4 ms·

Dude. Women in tech. Come on, man. You can come up with a better title for you article than one that explicitly evokes body issues. Party foul.

tvon 14y ago
Because male models are allowed to be chubby? edit: Apologies if that is heavy on the snark, it's early.
jdminhbg 14y ago
Normally I consider Poe's Law to be the internet's omnipresent excuse for gullibility, but in this case, I truly have no idea whether this is meant to be a legitimate complaint or a bad joke.
- dccoolgai 14y ago
  It's just a flat-out bad title to use because it explicitly and intentionally uses body issues to make a point that could be made in another way. I'm no feminist crusader, I just don't think that's a cool thing to do.
  - DisposableMike 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure that it's your fault as a reader to assume that the models being metaphorically referred to are human females. That's only one of many possibilities, but unfortunately, you not only leapt to that conclusion, but decided that women's body issues needs a white knight on HN.
    - philsnow 14y ago
      Ask a random sample of engineers what "chubby models" refers to, and if less than half think of fashion models, I'll be greatly surprised. IMHO it's the most sensible semantic binding. As for your characterization of dccoolgai's actions as being a "white knight": take your polarizing term back to reddit. Inaction in the face of speech that marginalizes a certain group only furthers that marginalization. Also, dccoolgai, why did you leap directly to women's body issues? There are make models with body issues as well.
      - dccoolgai 14y ago
        philsnow – thanks for at least couching your response in a framework that is not patently absurd. 4 for you, philsnow. Allow me to respond to various issues with my initial call of “Party Foul” en masse: The thing says “chubby” models on a “diet”. I know that could refer to males or females, but this article was not written in a bubble – it was written by a thought leader in a male-dominated industry using a tongue-in-cheek title clearly meant to attract attention and elicit a chortle by explicitly evoking body issues (and don’t give me “Rails is fat models and skinny controllers” – that stops holding water when you change the terms to “chubby” and “diet”)(And please don’t try to argue that society holds body issues over men as much as it does women – that sentiment is so patently absurd that it’s not even worth parsing.). There is no “conclusion” to leap to – it is laid out prima facie. I’m not saying this applies only to women, I’m just saying that society tortures women a lot more with body issues than it does men and invoking those issues for the sake of a “clever pun” is not worth it for several reasons, including but not limited to: 1. Reinforcing the perception that tech is a frat house. 2. Reinforcing the reality that tech is a frat house. I love DHH and everything he has contributed to technology. Nevertheless: After further review, the call on the field of “Party Foul” stands. 15 yard penalty – still third down. Doesn’t make DHH a bad guy. I know a lot women who are involved in tech specifically because of Ruby/Rails – DHH’s net effect on making technology a comfortable and inviting field for women to specialize in is vastly positive, IMHO. I don’t think he intended anything negative with either his post or its title. I’m just saying the pun he picked to put in the title of his post sucks. That’s it. For those of you whose knee-jerk response to this is “lighten up”: I respond in kind. I’m just calling a “Party Foul”, not trying to pillory your gods. Lord knows, I probably have and will say/write things that are much more insensitive than this… I just hope that when I do, someone will call me out for it in a thoughtful, non-reactionary way. Because I don’t want to lose that much more HN karma over this (I don’t believe in this enough to sacrifice 50 points criticizing everyone’s idol.), this will be the last comment I make.
      - philsnow 14y ago
        A crucial detail that I left out because I typed my above reply on a mobile device, is: note that I first talked about a random sample of _engineers_. There are tons of people who work with engineers but who are not themselves engineers. These people will be even less likely to think "MVC models" and more likely to think "fashion model". Another group is the general public or people choosing a college major or vocation. These people have never been exposed to MVC, so they will assume you're talking about "fashion models" with 100% certainty. These last two groups are exactly the people who you don't (or shouldn't) want to feel automatically excluded. You may as well paint a picture of the entire "tech industry" with a giant "NO FATTIES" sign.
    - ahelwer 14y ago
      White knight? You mean be a decent human being? We aren't spherical chickens in a vacuum here. Don't play dumb. You know the implications of the title. Do you realize how ridiculous "perhaps YOU are the sexist for noticing sexism!" is?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
patton01 14y ago
Not to mention that one of the Tenants of Rails is to have "fat" models and "thin" controllers. Lighten up...Yes, pun intended.
kjackson2012 14y ago
I don't think there's any sexism at all, because it applies to both males and females. Have you ever seen a male model that is chubby? All the male models I've seen have 6-packs and are incredibly fit, just like their female counterparts.
jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
It's a direct reference to a blog post from 6 years ago that was widely discussed in the early days of rails: http://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2006/10/18/skinny-controller-fat-model http://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2006/10/18/skinny-controller-fat... This is the first I've heard anyone interpret "Model" in the context of software as pertaining to sex, gender, etc.
parfe 14y ago
Standard attention seeking behaviour that can be expected from 37signals. No doubt in my mind they chose to publish under that title to walk the line of offensive behaviour while hiding behind sheepish innocence.

tvon 14y ago

Because male models are allowed to be chubby? edit: Apologies if that is heavy on the snark, it's early.

jdminhbg 14y ago

Normally I consider Poe's Law to be the internet's omnipresent excuse for gullibility, but in this case, I truly have no idea whether this is meant to be a legitimate complaint or a bad joke.

dccoolgai 14y ago
It's just a flat-out bad title to use because it explicitly and intentionally uses body issues to make a point that could be made in another way. I'm no feminist crusader, I just don't think that's a cool thing to do.
- DisposableMike 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure that it's your fault as a reader to assume that the models being metaphorically referred to are human females. That's only one of many possibilities, but unfortunately, you not only leapt to that conclusion, but decided that women's body issues needs a white knight on HN.
  - philsnow 14y ago
    Ask a random sample of engineers what "chubby models" refers to, and if less than half think of fashion models, I'll be greatly surprised. IMHO it's the most sensible semantic binding. As for your characterization of dccoolgai's actions as being a "white knight": take your polarizing term back to reddit. Inaction in the face of speech that marginalizes a certain group only furthers that marginalization. Also, dccoolgai, why did you leap directly to women's body issues? There are make models with body issues as well.
    - dccoolgai 14y ago
      philsnow – thanks for at least couching your response in a framework that is not patently absurd. 4 for you, philsnow. Allow me to respond to various issues with my initial call of “Party Foul” en masse: The thing says “chubby” models on a “diet”. I know that could refer to males or females, but this article was not written in a bubble – it was written by a thought leader in a male-dominated industry using a tongue-in-cheek title clearly meant to attract attention and elicit a chortle by explicitly evoking body issues (and don’t give me “Rails is fat models and skinny controllers” – that stops holding water when you change the terms to “chubby” and “diet”)(And please don’t try to argue that society holds body issues over men as much as it does women – that sentiment is so patently absurd that it’s not even worth parsing.). There is no “conclusion” to leap to – it is laid out prima facie. I’m not saying this applies only to women, I’m just saying that society tortures women a lot more with body issues than it does men and invoking those issues for the sake of a “clever pun” is not worth it for several reasons, including but not limited to: 1. Reinforcing the perception that tech is a frat house. 2. Reinforcing the reality that tech is a frat house. I love DHH and everything he has contributed to technology. Nevertheless: After further review, the call on the field of “Party Foul” stands. 15 yard penalty – still third down. Doesn’t make DHH a bad guy. I know a lot women who are involved in tech specifically because of Ruby/Rails – DHH’s net effect on making technology a comfortable and inviting field for women to specialize in is vastly positive, IMHO. I don’t think he intended anything negative with either his post or its title. I’m just saying the pun he picked to put in the title of his post sucks. That’s it. For those of you whose knee-jerk response to this is “lighten up”: I respond in kind. I’m just calling a “Party Foul”, not trying to pillory your gods. Lord knows, I probably have and will say/write things that are much more insensitive than this… I just hope that when I do, someone will call me out for it in a thoughtful, non-reactionary way. Because I don’t want to lose that much more HN karma over this (I don’t believe in this enough to sacrifice 50 points criticizing everyone’s idol.), this will be the last comment I make.
    - philsnow 14y ago
      A crucial detail that I left out because I typed my above reply on a mobile device, is: note that I first talked about a random sample of _engineers_. There are tons of people who work with engineers but who are not themselves engineers. These people will be even less likely to think "MVC models" and more likely to think "fashion model". Another group is the general public or people choosing a college major or vocation. These people have never been exposed to MVC, so they will assume you're talking about "fashion models" with 100% certainty. These last two groups are exactly the people who you don't (or shouldn't) want to feel automatically excluded. You may as well paint a picture of the entire "tech industry" with a giant "NO FATTIES" sign.
  - ahelwer 14y ago
    White knight? You mean be a decent human being? We aren't spherical chickens in a vacuum here. Don't play dumb. You know the implications of the title. Do you realize how ridiculous "perhaps YOU are the sexist for noticing sexism!" is?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

patton01 14y ago

Not to mention that one of the Tenants of Rails is to have "fat" models and "thin" controllers. Lighten up...Yes, pun intended.

kjackson2012 14y ago

I don't think there's any sexism at all, because it applies to both males and females. Have you ever seen a male model that is chubby? All the male models I've seen have 6-packs and are incredibly fit, just like their female counterparts.

jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago

It's a direct reference to a blog post from 6 years ago that was widely discussed in the early days of rails: http://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2006/10/18/skinny-controller-fat-model http://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2006/10/18/skinny-controller-fat... This is the first I've heard anyone interpret "Model" in the context of software as pertaining to sex, gender, etc.

parfe 14y ago

Standard attention seeking behaviour that can be expected from 37signals. No doubt in my mind they chose to publish under that title to walk the line of offensive behaviour while hiding behind sheepish innocence.