The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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?

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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.

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

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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?

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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.

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.

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

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.

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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.

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.

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

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.

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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.

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.

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

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 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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.)

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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?

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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:

Natural, inborn revulsion at the thought of intermale eroticism
Religious objections to being part of a society that recognizes and rewards "abomination"
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
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
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
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 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

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/;

2011-08-24 Reply Admin

I think you two should go out.

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

[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!

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

What does "marriage is already gay" even mean, anyway?

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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.

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.

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

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 Reply Admin

The above post contains numerous implicit assumptions.

Assumption that only young people get married. It uses "man", but "girl", singling out young women (or just those whom the author considers "hawt").
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.
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.
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.

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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'...

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

Maybe:
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.

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.

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

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.

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

lucidfox:
The above post contains numerous implicit assumptions.

Assumption that only young people get married. It uses "man", but "girl", singling out young women (or just those whom the author considers "hawt").

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.

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.

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.

Might be locality. I know a lot of people who talk about men and girls. Or maybe he's an older gentleman.
I read it as marriage derives from religious traditions, rather than marriage is a religious institution
I think the OP actually mentioned that...
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?

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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!!

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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?

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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.").

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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.

2011-08-25 Reply Admin

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 Reply Admin

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

The Programmiss and Male Services

Leave a comment on “The Programmiss and Male Services”