• Herp (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    Yes I DO understand those words. It still works that way today (see my post above), albeit to a much lesser degree.

    Since folks seem to be having trouble, let me explain the phrase "right or wrong": regardless of the in/correctness of that behavior (for the record, I personally think it's absolutely inappropriate), I was simply stating that this was the way (some) folks behaved. Should they? No. Do they? In the past: flagrantly. Today: much less so.

    I would like to politely suggest that you edit your story to be more clear on the intended meaning. There is clearly a lot of ambiguity in the way it was written that distances the statement from its intended meaning. Most importantly though, it is offending a lot of people (and rightfully so).

    It's ok to make a mistake but please at least take action in remedying the issue. Especially when you acknowledge that there is a misunderstanding.

    Captcha: quibus: Minor mistakes in phrasing can get you thrown under the quibus.

  • (cs) in reply to Corinne

    Yeah, uh. I don't see where this article has anything to do with "curious perversions in information technology." Curious perversions, to be sure, but this is really out-of-place here.

  • Mike L (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    "Right or wrong" does not mean it was ever considered "right". The phrase simply means it was true regardless of rightness or wrongness - it just was. I sincerely doubt that the author holds or has ever held the view that sexual objectification is now or ever has been right.

    But yeah, overall the story seems odd somehow.

  • (cs)

    [Argh, Tale beat me to it, but I'm going to post anyways!]

    "...but how many times have each of us simply kept replying to an email, long after the conversation has changed from the original subject matter?"

    Without snipping? Never. But then I was raised on USENET and not on corporate email.

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    I agree that Corinne misunderstands what the OP said, but over and above that, I'd say that the group most guilty of objectifying women is women. Get off your high horses and stop sending mixed messages you goddamn hypocrites! Maybe the jokes wouldn't sting so much if there wasn't so much truth in them.

  • (cs)

    To play the Devil's Advocate, a lot of so-called sexism is unfounded BS. Look at a period show like Mad Men, and how women are portrayed in that. You still got the occasional "Get back in the kitchen, bitch" type of douchebag but most of the so-called sexism is very subtle and not anything like the picture many people paint of a group of powerful men leering over some poor helpless woman, ready to rape.

    That said though, a lot of this equality crap really means "I want special treatment". Same with minorities; they spout all this horseshit about equal rights, but what they REALLY want is special rights above equality, typically accompanied by some sob story about 100+ years of oppression as the justification for said special treatment.

  • (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    eViLegion:
    Basically, there is no such thing as good and evil, and anyone who makes statements to the contrary is just daft.

    There is also no such thing as daft.

    It depends on what your definition of 'is' is...

    And askimet be damned, there is no such thing as such.

  • Tale (unregistered) in reply to Pawprint
    Pawprint:
    "...but how many times have each of us simply kept replying to an email, long after the conversation has changed from the original subject matter?"

    Without snipping? Never. But then I was raised on USENET and not on corporate email.

    Hooray! One of us! One of us!

  • J (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    Tell you what guys.

    Concentrate on the specific examples, that were suggested light heartedly (lord boffing serfs wife, and cavemen raping cavewomen... I could have just as easily suggested stoning-people-to-death-for-adultery and shooting Scotsmen in the vicinity of various English towns), and ignore the substance of the argument, which still stands, eh?

    Basically, there is no such thing as good and evil, and anyone who makes statements to the contrary is just daft.

    The concepts of good and evil tend to assume free will, and anyway are irrelevant.

    An act is morally wrong if we can say that a large number of people would be better off overall if no one committed the act, and no one would be significantly worse off.

    I think it is self evident that murder fits that description. Sexism is a little less obvious, but I think a convincing argument can certainly be made. And that argument would apply equally to any time period. It does not matter whether the people of the time were aware of it.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to J

    [quote user="J"]

    The concepts of good and evil tend to assume free will, and anyway are irrelevant.

    [quote] An act is morally wrong if we can say that a large number of people would be better off overall if no one committed the act, and no one would be significantly worse off. [/quote]

    So, eating meat would be morally wrong in your view? I think it's widely accepted that

    1. meat is not required for an ordinary human diet (this is confirmed by centuries in which meat was not available to the classes of society who did the heaviest work)
    2. the protein requirements that meat satisfies can be far more efficiently met with plant protein (less water usage, less degradation of topsoil,
    3. heavy consumption (ie, American-level consumption) of meat is associated with all sorts of non-trivial negative health effects, obesity being only the most obvious.

    Obviously many people will dispute these claims: rather than sidetracking into them, let's suppose you stipulate them. If you were to accept these claims, does your argument mean meat eating is morally wrong? I find this unconvincing, personally.

    [quote] I think it is self evident that murder fits that description.[/quote]

    The word "murder" presupposes an unjust killing, doesn't it? A killing that is not unjust is not murder - so by using the word "murder" we're sort of sneaking in the judgement ahead of time.

    [quote] And that argument would apply equally to any time period. It does not matter whether the people of the time were aware of it.[/quote]

    Regardless of whether we end up agreeing on your argument itself, this is certainly true if your argument is true.

  • J (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    The word "murder" presupposes an unjust killing, doesn't it? A killing that is not unjust is not murder - so by using the word "murder" we're sort of sneaking in the judgement ahead of time.

    I suppose you're right. But if I had said "homicide" or just "killing other people," would it be any less obvious? Everyone would be safer if no one ever killed each other for any reason.

    trtrwtf:
    So, eating meat would be morally wrong in your view?

    No, but I think its morality is much more open to debate than murder or sexism.

    trtrwtf:
    Obviously many people will dispute these claims: rather than sidetracking into them, let's suppose you stipulate them. If you were to accept these claims, does your argument mean meat eating is morally wrong?

    Talk about presupposition. But no, I don't think I would necessarily have to conclude that eating meat is morally wrong even if I stipulate to all of those claims. There are other things to consider. (Not least among them is how delicious it is.)

    I realize my argument was oversimplified, but I think I made my point.

  • (cs)

    "Men behaved savagely"

    If political correctness was worth a pile of steaming coffee cups, wouldn't this statement be sexist as well. I mean, assuming all men were sexist, would be sexist right?

    I don't find my lack of sexism to be fueled by the continual onslaught of "men aren't worth anything" feminism. It's just gentlemen-ship and common decency taught by my father and mother, that cause me to treat women right.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Pawprint
    Pawprint:
    "...but how many times have each of us simply kept replying to an email, long after the conversation has changed from the original subject matter?"

    Without snipping? Never. But then I was raised on USENET and not on corporate email.

    I currently am having back and forth E-mails with a client to discuss new features and nail down requirements. I'm sending him plain text mail from Mutt, which seems to provoke his user agent (probably Microsoft something) into plain text mode. He was quite confused when he couldn't figure out how to "style" his response. His usual practice is to interleave his responses, highlighting his responses in red, with the quoted E-mail ... unquoted. Since he couldn't do this he started replying to me in ALL CAPS because it was the only thing that he could think of to make his responses stand out. I just facepalmed at first, but as the conversation goes on I can't tell if he's upset or not... It should be noted that to the best of my knowledge this "client" is himself a developer...

    To the rest of you, if this could be you then shame on you!

  • (cs) in reply to Torben
    Torben:
    snoofle:
    It is completely sexist and degrading. However, 25 years ago, that's the way it was in many big financial institutions. Was it right? Of course not. But denying historical facts doesn't change them. Numerous lawsuits were filed. Huge fines were levied. Officially, policies were changed.

    Ok, so why did you use the phrase "right or wrong" while saying it is the way the finance sector currently works? Do you understand what you are implying with your choice of words?

    He's implied that "As unfair as it was, the industry was full of these double standards. Right or wrong, these events took place."

    In no way does the phrase "right or wrong" imply the following events were right.

    The only way that phrase would imply anything is if it's accompanied with a gesture that suggested lack of empathy. And even then, it only implies a lack of empathy, not a justification.

    I think you're injected a tone to the text that isn't there. And you're actually offended because you've associated the phrase with a lack of empathy.

    You're offended because you feel the OP is not concerned that the events that took place were wrong.

  • (cs)

    So pass on even interviewing a potential candidate because the broker made a simply email forwarding mistake, or because you didn't like the content?

    Great job punishing the candidate for a situation they didn't have control over.

    What's worse is that you didn't have to guts to email the candidate explaining that you made such a biased decision on a variable they had no control over, so they could avoid offending other jerks like yourself.

    Maybe, when that candidate is hired by your competitor and they gain a marketshare lead and your pay is cut, you might regret it?

  • (cs) in reply to Herp
    Herp:
    snoofle:
    Yes I DO understand those words. It still works that way today (see my post above), albeit to a much lesser degree.

    Since folks seem to be having trouble, let me explain the phrase "right or wrong": regardless of the in/correctness of that behavior (for the record, I personally think it's absolutely inappropriate), I was simply stating that this was the way (some) folks behaved. Should they? No. Do they? In the past: flagrantly. Today: much less so.

    I would like to politely suggest that you edit your story to be more clear on the intended meaning. There is clearly a lot of ambiguity in the way it was written that distances the statement from its intended meaning. Most importantly though, it is offending a lot of people (and rightfully so).

    It's ok to make a mistake but please at least take action in remedying the issue. Especially when you acknowledge that there is a misunderstanding.

    Captcha: quibus: Minor mistakes in phrasing can get you thrown under the quibus.

    There is no meaning to "right or wrong" other than, the following article occurred regardless of it's moral value.

    To assume anything is a fault of the reader being overly sensitive to an emotional issue they have of their own fault.

    In other words. "Please disregard the moral nature of the following story and focus on the carelessness of the email chain"

    Sexism is just an object easily replaced by some other disgusting trait in this story. Don't get hooked on discussing sexism. The email could have talked about how often the broker picks his nose.

    And that's exactly what we did, get hooked on sexism, ignoring the actual issue in the story.

    Here's another example.

    Right or wrong, the amount of abortions that occur without a emergent medical need or from pregnancies caused by crime is in the majority. In fact the percentage is always within the 90s. Therefore, arguing for the procedure on account of crime or emergency, is not relevant unless the procedure is restricted to such cases.

    See what I did there. I don't have to clarify my opinion on whether the issue is right or wrong. I get past the discussion on morality and move to the topic I wish to discuss. That the debate is straw-manned by including statistically rare cases to create empathy in efforts to support the general use.

  • Chris (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    It's ridiculous that, this is the part of the article that you picked up on. I am sorry, but at one time women were not even considered people, and it was considered right to treat women this way. Yes times have changed, but get over it. Stop running, and being offended by history and what's happened in the past. Lets remember it, acknowledge that we were wrong and move on.

  • J (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    "Men behaved savagely" I mean, assuming all men were sexist, would be sexist right?

    But it doesn't say "all men," does it? It could just as easily mean "some men," which is surely true. And anyway, it rings of hyperbole.

  • mr a (unregistered)

    After reading all these remarkably offended and offensive comments I'd like to ask you all to shut up now, wipe the spit from your monitors and get back to work.

    I got the story. The failure to remove the email cruft meant we got to see the actual character of the person.

    If I read that, there is no way I'd have considered them for a job. I've no wish to work with ignorant, arrogant, misogynistic pricks like that...

    Can you all call me a Nazi now?

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to J
    J:
    I suppose you're right. But if I had said "homicide" or just "killing other people," would it be any less obvious? Everyone would be safer if no one ever killed each other for any reason.

    That may well be true, depending on how many people constitute "a large number".

    trtrwtf:
    Obviously many people will dispute these claims: rather than sidetracking into them, let's suppose you stipulate them. If you were to accept these claims, does your argument mean meat eating is morally wrong?

    Talk about presupposition. But no, I don't think I would necessarily have to conclude that eating meat is morally wrong even if I stipulate to all of those claims. There are other things to consider.

    Well, no, not talking about presupposition. Stipulation. You don't have to concede a point to stipulate it, that's what the word means.

    But it seems to me that those three points, if we decided they were true, would more or less establish that "a large number of people would be better off overall if no one committed the act of eating meat, and no one would be significantly worse off."

    What other considerations would you want to bring in?

    (Not least among them is how delicious it is.)

    We might have to re-work your argument to fit this in. Do you want an exception for "in case it's tasty"?

    I realize my argument was oversimplified, but I think I made my point.

    Your argument is interesting, that's why I want to work through it.

  • (cs) in reply to mr a
    mr a:
    After reading all these remarkably offended and offensive comments I'd like to ask you all to shut up now, wipe the spit from your monitors and get back to work.

    I got the story. The failure to remove the email cruft meant we got to see the actual character of the person.

    If I read that, there is no way I'd have considered them for a job. I've no wish to work with ignorant, arrogant, misogynistic pricks like that...

    Can you all call me a Nazi now?

    I've known Nazis. I've worked with Nazis. Nazis have been among my friends. And you, sir, are no Nazi.
  • Anonx (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    First, I took "right or wrong" to mean that "of the practices carried on back in the day, right or wrong, that is how they worked".

    Second, to pretend that modern sensibilities are so OBVIOUSLY correct and pure is ludicrously arrogant. Our ancestors weren't villains because they had different values- they were in a different time.

    Third, a lot of the "treating women as sexual objects" is a very recent take on events- a very new way of interpreting things, and one that, at the time, might have been disputed by all involved.

  • Sam I am (unregistered)

    I love how all the content in the "extra stuff" of the email is super-abstract, and how it is only hinted at that the emails might have been misogynist for no other reason than that the author said some things about misogyny earlier in the paragraph for apparently no other reason.

  • J (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    What other considerations would you want to bring in?

    Well, for one:

    (Not least among them is how delicious it is.)

    We might have to re-work your argument to fit this in. Do you want an exception for "in case it's tasty"?

    Although this was said partly in jest, I do think aesthetics and ecstasy are valid considerations when determining who is "better off."

  • Ian Tester (unregistered)

    TRWTF is bottom-quoting in email. If everyone used top-quoting, they would quickly see this sort of crap and at least think about removing it before replying.

  • (cs) in reply to Ian Tester
    Ian Tester:
    TRWTF is bottom-quoting in email. If everyone used top-quoting, they would quickly see this sort of crap and at least think about removing it before replying.

    They would just hit the End key, or Ctrl + End, and wouldn't see it.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to J
    J:
    Although this was said partly in jest, I do think aesthetics and ecstasy are valid considerations when determining who is "better off."

    The Aztecs might have felt their human sacrifices were beautiful and brought many many people to a pitch of ecstasy at the cost of a single human life. Does this justify them?

  • (cs) in reply to Nagesh
    Nagesh:
    It is quite amazing to me as Indian programmer that you have such little things to talk about.
    Shouldn't you be more concerned with why you're poisoning your kids at lunch?
  • Jeff (unregistered)

    I once put forward as a candidate someone I know from a developers forum and the department manager set up a telephone interview after checking out the guys profile. Unfortunately they had a few moments before the meeting to Google his name. The picture of him swinging a large sword round his head and graphic description of his non-vanilla sexual interests resulted in termination of the interview before it started!

  • (cs) in reply to mr a
    mr a:
    After reading all these remarkably offended and offensive comments I'd like to ask you all to shut up now, wipe the spit from your monitors and get back to work.

    I got the story. The failure to remove the email cruft meant we got to see the actual character of the person.

    If I read that, there is no way I'd have considered them for a job. I've no wish to work with ignorant, arrogant, misogynistic pricks like that...

    Can you all call me a Nazi now?

    No, you just don't want to work with an alpha male as it offends your wimpish sexless nature to know there are men in the world who get off on sexual intercourse and are unashamed to discuss their holidays with their buddies.

    You have no justification for calling the person in question "ignorant, arrogant, misogynistic" when you've got no knowledge of the actual content of the email.

    Have you never had a sexual encounter and then not wanted to tell someone about it?

    Ah, there's the rub: have you never had a sexual encounter?

    Oh, and this is not being sexist - women do the same thing. I know this because it was my telephone she used to brag to all her mates when I got up early the next day to go out for croissants and a fresh cucumber.

  • (cs) in reply to Jeff
    Jeff:
    I once put forward as a candidate someone I know from a developers forum and the department manager set up a telephone interview after checking out the guys profile. Unfortunately they had a few moments before the meeting to Google his name. The picture of him swinging a large sword round his head and graphic description of his non-vanilla sexual interests resulted in termination of the interview before it started!

    Isn't that tantamount to sexual discrimination? And what if they just happened to get the webpage of a different guy with the same name?

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    We all hate politics so the notion that "political correctness" is actually the correct way to act is a false pretense. On top of that, there's nothing wrong with offending people. As a matter of fact, there's a lot right with it. A lot of people are easily offended, or offended by nonsense, and the only way to enlighten them is to crack their shell. We don't live in a misogynistic society anymore. Now we live in a misandristic society, and society is ignorant of it. To the point that spell checkers don't even recognize the word "misandry". You'd think women would quit while they're ahead, but I'd personally rather see a natural balance restored... Maybe then children could grow up in real families again. Fuck "Feminism" and fuck political correctness. Most of all, fuck women (that consent to it, of course).

  • (cs)

    We live in a world where the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) exists, but not a National Association for the Equality of All People.

  • Ken (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion

    Did you just say we could "twat" other people on the head? Talk about offensive...

  • Herp (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    See what I did there. I don't have to clarify my opinion on whether the issue is right or wrong. I get past the discussion on morality and move to the topic I wish to discuss. That the debate is straw-manned by including statistically rare cases to create empathy in efforts to support the general use.

    I do see what you did there but I don't think the controversy surrounding abortion is comparable to the "controversy" around whether misogyny is acceptable. Therefore, in my opinion, your analogy does not apply.

    But let me rephrase my actual point (because clearly I did not articulate it as well as I could). I think that the very fact that there are even people bitching about that one line shows that there is a problem with the wording (whether on the authors error or otherwise, doesn't matter). And I think that the entire BS conversation could be circumvented entirely by editing the article to be even more clear about the author's actual intention. Hence my suggestion to edit the article to get people to shut up about it.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to chubertdev
    chubertdev:
    We live in a world where the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) exists, but not a National Association for the Equality of All People.

    "Oh, look, there are people working to end discrimination... doesn't that mean they've all got it in for the white man?"

    No. No it doesn't. Sorry, but just... no.

    Also, the existence of the MIT Model Railroad Club doesn't imply that the model airplane fanciers at MIT are being oppressed.

  • (cs) in reply to Herp
    Herp:
    xaade:
    See what I did there. I don't have to clarify my opinion on whether the issue is right or wrong. I get past the discussion on morality and move to the topic I wish to discuss. That the debate is straw-manned by including statistically rare cases to create empathy in efforts to support the general use.

    I do see what you did there but I don't think the controversy surrounding abortion is comparable to the "controversy" around whether misogyny is acceptable. Therefore, in my opinion, your analogy does not apply.

    But let me rephrase my actual point (because clearly I did not articulate it as well as I could). I think that the very fact that there are even people bitching about that one line shows that there is a problem with the wording (whether on the authors error or otherwise, doesn't matter). And I think that the entire BS conversation could be circumvented entirely by editing the article to be even more clear about the author's actual intention. Hence my suggestion to edit the article to get people to shut up about it.

    But then, you see, the terrorists win.

  • Herp (unregistered) in reply to Snooder
    Snooder:
    But then, you see, the terrorists win.

    Can't argue with that.

    Captcha: Appellatio: When the tie-wearing folks in your company suddenly decide to require all employees to use Macs.

  • (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    chubertdev:
    We live in a world where the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) exists, but not a National Association for the Equality of All People.

    "Oh, look, there are people working to end discrimination... doesn't that mean they've all got it in for the white man?"

    No. No it doesn't. Sorry, but just... no.

    Also, the existence of the MIT Model Railroad Club doesn't imply that the model airplane fanciers at MIT are being oppressed.

    I'll go create the MIT Model Airplane Club, you can go create the National Association for the Advancement of White People.

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion

    I love this reply.

  • (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    chubertdev:
    We live in a world where the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) exists, but not a National Association for the Equality of All People.

    "Oh, look, there are people working to end discrimination... doesn't that mean they've all got it in for the white man?"

    No. No it doesn't. Sorry, but just... no.

    Also, the existence of the MIT Model Railroad Club doesn't imply that the model airplane fanciers at MIT are being oppressed.

    Ah but be careful, it may just independently happen to be that the model airplane fanciers are being oppressed. While the mere existence of NAACP doesn't imply discrimination against whites, it doesn't imply otherwise either.

    It so happens, IMHO, that a lot of minority organizations have long lost sight of what they were after, and are now chasing some utopian super-inequality, where just because you're not white you get special treatment that would have only made sense 100+ years ago.

    The pro-diversity programs of most sorts, for example, are completely and utterly braindead in their very idea, never mind execution.

  • grammarian (unregistered)

    discrete: Individually separate and distinct. discreet: Intentionally unobtrusive.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Herp
    Herp:
    I think that the very fact that there are even people bitching about that one line shows that there is a problem with the wording (whether on the authors error or otherwise, doesn't matter).
    That would imply that the Bible is wrong, that the Quran is wrong, that every scientific journal ever written is wrong, ad infinitum. The fact that people bitch about something does not imply that there's anything wrong with it (albeit, in my former two examples, the implication is there for different reasons). If anything, freedom of speech exists for just such an occasion so that even though people find it needlessly offensive you are free to say it. The whole point of writing is to provoke a reaction. If the authors of TDWTF don't provoke a reaction then they're wasting their time and effort. Admittedly, it may have gotten the wrong

    Notably, the OP doesn't even go into detail about what exactly he's talking about so there's a LOT of room for your imagination to fill in the most innocent or fiendish thing that you want. There's plenty of room for "right or wrong" in there.

    Regarding "curious perversions in information technology", vacation memories are information, and "electronic-mail" is technology. It's a perfectly legitimate post. Not least of all because of how many so called "programmers"/"developers"/"engineers" blatantly violate netiquette when it comes to E-mail. That's far more offensive than any alleged sexism.

    Herp:
    And I think that the entire BS conversation could be circumvented entirely by editing the article to be even more clear about the author's actual intention. Hence my suggestion to edit the article to get people to shut up about it.
    The conversation isn't BS. It's enthusiastic. Nobody is participating because they don't want to be. The people here want to express their opinions and views, and this thread gives us all the opportunity to do so. In my experience, these are the most fun and engaging threads to participate in. It's exciting to be a part of.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Admittedly, it may have gotten the wrong...

    Errr, it may have provoked the wrong reaction, but this one is far more fun and thought-provoking, in particular because all of you fucking Windows slobs are far too careless to appreciate netiquette so any efforts to train you monkeys would go unfulfilled.

  • Ryan (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    +1

  • (cs) in reply to some pony
    some pony:
    "Right or wrong, [restofsentence]" to my knowledge means 'the morality of this subject is not relevant to the rest of the story', and I don't think that sentence was meant as a covert method of approve of chauvinistic behaviour, rather to show that however wrong this behaviour may be; it is status quo where this story takes place.

    Not quite. "Right or wrong" does imply that the morality of the subject isn't relevant to what follows, but it also implies that the author doesn't want to debate the morality of it either, which implies that it might be debatable.

    Imagine you are dealing with the fallout of a bad decision at work, e.g. a decision to ship a product that the company knew was buggy. You convene your team around a table to form a plan to deal with the fallout. If somebody in the room keeps rehashing what a stupid decision it was to ship it, you might get pissed because -- although arguably true -- that viewpoint doesn't help you solve your immediate problems.

    In this case, you might say, "right or wrong, it's already done; now we need to figure out how to recover."

    See??

    Of course I think we're all over-analyzing the shit out of something that snoofle probably wrote rather quickly and didn't give much thought to the implications of that phrase.

  • ThomasX (unregistered) in reply to Corinne
    Corinne:
    Not only is this story boring and weird, but the suggestion that treating women as sexual objects in the workplace could ever possibly be "right" is super offensive.

    Agreed. Let's treat them as (human) resource instead.

  • Harry Ape (unregistered) in reply to Corinne
    Corinne:
    "Right or wrong, it's just the way the business side has always been in large financial firms."

    Not only is this story boring and weird, but the suggestion that treating women as sexual objects in the workplace could ever possibly be "right" is super offensive.

    Right. I believed that when I was a child. When I got older, I found out that only a minority of women believed it, and none of them married men who believed it.

    I still don't treat women as sexual objects in the workplace, but that's because I don't give a damn. If I actually gave a damn what PC misandrysts thought, I'd go back to treating them like women, instead of treating all people as equal.

  • djeidot (unregistered) in reply to No name
    No name:
    Just FYI, as a programmer you should know that the fact that something is "right or wrong" does not imply that it is even "ever possibly right". The statement "3 is an even number" is right or wrong, it is never possibly right. (Possible having the only sensible meaning provided by modal logics: in some worlds/under some circumstances.)

    As a programmer, you should know that you can easily redefine the word "even" to mean something like "less than 5" which would make the statement right. Nothing is ever entirely right or wrong.

  • Osmood (unregistered)

    Of course its offensive that women or men are treated as objects in the workplace --- but it wasn't meant to be in the OP. ....and we've drawn a PC troll out from under the bridge.

Leave a comment on “A Questionable New Hire”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article