, but call me "programmiss", or tell me that I write cutesy code with emoticons, and I just might have to start.

    BTW, I have a teenage kid who actually does have Aspergers, and plans on working in IT, and it wouldn't ever cross his mind to assume that women in general are worse programmers than men in general, or that they are only there to be oogled, so, no, you cannot pull the Rainman card. Sorry, boys.

  • Jay 2011-08-25 13:48
    lucidfox:
    Another Anon:
    is that men and women are fundamentally different.


    Typical essentialist bull. Fundamentally how? Women aren't bipedal primates with opposable thumbs?
    Bzzzt. Wrong.

    lucidfox:
    Perhaps they look like amoebas?
    Bzzzt. Wrong.

    lucidfox:
    Or maybe men and women's thoughts are somehow so drastically alien to each other - despite coexisting within the same culture - that they cannot possibly hope to comprehend each other?
    Ding ding ding! Right!

    Have you never actually spoken to someone of the opposite sex? Have you never read a women's magazine? These are routinely filled with articles in which women try to explain to each other what they've figured out about how men think. Have you ever gone to the women's section of a bookstore? It's filled with "relationship" books talking about how to understand men.

    For that matter, why is it that there even are "women's magazines" and "women's sections of the bookstore" and "women's TV stations". If men and women are exactly the same, then they must have all the same interests. Yet strangely, when people are left free to pursue whatever interests they like, men and women routinely make different choices.

    Surely one need only look at the world around you to see that men and women routinely think, feel, and act differently. Just talk to actual human beings and you'll quickly discover this.

    It's kind of funny that feminists will say that men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs, and then in the next sentence say that men and women are exactly the same. So women are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs too?

    Or how often have you heard an argument that goes like this: "It's ridiculous to say that men are better than woman at doing job X. Men and women are exactly the same. There are no relevant differences. Besides, women bring a unique perspective to the job that can benefit the organization."

    Right? Heard that a million times, haven't you? But the first part of the argument completely contradicts the second part. If men and women have no relevant differences, then how can women bring a different perspective? If they are exactly the same, then women can't bring anything that men don't bring. If it's true that women bring some special perspective, then that must mean that men and women are different in relevant ways. And if they are different, then maybe men are better at some jobs and women are better at others.

    Yes, heresy I know. But just because you wish that men and women were exactly the same doesn't make it so.
  • lucidfox 2011-08-25 14:00
    *Sigh*

    All right, I'll take the bait.

    Jay:
    Have you never read a women's magazine? These are routinely filled with articles in which women try to explain to each other what they've figured out about how men think. Have you ever gone to the women's section of a bookstore? It's filled with "relationship" books talking about how to understand men.


    Surprise, some women are shallow and dumb. Just like some men. I can only presume men's magazines give equally worthless advice.

    For that matter, why is it that there even are "women's magazines" and "women's sections of the bookstore" and "women's TV stations".


    An interesting question indeed. Why?

    Because popular entertainment and mass media are shaped by social customs and preconceptions - and every day, people feel tremendous peer pressure to conform to these expectations, whether they make sense or not. It's easy for laypeople, and convenient for marketers and politicians, to break the human species into two extreme opposites and expect everything to make sense. Reality doesn't work that way.

    It's kind of funny that feminists will say that men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs


    It's not what feminists say, it's what anti-feminists say feminists say.

    and then in the next sentence say that men and women are exactly the same.


    Bingo! Two straw viewpoints in the same sentence. You truly excel at this art.

    Why don't you go read some actual feminist articles rather than stereotypical portrayals, then we can talk.
  • boog 2011-08-25 14:01
    lucidfox:
    Surprise, some women are shallow and dumb. Just like some men. I can only presume men's magazines give equally worthless advice.
    No, I think they mostly just have pictures of naked women.
  • Ghost of Nagesh 2011-08-25 14:30
    lucidfox:
    *Sigh*

    All right, I'll take the bait.

    Jay:
    Have you never read a women's magazine? These are routinely filled with articles in which women try to explain to each other what they've figured out about how men think. Have you ever gone to the women's section of a bookstore? It's filled with "relationship" books talking about how to understand men.


    Surprise, some women are shallow and dumb. Just like some men. I can only presume men's magazines give equally worthless advice.

    For that matter, why is it that there even are "women's magazines" and "women's sections of the bookstore" and "women's TV stations".


    An interesting question indeed. Why?

    Because popular entertainment and mass media are shaped by social customs and preconceptions - and every day, people feel tremendous peer pressure to conform to these expectations, whether they make sense or not. It's easy for laypeople, and convenient for marketers and politicians, to break the human species into two extreme opposites and expect everything to make sense. Reality doesn't work that way.

    It's kind of funny that feminists will say that men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs


    It's not what feminists say, it's what anti-feminists say feminists say.

    and then in the next sentence say that men and women are exactly the same.


    Bingo! Two straw viewpoints in the same sentence. You truly excel at this art.

    Why don't you go read some actual feminist articles rather than stereotypical portrayals, then we can talk.


    What exactly is a straw point?
  • onlyme 2011-08-25 15:53
    frits:
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.


    I'm originally from the Philadelphia area, and I pronounce them slightly different. "Mail" sounds like "Ma-yull" and "male" sounds like it's spelled (no exaggerated diphthong).


    Spent five years in Philly ( women in IT shop ). For people who would always make fun of me for saying "y'all" , they really did pronounce things strangely.
  • Syd 2011-08-25 16:06
    This is my life at work!! So hilarious! :)
  • onlyme 2011-08-25 16:08
    Anon:
    Careful, your privilege is showing.

    As a woman in IT, I'm so glad I'm married. It heads off a lot of potential drama. Most guys are fine, although the 'ooh, a female!' reaction gets old after a while.


    I am a female developer who works in a large corporation. We have a fair share of females, but not so many white females. Most are Asian or Indian. Not being racist or sexist. Just observing.
  • p 2011-08-25 16:38
    Another Anon:
    I'm sure google would reveal any host of studies that show men and women think and act differently. Not better or worse, just different.

    Everything I found indicates the opposite of what you suggest.

    Another Anon:

    I suspect you'll be surprised how often distinct couples report the same traits about the male from the female perspective and the female from the male perspective. It's uncanny - or perhaps it's true, men and women do not generally think the same way (of course, there will be a lot of variety, and occasionally there might be some overlap, even reversal.


    That sounds strikingly similar to the ideas presented in John Gray's "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" (in particular the trick with "reversal" to make the theory unfalsifiable). For those who are more interested in reality, here are some extracts from a book by professor Deborah Cameron, in which she debunks it:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/01/gender.books
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/oct/02/gender.familyandrelationships
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/03/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety1

    According to the studies the cites, there is so much overlap (> 99 %), variety and "reversal" that there is pratically no difference between the groups.
  • onlyme 2011-08-25 16:50
    Matt Westwood:
    Abso:
    Abso:
    [T]he libertarian is an idiot if he thinks that economic pressure won't force Bob to accept the job even if the working conditions are dangerous and the pay won't buy enough food for Bob's kids.

    FTFM


    And the real WTF here is Bob having children when he's clearly not intellectually developed enough to get a job that pays sufficiently without it seriously compromising his safety.


    Replace "safety" with "health" and you argument collapses. Many "intellectual" jobs can be quite detrimental to one's health. Sitting at a desk all day, repeated stress,the assumption that you will be available 24 hours a day [ via phone/email ] leaving you with little to no "down time" can really cause damage.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-25 16:52
    p:
    Another Anon:
    I'm sure google would reveal any host of studies that show men and women think and act differently. Not better or worse, just different.

    Everything I found indicates the opposite of what you suggest.

    Another Anon:

    I suspect you'll be surprised how often distinct couples report the same traits about the male from the female perspective and the female from the male perspective. It's uncanny - or perhaps it's true, men and women do not generally think the same way (of course, there will be a lot of variety, and occasionally there might be some overlap, even reversal.


    That sounds strikingly similar to the ideas presented in John Gray's "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" (in particular the trick with "reversal" to make the theory unfalsifiable). For those who are more interested in reality, here are some extracts from a book by professor Deborah Cameron, in which she debunks it:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/01/gender.books
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/oct/02/gender.familyandrelationships
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/03/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety1

    According to the studies the cites, there is so much overlap (> 99 %), variety and "reversal" that there is pratically no difference between the groups.


    No, no, you're all wrong.

    With men, it's a survival trait to speak only when completely necessary, in order to convey vital instructions, otherwise the noise will chase off the game they're hunting skilfully, which is why we only ever communicate to share a pearl of great wisdom and insight.

    With women, it's a survival trait to make as much noise as possible when out as a pack of gatherers, so as to scare away potential predators, which is why their constant yap-yap-yap about pointless trivia.

    Come on, you *know* I'm talking sense here.
  • onlyme 2011-08-25 17:02
    Anon:

    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.


    To me , the real WTF is people assuming just because you are a woman , you inherently have these "social skills". The same attributes that attract male nerds to IT, also attracts female nerds, who are probably just as socially awkward.
    And I have seen "girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds".

  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-25 17:08
    onlyme:
    Anon:

    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.


    To me , the real WTF is people assuming just because you are a woman , you inherently have these "social skills". The same attributes that attract male nerds to IT, also attracts female nerds, who are probably just as socially awkward.
    And I have seen "girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds".



    Thank you.

    Er, um, ahem, you wanna go out? We can, er, go to the bookstore if you like, they've just got in some cool books on homomorphisms and group transformations in Galois structures ...
  • Anon 2011-08-25 17:53
    onlyme:
    Anon:

    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.


    To me , the real WTF is people assuming just because you are a woman , you inherently have these "social skills". The same attributes that attract male nerds to IT, also attracts female nerds, who are probably just as socially awkward.
    And I have seen "girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds".



    I don't believe I claimed that all women 'have social skills'. I was talking about situations where a woman is uncomfortable in a workplace or potential workplace because a guy is behaving inappropriately. (Previous examples were given of stalker-ish behavior, constant attempts at flirting, consistently talking down to/talking over a woman, or making non-stop innuendos at her expense.)

    Matt Westwood's comment appeared to say that in such situations, women need to get over their prejudices and just realize that the guy is harmless (and possibly that it's twu lurve - wtf?). I strongly disagree, if a guy is behaving inappropriately he needs to stop behaving inappropriately. Hence the 'learn some social skills!' The implication is that most inappropriate behavior stems from cluelessness, not malice.

    Anything else I need to clarify for you?
  • onlyme 2011-08-25 18:00
    lucidfox:
    *Sigh*

    All right, I'll take the bait.

    Jay:
    Have you never read a women's magazine? These are routinely filled with articles in which women try to explain to each other what they've figured out about how men think. Have you ever gone to the women's section of a bookstore? It's filled with "relationship" books talking about how to understand men.


    Surprise, some women are shallow and dumb. Just like some men. I can only presume men's magazines give equally worthless advice.

    For that matter, why is it that there even are "women's magazines" and "women's sections of the bookstore" and "women's TV stations".


    An interesting question indeed. Why?

    Because popular entertainment and mass media are shaped by social customs and preconceptions - and every day, people feel tremendous peer pressure to conform to these expectations, whether they make sense or not. It's easy for laypeople, and convenient for marketers and politicians, to break the human species into two extreme opposites and expect everything to make sense. Reality doesn't work that way.

    It's kind of funny that feminists will say that men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs


    It's not what feminists say, it's what anti-feminists say feminists say.

    and then in the next sentence say that men and women are exactly the same.


    Bingo! Two straw viewpoints in the same sentence. You truly excel at this art.

    Why don't you go read some actual feminist articles rather than stereotypical portrayals, then we can talk.


    **Double Sigh**
    [ I can't decide to make a witticism on "taking bait" or "feeding troll" ..so Onward ]

    Please, I worked in a male dominated fields fields for years ( construction, painting, cook, programmer ). Sure , there are some truly sexist people out there in both genders. For every stereo-typical male pig, who talks to your chest, there is a female who dresses like a hooker and asks for help with anything technical.

    The point is there is good and bad, stop polarizing.
  • onlyme 2011-08-25 18:16
    Matt Westwood:
    onlyme:
    Anon:

    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.


    To me , the real WTF is people assuming just because you are a woman , you inherently have these "social skills". The same attributes that attract male nerds to IT, also attracts female nerds, who are probably just as socially awkward.
    And I have seen "girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds".



    Thank you.

    Er, um, ahem, you wanna go out? We can, er, go to the bookstore if you like, they've just got in some cool books on homomorphisms and group transformations in Galois structures ...


    Oh my God...are you me ? Évariste Galois is [one] of my favorite mathematicians.
    Seriously.
  • mashthekeyboard 2011-08-25 18:42
    lucidfox:
    frits:
    (...)

    I hoped it wouldn't be this meaning, because, I honestly expected more from this community. This... This is just so straight.
    Oh, so heterosexuality is a bad thing. Guess I'll just have to go apoptose myself.

    You do realize that you're trying to argue ``feminism'' on a website mostly populated with sad lonely male virgins (myself included)? That's like pouring water in concentrated sulphuric acid!

    Also, saying that males are exactly the same as females is incredibly stupid; it means that every male is exactly the same as every female. Since ``sameness'' is a relation of equivalence, transitivity applies. Therefore, every male is the same as every other male and every female is the same as every other female, a statement which, for the sake of your credibility, I hope you don't intend to defend. No two people are alike, not even in terms of needs or psychology (sorry if I just ruined your hope of a soulmate, dear reader). Perhaps what you really meant was that authority, rules, laws and roles (and yes, if you want me to spell it out, ``and salaries'') should be gender-blind. That, I wholeheartedly agree.

    Honestly, I don't know which of the feminist or anti-feminist group is spreading filthy lies (perhaps it's both of them, I don't actually care), but it seems to me like the term itself ``feminism'' is an excellent example of poor wording. Perhaps ``antisexism'' or ``sexual egalitarianism'' would have been a lot better. A man will be more at ease to say ``I don't mistreat people'' rather than ``I am a feminist''. ``Feminism'' simply puts too much accent on the ``female'' part instead of the equality part, which makes it easy to attack it by blurting out ``they're not going for gender equality, they're going for female supremacy, quick, to the tinfoil-hat-mobile!''. And that's how yet another 200 comment thread is born.

    Yeah, I know IHBT but I just had to post this.
  • method1 2011-08-25 18:56
    hoodaticus:

    If this site had a point system, I bet at least Jon Skeet would come back :)

    TDWTF could move to a Stack Exchange forum - then one could vote up the articles and the comments, also commenters with too high a troll score could be prevented from commenting. Alex et al would make a fortune...
  • female_it 2011-08-25 21:23
    Anon:
    onlyme:
    Anon:

    Hm. Why is it the woman's responsibility to see that the guy is just harmless and would actually make a good mate, rather than the guy's responsibility to learn some social skills and stop creeping her out? I've never encountered your image of girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds. If a woman avoids the IT field due to the amount of awkward male attention, it's due to the amount of awkward male attention.


    To me , the real WTF is people assuming just because you are a woman , you inherently have these "social skills". The same attributes that attract male nerds to IT, also attracts female nerds, who are probably just as socially awkward.
    And I have seen "girls shaming other girls for paying attention to nerds".



    I don't believe I claimed that all women 'have social skills'. I was talking about situations where a woman is uncomfortable in a workplace or potential workplace because a guy is behaving inappropriately. (Previous examples were given of stalker-ish behavior, constant attempts at flirting, consistently talking down to/talking over a woman, or making non-stop innuendos at her expense.)

    Matt Westwood's comment appeared to say that in such situations, women need to get over their prejudices and just realize that the guy is harmless (and possibly that it's twu lurve - wtf?). I strongly disagree, if a guy is behaving inappropriately he needs to stop behaving inappropriately. Hence the 'learn some social skills!' The implication is that most inappropriate behavior stems from cluelessness, not malice.

    Anything else I need to clarify for you?


    Good Lord! I am a liberal from way back. Some may even say "progressive".
    And even I want to call you a c**t.

    Captcha: vindico - how funny.
  • Re-actor 2011-08-25 22:32
    Damm. No breeder jokes? I am disappointed.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-26 01:25
    onlyme:
    Matt Westwood:

    Er, um, ahem, you wanna go out? We can, er, go to the bookstore if you like, they've just got in some cool books on homomorphisms and group transformations in Galois structures ...


    Oh my God...are you me ? Évariste Galois is [one] of my favorite mathematicians.
    Seriously.


    Well, well. Seriously, mine too. Essential role-model for the youth of today.

    Sigh. One of the regular funny guys out there (if they're are any still watching this 3 days old thread) will be posting "Get a room" soon, brace yourself ...
  • lucidfox 2011-08-26 01:48
    Ghost of Nagesh:

    What exactly is a straw point?


    I see two: 1. "Men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs." 2. "Men and women are exactly the same." Neither of which are remotely close to the points I, or anyone else in this thread complaining about sexism, have been arguing.
  • Bob 2011-08-26 02:36
    Matt Westwood:
    onlyme:
    Matt Westwood:

    Er, um, ahem, you wanna go out? We can, er, go to the bookstore if you like, they've just got in some cool books on homomorphisms and group transformations in Galois structures ...


    Oh my God...are you me ? Évariste Galois is [one] of my favorite mathematicians.
    Seriously.


    Well, well. Seriously, mine too. Essential role-model for the youth of today.

    Sigh. One of the regular funny guys out there (if they're are any still watching this 3 days old thread) will be posting "Get a room" soon, brace yourself ...


    I was actually going to say : "And so - true love was born proving that even in times of adversity the power of love will prevail."

    But if I did that I'd just be an arsehole.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-26 05:00
    lucidfox:
    Ghost of Nagesh:

    What exactly is a straw point?


    I see two: 1. "Men are all stupid, sexist, boorish pigs." 2. "Men and women are exactly the same." Neither of which are remotely close to the points I, or anyone else in this thread complaining about sexism, have been arguing.


    The usual term is "straw man" (look it up on Wikipedia, it's actually quite a good article) but lucidfox is carefully avoiding any language which may brand her as sexist.

    Pfshlft.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-26 05:02
    Bob:
    Matt Westwood:
    onlyme:
    Matt Westwood:

    Er, um, ahem, you wanna go out? We can, er, go to the bookstore if you like, they've just got in some cool books on homomorphisms and group transformations in Galois structures ...


    Oh my God...are you me ? Évariste Galois is [one] of my favorite mathematicians.
    Seriously.


    Well, well. Seriously, mine too. Essential role-model for the youth of today.

    Sigh. One of the regular funny guys out there (if they're are any still watching this 3 days old thread) will be posting "Get a room" soon, brace yourself ...


    I was actually going to say : "And so - true love was born proving that even in times of adversity the power of love will prevail."

    But if I did that I'd just be an arsehole.


    Nah, mate, yer all right. A little levity is a relief at this point.
  • not Benny Hill 2011-08-26 06:08
    Benny Hill once said:

    "This world is run by and for women. You only need to look in a newsagents and you'll find rows and rows of magazines for women: titles like Woman's Own, Woman's Realm, Woman's World...

    There's only one magazine there for men. It's called Men Only... and even that's full of pictures of women..."
  • The Great Lobachevsky 2011-08-26 08:15
    onlyme:
    frits:
    The Great Lobachevsky:
    QJo:
    Actually, there *is* a subtle difference in certain dialectical variations.

    "mail" pronounced very slightly like "may-ill".
    "male" pronounced very slightly like "may-ull" or "may-all".

    But you have to be aurally sharp to be able to detect the difference.


    There's only a difference if you happen to talk like Paula Deen.


    I'm originally from the Philadelphia area, and I pronounce them slightly different. "Mail" sounds like "Ma-yull" and "male" sounds like it's spelled (no exaggerated diphthong).


    Spent five years in Philly ( women in IT shop ). For people who would always make fun of me for saying "y'all" , they really did pronounce things strangely.


    Well, I'm from Delaware County - guess that didn't make it out of the city limits :)

    Although I got into a fit of laughter with a coworker making fun of me about how I pronounce almond - AL-mond. He was like "How do you pronounce the last name of Gregg Allman then?"

    Words like egg, leg, etc also sound sorta funny when I say them compared to everyone else where I live.

    And to those of you in western NY, it is ele-men-tree, not ele-men-tarry. That drove me nuts when I lived there!
  • Severity One 2011-08-26 08:45
    lucidfox:
    Jay:
    For that matter, why is it that there even are "women's magazines" and "women's sections of the bookstore" and "women's TV stations".
    An interesting question indeed. Why?

    Because popular entertainment and mass media are shaped by social customs and preconceptions - and every day, people feel tremendous peer pressure to conform to these expectations, whether they make sense or not. It's easy for laypeople, and convenient for marketers and politicians, to break the human species into two extreme opposites and expect everything to make sense. Reality doesn't work that way.
    See, I don't buy this. This is presented without any corroboration, and we're just supposed to take it as an article of faith.

    Fact of the matter is that most men are better at parking a car than most women are. Most men are also better are crashing a car at high speed than most women are. That has nothing to do with peer pressure or anything, it's just statistics.

    Let's give another example. This is actually supported by research, and if I weren't at work and somewhat in a hurry, I'd even look up the link. Anyway, it's easy to assume that Fox makes people all right-wing and supporting the Republican Party, whereas in reality, people chose the media that best represents their preconceptions. If you think that taxes are too high and that criminals should be locked up for good (or worse), you're not going to read the Guardian. Similarly, if you're in favour of all sorts of intellectual stuff, international development and aid, that sort of thing, chances are you won't be picking up a copy of The Sun. (People unfamiliar with the British newspapers, replace by left-wing/right-wing, respectively.)

    So quoting some Oxford professor in The Guardian (by somebody else in a different posting) is not suddenly going to swing my opinion the other way, just as I wouldn't buy an article in a tabloid that claims that scientific research has shown that women don't know when (or indeed, how) to STFU.

    I found John Gray exceptionally tedious to read, especially since he presumes that his audience has the mental capacity of a ten-year-old. The book 'Why men don't listen and women can't read maps', by Allen and Barbara Pease, is a bit more fun to read, and it presents a fair list of references in the back. Whether you buy the claims is, obviously, a different issue.

    But also, people who criticise Gray and the Peases, have obviously not understood the point of these books. They're not there as some sort of scientific work: they're relationship books. Their point is not to do exhaustive scientific research, but to stop couples from fighting.

    From personal experience, I can attest that communication can be tricky. Both my wife and I have English as a second language. She's Maltese (English is an official language in Malta) and I'm Dutch (Dutch is the major language that is closest to English); yet we had to learn that we speak different kinds of English, which can easily lead to miscommunication.

    To come back to my original point: women magazines don't exist because of peer pressure and gender roles; women magazines exist because most women are actually interested in fashion, make-up, shoes, handbags and celebrities. Most men are interested in those things as well, but in a very different way: fashion if it's lingerie, make-up if it makes a woman look hotter, shoes if it's the only thing they're wearing (something that I've never understood anyway, this obsession with high heels), and celebrities if they take their clothes off.

    Stating that all of this is because of peer pressure, customs and preconceptions is just as brain-dead as assuming that it's because men and women are practically different species, whose brains work in entirely different ways. It disregards that humans are actually quite intelligent, and able to make their own choices.

    Now, there choices may or may not be influenced by either society or genes. I'm not going to go into that, because I'm not qualified, and I can't be arsed to look it up.
  • wtf 2011-08-26 09:12
    Anon:
    Inform thyself. Go here: http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination/#publications and read the one titled "The gender wage gap by occupation". The data's all from the US Census. Women's pay is at about 80% of men's, even when you break it down by occupation. It gets worse if you're not white. Programming is better than most, women are making a full 90% of the usual male wage. Yes, women are better represented in college right now, but it isn't doing them any good in the real world.


    Go stick your head in a pig. If women earn less, it's just because they perform worse. Uh, of course, it's all men's guilt, because these lusty hypocritical masochistic (in a way) bitches do nothing but think about men all day, ranging from “male chauvinist pigs” to getting horny from pondering their equipment, which in turn impairs their performance.

    Just do your job, bitches, and your pay will be OK. Oh, and some bad news for you: nobody cares about your fingernails or that you would break them. Or your eyelashes, or lipstick, no one is really giving a shit. So stop wasting your time on fixing your makeup and complaining about low pay, and get to work!
  • Todd Lewis 2011-08-26 09:57
    tom103:
    Are both words (male/mail) pronounced exactly the same? I'm not a native English speaker and my pronunciation isn't so good, so I'm not sure...


    Yes, they are. But then, in some parts of the U.S., "pen" and "pin" are pronounced identically. Mine, for instance.
  • Todd Lewis 2011-08-26 10:05
    Severity One:

    But also, people who criticise Gray and the Peases, have obviously not understood the point of these books. They're not there as some sort of scientific work: they're relationship books...


    Oh, so there's in the women's books section. Gotchya.
  • Jeff Grigg 2011-08-26 11:36
    A significant number of recruiters are female. And they pretty much all wear "wedding rings" -- even if single. Otherwise they would probably get far too many inappropriate offers.
  • Anon 2011-08-26 11:51
    wtf:
    Anon:
    Inform thyself. Go here: http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination/#publications and read the one titled "The gender wage gap by occupation". The data's all from the US Census. Women's pay is at about 80% of men's, even when you break it down by occupation. It gets worse if you're not white. Programming is better than most, women are making a full 90% of the usual male wage. Yes, women are better represented in college right now, but it isn't doing them any good in the real world.


    Go stick your head in a pig. If women earn less, it's just because they perform worse. Uh, of course, it's all men's guilt, because these lusty hypocritical masochistic (in a way) bitches do nothing but think about men all day, ranging from “male chauvinist pigs” to getting horny from pondering their equipment, which in turn impairs their performance.

    Just do your job, bitches, and your pay will be OK. Oh, and some bad news for you: nobody cares about your fingernails or that you would break them. Or your eyelashes, or lipstick, no one is really giving a shit. So stop wasting your time on fixing your makeup and complaining about low pay, and get to work!


    *points and giggles* Gotta be a little more subtle with your trolling if you expect anyone to bite.
  • SpockMOnster 2011-08-26 12:22
    You think English is easy???
    Read to the end . . a new twist

    1) The bandage was wound around the wound.

    2) The farm was used to produce produce.

    3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.

    4) We must polish the Polish furniture.

    5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.

    6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

    7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present

    8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.

    9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.

    10) I did not object to the object.

    11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.

    12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row...

    13) They were too close to the door to close it.

    14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.

    15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.

    16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.

    17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.

    18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.

    19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

    20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

    Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France . Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
    ******************
    You lovers of the English language might enjoy this .

    There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is 'UP'

    It's easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP ? At a meeting, why does a topic come UP ? Why do we speak UP and why are the officers UP for election and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report ?

    We call UP our friends. And we use it to brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver; we warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen. We lock UP the house and some guys fix UP the old car. At other times the little word has real special meaning. People stir UP trouble, line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.. To be dressed is one thing, but to be dressed UP is special.

    And this UP is confusing: A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP. We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night.

    We seem to be pretty mixed UP about UP. To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look the word UP in the dictionary. In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4th of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions. If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used. It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP, you may wind UP with a hundred or more. When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP .. When the sun comes out we say it is clearingUP ...

    When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things UP.

    When it doesn't rain for awhile, things dry UP.

    One could go on and on, but I'll wrap it UP , for now my time is UP , so........it is time to shut UP !

    Oh . . . one more thing:
    What is the first thing you do in the morning & the last thing you do at night?
    U-P
  • SpockMonster 2011-08-26 12:24
    How come when I reply, it doesn't go in as a reply to Medezark's question, but becomes a post of it's own?
  • Anon 2011-08-26 13:16
    DistantSuns:
    Finally my time came up and as the previous interviewers handed me off to her, I got a funny look from them. Something like the "you're in for it now." kind of grin. As I turned to introduce myself to her, or should I say "her." The deep voice and other characteristics suggested that our candidate didn't used to be a woman. So I interviewed her for about 45 minutes all the time thinking "wow, what a great Daily WTF Story!" As it turned out he or she was very sharp and probably would have easily picked up the skills that she didn't have. When finally we got together to discuss her, the others suggested that she was to high level for just being a coding jockey, as much more of a systems architect. Being a devout Christian, I surprised the others when I suggested that I could work with her but they were probably right about her being unqualified for just a coding role. So we passed. But it made for a very funny story to tell future generations.

    I work on a team with a transgender woman who happens to be a software developer. In the last year and a half, I've had nothing but positive experiences -- very sharp, polite, detailed knowledge systems she works on, sense of humor, interesting perspective on politics.

    There have been no complaints, no harassment, no sexist or anti-trans remarks made since she's been on the team.

    Including my managers and other teammates, she's a very valuable colleague, wouldn't trade her for anything.
  • neminem 2011-08-26 13:49
    SpockMOnster:
    There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is 'UP'

    I love phrasal verbs, and I won't argue they make English an interesting language, but I have to disagree with this specific statement. Well, given the relative paucity of two-letter verbs, it's quite possibly still true, but not for the reasons stated - most of those examples are, in fact, examples of phrasal verbs (which are cool). "Wrap up", "dry up", "mess up", "show up", "throw up", "shoot up", "pick up", "open up", "polish up", and so on, are all single verbs, not verbs with attached prepositions ("she threw up her dinner", vs. "she threw the pen up in the air").

    They're mostly fun because different roots can form *completely* different phrasal verbs. Throw up (your food), throw down (the gauntlet), throw in (the towel, or with an organization), throw out (the trash), throw on (some clothes, or a cd), throw off (the scent, or their game, or with no object, while playing some sort of ball game).

    And I'm surprised, incidentally, that copypasta didn't mention cargo. That one's been making the rounds for forever, but it still amuses me particularly (how you ship items by car (well, by truck), while if you send items by ship, it's cargo.)
  • Re-actor 2011-08-26 15:28
    SpockMonster:
    How come when I reply, it doesn't go in as a reply to Medezark's question, but becomes a post of it's own?

    It is linked to the OP. Check the upper right hand corner of the comment.

    Hit "quote" next time if you want to see the quoted text.
  • The Great Lobachevsky 2011-08-26 16:42
    That's why I loved SG:1 - we can't even speak english the same way on our planet, let alone having aliens halfway across the galaxy speak just like typical Americans lol
  • Tomas 2011-08-26 17:11
    Hotmail and Hotmale is not the same site, just a hint.
  • anonymous 2011-08-26 21:47
    Matt Westwood:
    lucidfox is carefully avoiding any language which may brand her as sexist.


    I have some news for you, lucidfox is just pretending to be a "she," but he's actually wielding a dick, is named Matthew and calls himself a lesbian because he's really straight but too shy to admit that.

    I don't really see how one can be more perverted than that.
  • lucidfox 2011-08-27 03:55
    Actually, dear anonymous, my name is Leon Trotsky Jr., and I'm a hermaphrodite and an agent for both the CIA and KGB at once.

    ...What do you mean the KGB doesn't exist anymore? That's just what they want you to think.
  • augue 2011-08-27 17:47
    lucidfox:
    Actually, dear anonymous, my name is Leon Trotsky Jr., and I'm a hermaphrodite and an agent for both the CIA and KGB at once.

    ...What do you mean the KGB doesn't exist anymore? That's just what they want you to think.

    Nice try Maia...
  • not michael palin 2011-08-28 05:19
    lucidfox:
    Actually, dear anonymous, my name is Leon Trotsky Jr., and I'm a hermaphrodite and an agent for both the CIA and KGB at once.


    but he wants to be...

    A LUMBERJACK !!!!!!
  • DD5 2011-08-29 01:13
    ... and this reminds me of that one guy who had heard about hotmail, but lacked both good English skills and common sense.

    He went on to enter

    www.hotmale.com

    Oops!
  • Severity One 2011-08-29 08:33
    SpockMOnster:
    You think English is easy???
    There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is 'UP'

    It's easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP ? At a meeting, why does a topic come UP ? Why do we speak UP and why are the officers UP for election and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report ?

    We call UP our friends. And we use it to brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver; we warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen. We lock UP the house and some guys fix UP the old car. At other times the little word has real special meaning. People stir UP trouble, line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.. To be dressed is one thing, but to be dressed UP is special.

    And this UP is confusing: A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP. We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night.

    We seem to be pretty mixed UP about UP. To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look the word UP in the dictionary. In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4th of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions. If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used. It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP, you may wind UP with a hundred or more. When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP .. When the sun comes out we say it is clearingUP ...

    When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things UP.

    When it doesn't rain for awhile, things dry UP.

    One could go on and on, but I'll wrap it UP , for now my time is UP , so........it is time to shut UP!
    I got the distinct impression that adding 'up' (and no, I don't mean 'adding up') to verbs is chiefly an American habit. I'd say I'd 'call' or 'ring' a person, not 'call up'. Same for a shop: it opens and closes, not 'opens up' or 'closes up'. And it clouds over, not up.

    One word, though, that I found to have a bewildering amount of meanings is 'bar', both as a verb and a noun. Most of them related to a long, rectangular piece of wood, but still.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-08-29 13:26
    Severity One:
    SpockMOnster:
    You think English is easy???
    There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is 'UP'

    It's easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP ? At a meeting, why does a topic come UP ? Why do we speak UP and why are the officers UP for election and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report ?

    We call UP our friends. And we use it to brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver; we warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen. We lock UP the house and some guys fix UP the old car. At other times the little word has real special meaning. People stir UP trouble, line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.. To be dressed is one thing, but to be dressed UP is special.

    And this UP is confusing: A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP. We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night.

    We seem to be pretty mixed UP about UP. To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look the word UP in the dictionary. In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4th of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions. If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used. It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP, you may wind UP with a hundred or more. When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP .. When the sun comes out we say it is clearingUP ...

    When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things UP.

    When it doesn't rain for awhile, things dry UP.

    One could go on and on, but I'll wrap it UP , for now my time is UP , so........it is time to shut UP!
    I got the distinct impression that adding 'up' (and no, I don't mean 'adding up') to verbs is chiefly an American habit. I'd say I'd 'call' or 'ring' a person, not 'call up'. Same for a shop: it opens and closes, not 'opens up' or 'closes up'. And it clouds over, not up.

    One word, though, that I found to have a bewildering amount of meanings is 'bar', both as a verb and a noun. Most of them related to a long, rectangular piece of wood, but still.


    Another good one is "set".
  • Derek 2011-08-29 22:13
    I was once doing phone support for a little old lady, she wanted a email service that she could use while on holiday.

    I told her, "just go to hotmail.com and setup and account."

    she went to "hotmale.com" and got the shock of her life :-)


  • CDave 2011-08-31 16:28
    Dani:
    Max:
    (with Eastern-European accent): in Soviet Russia The Service mails YOU!

    fail


    don't you mean fale?



    captcha: eros A little suspicious I think.
  • thinkagain 2011-08-31 18:53
    gross. sad. stop it.
  • anonymous 2011-09-01 07:06
    lucidfox:
    Actually, dear anonymous, my name is Leon Trotsky Jr., and I'm a hermaphrodite and an agent for both the CIA and KGB at once.


    Actually, Matt, you're a troll, liar, and male. Hello from LOR.
  • lucidfox 2011-09-01 22:26
    anonymous:
    Hello from LOR.


    Well, if you wanted to cement your site's reputation for being a bunch of dicks, you've succeeded all too well.
  • Laura 2011-10-15 21:54
    How disappointed... I wrote the second story but it was nothing like that, I guess it was rewritten to fit with the first one =(.

    I don't feel awkward or creeped out by my coworkers in any of my jobs, and I work as sysadmin, not as a dev. I'm good at what I do, my peers recognise that, and there is no need for me to invent a fake boyfriend.

    As per future stories... After the HUGE change suffered by the one I submitted, I'll find a different medium to share them.
  • Sam I am 2012-02-20 17:32
    I like the Male Services one.

    It's one of the few entries where the submitter isn't bashing on someone else.
  • Mijin 2012-06-01 10:17
    They are pronounced the same, but I would expect the emphasis to be different for those two (sort-of) phrases.

    "Mail services" I'd expect the emphasis to be on "mail", or no emphasis at all, unless we were already talking about mail <something>. So if someone emphasized "services" it would wrong-foot me.

    Comment to a zombie article, I know.
  • BetaPup1973 2012-12-04 20:08
    AS a female who has only ever worked in male dominated IT companies, its not OK to send creepy emails to girls that talk a lot about their boyfriends as that's how you end up with HR inviting you for a chat about sexual harassment, or driving the poor girl to turning into a savage creature that wants kill you, and tells all the other females that you are a pervert. This happened to an ex-colleague. When I said that needed time off, to look after my very real boyfriend as he had an op on his prostate. Suddenly it dawned on my colleagues that I might not be getting sex, and I was in demand as how could I turn down such a good looking bunch of guys (their mother's were terrible liars, and the wives must have married for money or its true love is blind). Well, one person who I nicked named Dr D_ckhead, suddenly started telling me that he was loaded and smart because he had a PhD, and could get my career to go in the direction I wanted. The condition was that I sneaked off with him on seedy B&B’s and worked late in a variety of pubs. The day-to-day invites, endless emails and texts, did indeed turn me into a savage creature who could hear his voice at least one hundred feet away and wanted to rip him to shreds like some Staffy with Squirrel. I was rude, short tempered and volatile in his company but it didn't stop him. Until one day, he decided that I was a crazy anorexic and made an idle threat at me. It was then discovered that he had been doing the same to another colleague who was ten years old my senior and married, but up'd the stakes with her. It was champagne, chocolates and business trips away to the Hilton. Well, as soon as we found out about one another, it was common knowledge around the account that Dr D_ckhead was a dirty old man. All the females were warned not to sit near him or stay in the same hotel, and under no circumstances get in a car alone with him. Apart for making me mentally unhinged it also gave me very real health problems, so what might be deemed as a ‘bit of a laugh’ is no laughing matter for the person on the receiving end. It could also cost you your job, I did not report Dr D_ckhead, but if I could go back in time, I would, as I fear that he is probably still behaving in the same way towards anything remotely female.