5 ms·
This seems like a misunderstanding to me. People saying that it's comparing women to eclairs need to read the rest of the list. If that's the case they're also
by driverdan 13y ago
This seems like a misunderstanding to me. People saying that it's comparing women to eclairs need to read the rest of the list. If that's the case they're also comparing "commission from online sales" to eclairs and "30 days paid holiday" to a coffee machine.
There are serious gender inequality issues in our industry that need to be addressed. This isn't it.
- nness 13y agoWomen listed as perks of a job, almost as "employment benefits," is thoroughly degrading. This is definitely the kind of issue that needs to be addressed in the community, and it not suitable to disregard smaller occurrences of sexism because we can pointer to more serious cases that we "have to deal with first." All instances of sexism are issues and deserve our the same contempt.
- sp332 13y agoAll instances of sexism are issues and deserve our the same contempt. This is a problem I'm having with some of the responses. Accidentally offensive things are not as bad as people intentionally degrading women. There are shades of gray and I think something as small as this should only require an apology to be done with it.
- andyjohnson0 13y ago"If that's the case they're also comparing "commission from online sales" to eclairs and "30 days paid holiday" to a coffee machine." Clue: none of those things are people.
- joesb 13y agoAnd neither people nor coffee machine are vacation; neither people nor vacation are coffee machine. Some people value relationship (people), some people value convenience (coffee machine), some people value time (vacation). Why is it only okay to list non-people benefit? Because you don't want people who value people?
- sp332 13y agoThe point is to treat the people like people. Treating women, in context, like exotic treats is not a good way to "value people."