The headliner is an apocryphal quote from Ernest Shackleton, leader of a doomed but famous Antarctic expedition in 1914.
Nothing about the current state of tech was implied, nor about our desired employee pool. Obviously we welcome one and all.
Nothing about the current state of tech was implied, nor about our desired employee pool. Obviously we welcome one and all.
And as awful an experience as it must have been for the men involved, it's also worth noting (perhaps especially in this context) that not a single person lost his life, owing largely to some incredible leadership from Shackleton, and amazing skills from much of his crew.
That's the fun of marketing: other people can quite reasonably take other things from your references than the meaning you tried to evoke.
On the other hand, it's not just you guys -- i.e. you're no worse than the avg. tech company, FWIW.
This is a classic example of the techie "we're a meritocracy, so we couldn't possibly be sexist" thinking that's so common. It's not the pat on the ass and glass-ceiling kind of sexism, to be sure, but it's the STFU 'cause no one's grabbing your ass kind of sexism.
An apt way of putting it. Thank you. I wasn't familiar with the historical quote, and I only saw the headline on Hacker News. My initial reaction was, "Oh, good grief. Do we have to go through GenderFail, SmutOnRails, etc., every 15 minutes? I hate this conversation. It must be even less fun for female hackers, who can't win either way."
One solution would be t encourage as many innocent headlines as it takes till it simple doesn't matter whether you say men, women or Martian - it just means people.... (unfortunately that means people will be offended, so possibly not the sanest approach)
Ascribing an intent to someone who clearly doesn't mean it is just not cricket :)
Sure, but it betrays a certain cluelessness. I.e. It's not so much that this is an outrageous headline -- ZOMG off with their heads, public apology, blah blah.
It's more a case of -- if they're clueless about this, then what else are they clueless about -- especially from the POV of a prospective female employee.
E.g. I know of a sweet old grandma who described the colour of her sofa as "nigger brown". She had no ill intent, and I don't ascribe any to her. BUT ... it's evidence that she may have other ideas that I may not agree with -- especially if she's my boss.
Evidence of cluelessness is ... at the very least ... evidence of cluelessness.
The cluelessness there is simply a lack of understanding that modern society is not the same as older society. You could, of course, take offence at what she said. But that is disingenuous.
However; if she treats you differently, directs it at you, makes it a bad thing - that is a problem to address. Sadly; by addressing every perceived offence it trivializes the issue and persists the problem.
Treating someone differently because they have attitude incompatible with current society (with the caveat, of course, that it is someone from the older generation) is problematic.
It is not right to consider things such as this as cluelessness. Because the cluenessness is in the people taking offence at very little. Actually; I can understand those taking personal offence. And indeed support a reasoned plea for more sensitivity.
But I can't agree with those pointing out possible or perceived offence. Sure, if there is intent to be sexist or imply female developers are not welcome, I am with you. But as there is not, this is simply creating a problem that does not exist. The cluelessness is in believing there is a problem here; there is only a problem if one is created.
I'm sure such things are done in good faith; but it is casing more problem and masking genuine offence.
There is never anything wrong in a word. Only in the intent.
I have no horse in this race at all. But to suggest (as the above quote suggests to me - I hope I'm misreading!) that words have no power, or choice of words doesn't matter, is naive in the extreme.
It is how they are used that makes them.
I'll make your implication for you, then: The current state of tech is just as sexist and imbalanced as the world of exploration was in 1914.
> Obviously we welcome one and all.
If it were obvious, why did you need that footnote about women being welcome too? And why do you need to repeat that point in clarifying comments?
(N.b., Slightly intentionally provocative.)
One could argue there's a literacy-filter being applied here more than a gender-filter.
Yes, absolutely. It also pre-selects for those that have a sense of humor.
If I were a woman - which I'm not - I would definitely play that to my advantage in my application.
Why do minorities need to have a sense of humour about themselves? I do, but why do I have to to get into your club?
FWIW, I've made countless raunchy jokes that would have gotten me flagged by HR in a staid shop. The thing is -- I take responsibility for that. I.e. if I offended someone it's not necessarily because they have no sense of humour.
Dangit, answering rhetorical questions again...
Personally, the funny part to me is people arguing that the "integrity" of a quote that's already been hacked up must be "maintained".
Aside: I wouldn't want to work with someone who got wound up about something like this.
Unfortunately for the purposes of this argument, am male. I would say that I'm OK with the quote for artistic purposes, perhaps vary the call to action in other contexts to avoid arousing any problems of bias...
[O__o]
"but when you are in a hopeless situation, when you are seeing no way out, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton"
Hope you end up better than Shackleton and crew and succeed!