• G (unregistered)

    TRWTF is Chris here

  • (cs)

    I don't get it. So he was asked to interview someone, but reading the previous messages the candidate and a broker were talking about NSFW things but unrelated to finances, so he passed on even interviewing the guy because the broker was talking about "seedy" things in a work email?

  • David (unregistered) in reply to G

    Agreed - the candidate may be lucky not to have to work for Chris whose judgement is suspect. So the CTO is a douche. He didn't know this before? Will the next candidate be better because... well... why? The CTO didn't recommend that one?

    This piece is full of FAIL but it's not the FAIL the OP seems to think.

  • Corinne (unregistered)

    "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.

  • (cs) 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.

    No it isn't.

    Or, at least, if you think it is offensive then you're getting angry about the state of history, when the general consensus WAS different. To be offended about a historical cultural difference is a preposterous way to live your life.

    Way back in the day, in some places, it was considered acceptable for the local lord to shag the newly wed wife of one of his subjects. Now, no-one is suggesting that is acceptable today, but should you be super offended by some medieval shit that used to go down?

    How about back when we had no language, but we did have bone clubs with which we could twat other proto-humans on the head with, so we could drag them back to our cave for an evening of pleasant raping. Is that offensive?

  • Torben (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    More precisely it is sexist and demeaning to women. If snoofle and other readers here do not know what it is, they should read more at www.everydaysexism.com .

  • Paulw (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    Completely agree with Corinne. I've worked in finance for 15 years (in the UK) and this sort of attitude would get you fired rapidly. Also, to nitpick, I expect you mean "discreetly" rather than "discretely".

  • Cujo (unregistered)

    If this was a woman candidate (and CTO) and she wrote about her "adventures" on a trip, would it be considered OK?

    PS: (Stop slobbering, geeks!)

  • Torben (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    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.

    No it isn't.

    Or, at least, if you think it is offensive then you're getting angry about the state of history, when the general consensus WAS different. To be offended about a historical cultural difference is a preposterous way to live your life.

    Sorry, but you are COMPLETELY missing the point.

    She was not getting angry about the state of the history. She got angry because the author STILL today suggested that it could have been right back then.

    Let me help you with an example (and don't you dare suggest that I am playing the Hitler card here). Consider the following phrase "Nazis murdered millions of jews. Right or wrong, it was just how it was back then."

  • (cs) in reply to Torben
    Torben:
    eViLegion:
    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.

    No it isn't.

    Or, at least, if you think it is offensive then you're getting angry about the state of history, when the general consensus WAS different. To be offended about a historical cultural difference is a preposterous way to live your life.

    Sorry, but you are COMPLETELY missing the point.

    She was not getting angry about the state of the history. She got angry because the author STILL today suggested that it could have been right back then.

    Let me help you with an example (and don't you dare suggest that I am playing the Hitler card here). Consider the following phrase "Nazis murdered millions of jews. Right or wrong, it was just how it was back then."

    i think you are missing the point of godwin's law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

  • (cs) in reply to Torben
    Torben:
    More precisely it is sexist and demeaning to women. If snoofle and other readers here do not know what it is, they should read more at www.everydaysexism.com .
    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.

    In practice, the flagrant stuff stopped. These days it's more under-the-table (no pun intended).

  • (cs) in reply to Torben
    Torben:
    Sorry, but you are COMPLETELY missing the point.

    She was not getting angry about the state of the history. She got angry because the author STILL today suggested that it could have been right back then.

    Let me help you with an example (and don't you dare suggest that I am playing the Hitler card here). Consider the following phrase "Nazis murdered millions of jews. Right or wrong, it was just how it was back then."

    I think it's you who is missing the point.

    The holocaust was not widely considered to be acceptable even back then, which is why we had the Nuremburg trials, to deal with it.

    However, it WAS widely considered acceptable to be sexist in the work place, it WAS widely considered acceptable for the lord to bonk his subjects missus, and it WAS widely considered to be acceptable for cavemen to rape the shit out of whatever they wanted to rape.

    To be offended by the actions of a man who was only acting how his society told him to act is just stupid. This is a commonly understood principle in historical research; you don't apply the current (and transient) viewpoints of today to a historical situation that was different, because you can only end up with erroneous conclusions that don't take into account how people actually thought at that time.

    Since "right" and "wrong" are only opinions... and the people alive today were not alive at that time, then "right" and "wrong" can only be defined by the consensus of the time. Therefore, it WAS right back then, however wrong it is now.

  • Torben (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    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?

  • (cs) in reply to Cujo
    Cujo:
    If this was a woman candidate (and CTO) and she wrote about her "adventures" on a trip, would it be considered OK?
    Would definitely invite her to an adventerous interview :)
  • Torben (unregistered) in reply to tchize
    tchize:
    Cujo:
    If this was a woman candidate (and CTO) and she wrote about her "adventures" on a trip, would it be considered OK?
    Would definitely invite her to an adventerous interview :)

    Why are you assuming she would be interested in you?

  • katastrofa (unregistered)
    Right or wrong, it's just the way the business side has always been in large financial firms.

    It isn't, and hasn't been for a long time.

  • some pony (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    I am sorry to say this; but I think there will be a few people who'd disagree with you. "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.

    And whilst I agree this world would be a better place if said behaviour does not exist, sadly, we do not live in such a world. In fact, we live in a world where america spends about $4 billion per year (or 500 million or 10 billion, depending who you ask) on videos objectifying woman. An entire industry apparently specialises in this super offensive activity; which is why I am saddened you felt an apparent need to shame this piece for such chauvinistic behaviour when the author is describing a situation taking at such a location

  • (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.
    Exactly. I was in no way approving of that sort of behavior. IMHO it is, was and always will be wrong. It's just that it's the way it WAS at the time. Sadly, although it's way less obvious, that sort of thing DOES still happen today, although far less frequently (I personally witnessed someone get fired for grabbing a woman - in the VERY recent past).
  • (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?

    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.

  • (cs)

    I've got to agree with the posters above. It's silly not to invite a what he himself calls a "potentially decent candidate" because of something that's out of his power. If he had said anything that would reflect a lazy personality or something else that would reflect on what he would do at work, fair enough. But he only described a course of events that happened in his own personal time. Whatever he does on holiday should have no bearing on how he performs at work and not inviting someone you previously thought was worth the time of interviewing him simply because of him enjoying his time off and telling a friend all about it is moronic.

    If anything, I'd fire the broker instead because he clearly does not have enough professionalism to do his job.

    Also:

    It's equally obvious the CTO just read the top paragraph and forwarded it on.
    Is it? I don't know the guy but maybe he simply doesn't care what someone does on his time off? You know, like a proper boss?

  • Torben (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    Exactly. I was in no way approving of that sort of behavior.

    How is this so difficult to understand? You WERE approving it! Let me help you with examples again:

    "Right or wrong, it's just the way the business side has always been in large financial firms."

    vs.

    "While completely sexist, it's was the way the business side was in large financial firms."

    You could have condemned it explicitely or not comment about it at all but instead you directly implied that such behavior may still be Ok.

    You do notice that you did not use the past tense in the sentence, do you?

  • cooper the ttyfscker (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.

    As someone who is "that guy" that makes inappropriate jokes in the office (although only to people I'm on that level of familiarity with), I still agree with you completely. No one should ever say that objectification is even possibly right in the workplace, unless that workplace is a website for fetishists into objectification.

    Also, as for weird and boring... tDWTF has been going way downhill for a while. Alex and Remy are the only ones good at blue posts. It's gotten so bad, I don't even have this site on any of my feeds anymore and only come here when I think about it.

  • Anonymous Will (unregistered) in reply to some pony

    Objectification, unlike beauty, is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the mind of the beholdee. Porn actresses are actresses, playing a role and paid for it, just like porn actors. And prostitutes are professionals who get paid to perform a service.

    Moreover, by saying "objectifying woman", you imply women are a single entity rather than diverse individuals, which is much more objectifying than porn.

  • (cs)

    Everyone's missed an important point.

    "Right or wrong, X" almost always implies that, if not deeply wrong, X is almost certainly not right, but as pointed out above, that right/wrong nature is at most loosely relevant to the discussion at hand.

    In other words, you could say that the whole sentence should probably be left out in the overly offensensitive(*) world of today. And it doesn't matter what X is, either.

    (*) Apologies to Bloom County for this. Go look it up.

  • Smug Unix User (unregistered)

    Perhaps these little stories could go back to containing references to horrible code and relevant IT anecdotes.

  • No name (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.

    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.)

  • anonymous (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.

    It's called "irony", and it's a clever way to mock a set of people by tongue-in-cheek agreeing with them.

    It's funny to those who recognise the disparaging undertone, because the people being mocked don't realise they're actually the butt of the joke. It's also funny when it successfully trolls an offended response out of someone... so, thanks!

  • someguy (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    thx corinne! same thought here

  • (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?

    Whether such behaviour is sexist and/or degrading is beside the point. The OP was presenting a morally-non-judgmental tone, which can be argued as being entirely appropriate.

  • Fandango (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    Come on, chill out with the butthurt. "Right or wrong" doesn't mean "so I believe this phenomenon might be equally right or wrong, morally speaking." It's a hedge that a writer would use to indicate that he's just reporting the facts and doesn't necessarily approve.

  • David (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.

    Yeah! Decent people never check out members of the opposite (or, occasionally, same) sex and never should! Everybody should just take their blue pee pills right now!

    (That was sarcasm, BTW. I feel it important to point that out for some reason.)

  • Hippocampus (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    Spare us your mock indignation.

  • (cs) in reply to Torben
    Torben:
    snoofle:
    Exactly. I was in no way approving of that sort of behavior.

    How is this so difficult to understand? You WERE approving it! Let me help you with examples again:

    "Right or wrong, it's just the way the business side has always been in large financial firms."

    vs.

    "While completely sexist, it's was the way the business side was in large financial firms."

    You could have condemned it explicitely or not comment about it at all but instead you directly implied that such behavior may still be Ok.

    You do notice that you did not use the past tense in the sentence, do you?

    So what you're saying is that: the author should have solemnly condemned it outright like a preacher in a pulpit, patronisingly telling us all what to believe.

    Fascist.

  • JW (unregistered)

    "Discretely" and "discreetly" are two different words. You're using the wrong one.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    http://xkcd.com/386/

  • (cs) 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.

    I'm on the side of those who say that you are not understanding this sentence, and ascribing malice/ignorance to snoofle unfairly. To me, he is saying that business has always been done that way in large financial firms, regardless of the morality of it (although, come to think of it, the idea of any sort of morality existing at a large financial firm is ludicrous).

    Throwing around accusations of sexism so carelessly only damages the struggle to have true equality.

  • JW (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.

    Agreed. There's no "right or wrong" here, it's just "wrong or wrong".

  • David (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    So what you're saying is that: the author should have solemnly condemned it outright like a preacher in a pulpit, patronisingly telling us all what to believe.

    Might as well have done. Not like it would have harmed the narrative.

  • (cs)

    Torben, maybe you need to take a step back, and appreciate that just because YOU interpret a written sentence in a particular way, does not mean that was the interpretation intended by the author. Either the author was deploying some kind of irony, or there is a level of ambiguity, or perhaps you've just misunderstood.

    This is undeniably the case.

    Therefore telling someone "you DID mean that!" when they have said that they didn't mean 'that', not only are you wrong, but you're obviously wrong and in the most childish way possible.

  • (cs) in reply to David
    David:
    (That was sarcasm, BTW. I feel it important to point that out for some reason.)

    Sarcasm is a tone of voice that is used to denote irony.

    So, you can't really be sarcastic in text. You can be ironic, certainly, but the sarcastic sound you make when typing just doesn't get encoded, and so the application receiving it doesn't pass it on to the user.

    This is why most internet arguments start.

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    @Corinne accept when that is all they are to you. Makes you a jerk but it is the reality sometimes (and it goes both ways, casual hookups abound). It would pretty rare that a guy comes back from a vacation stating that he made love to a women he had some deep emotional connection with (other than someone he brought along of course). Vacation sex by definition is all about the sex.

  • baguazhang (unregistered)

    I think at the end of the day, no matter how offensive it is to be sexist, there is still no WTF in this story!!!

  • (cs)

    The guys at work have a shared spreadsheet named 'Bucket list'. Following a works night out the new girl in accounting has jumped to the top of the list.

    Which reminds me, i need to add the WILL_GARGLE to the weighted attribute list.

  • (cs) in reply to Paulw
    Paulw:
    Completely agree with Corinne. I've worked in finance for 15 years (in the UK) and this sort of attitude would get you fired rapidly. Also, to nitpick, I expect you mean "discreetly" rather than "discretely".
    No, he really means the jokes and crude behavior are actually spread out now, whereas in the past there was a weekly "The Chauvinist Review" containing the latest jokes and all butt-pinching was performed only on the 12th of every month.
  • Fred (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    Way back in the day, in some places, it was considered acceptable for the local lord to shag the newly wed wife of one of his subjects. Now, no-one is suggesting that is acceptable today, but should you be super offended by some medieval shit that used to go down?
    Is it ok to be offended about people repeating this nonsense as though it were true? Braveheart isn't a documentary.
  • Rookierookie (unregistered)
    Now there were no inter-species acts.
    Obviously, Chris S. passed on the candidate because he was disappointed at that.
  • Gareth (unregistered) in reply to Corinne

    Oh it's wrong to do so and it is seen to be wrong to do so now, but in some quarters back then it wasn't considered to be so wrong.
    When looking to the past, we must be careful not to apply the standards of today to the events of days gone by.

    That said, it still doesn't make that kind of treatment of anyone any less wrong.

  • It's Pat (unregistered) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    I don't get it. So he was asked to interview someone, but reading the previous messages the candidate and a broker were talking about NSFW things but unrelated to finances, so he passed on even interviewing the guy because the broker was talking about "seedy" things in a work email?

    I disagree. If a person is so careless to leave unwanted details in a chain email... what might get passed around to clients who should not have insider information and/or competitor clients' information?

  • Tony (unregistered) in reply to Corinne
    Corinne:
    the suggestion that treating women as sexual objects in the workplace could ever possibly be "right" is super offensive.

    Unless that workplace was a brothel I guess?

    Totally agree that this story is both a waste of space and offensive.

  • ordalca (unregistered)

    If it had been the candidate who sent in the email chain, I could see them rejecting them, due to the possibility of sending confidential information to non-approved people.

    However, it was the broker, not the candidate, who sent it in. The chain had been between two friends, and the one who already had the job was the one to spread it, so I really don't think it should have been held against the candidate.

Leave a comment on “A Questionable New Hire”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #412730:

Log Out

« Return to Article