5 ms·

Atlassian Developer Makes A Horribly Sexist Presentation At A Tech Conference

26 points by _mayo 12y ago

fizwhiz 12y ago
I don't understand. This guy was talking about HIS girlfriend comparing her to Maven and the perceived quirks and similarities. He was not talking about ALL girlfriends or girls in general. Would there be such a massive uproar if the slide mentioned his baby daughter? Seems like the qualities of "complaining, demanding attention, interrupting while working" could easily apply to a small child regardless of gender. But no, we prefer to be particularly sensitive when he talks about his PERSONAL life, and describes his PERSONAL girlfriend and her qualities. And then we're just saying that he's suggesting that this is characteristic of all girlfriends. That's garbage. Of course, the easiest thing for Atlassian to do is throw this guy under the bus saying that "immediate action will be taken". Give the guy a public forum and a decent shot to defend himself. This is getting ridiculous.
- alttab 12y ago
  If anything, it highlights the insensitivity. Its not that its debatable based on nuance that it was his girlfriend, all girlfriends, or all women. The point is, women got offended. If the industry was sensitive to this, they wouldn't get offended. That said, yes, using a baby would have been a much better analogy. One, babies can't get offended. Two, babies have those qualities because they are underdeveloped (which I think was the point trying to be made about Maven), a statement that is much harder to stand behind if you are talking about women, or even a woman, in general. People got pissed so the line was clearly crossed. Looking at the picture I can easily see why. Its objectifying his girlfriend which, if done, usually implies a consistent mental theme about all women. If this is how you think/treat your girlfriend, what about other women you do not know at all?
- aidenn0 12y ago
  > This guy was talking about HIS girlfriend comparing her to Maven and the perceived quirks and similarities. He was not talking about ALL girlfriends or girls in general. I disagree. The slide presents a strong implication that the audience will empathize with a "clingy girlfriend" stereotype. I personally seriously doubt he is referring to a specific individual here. Consider if someone had said "This piece of software is like my black friend: It's lazy, eats fried chicken and beats me at basketball"; that's a sentence that clearly 1) Probably isn't talking about a specific person 2) Invokes common stereotypes (both positive and negative) 3) Is racist. Furthermore it implies a certain amount of objectification, since the only positive thing in the list is "Looks Beautiful" Finally you just implied that assigning qualities to someone because they are female is equivalent to assigning qualities to someone because they are immature. [edit] One more point; even if this is about a specific person, rather than a reflexive usage of common stereotypes, it does contain the assumption that the audience empathizes with having a "clingy girlfriend" which expresses an expectation that the audience is straight men.
  - fizwhiz 12y ago
    >> Finally you just implied that assigning qualities to someone because they are female is equivalent to assigning qualities to someone because they are immature. Are you accusing me of discrimination? See this is the exact sort of thing I take issue with. I was talking about babies as a substitute for the 'girlfriend' analogy where the characteristics the speaker mentioned could apply in order to illustrate that people wouldn't be that upset about it. But instead of viewing it in this light, you've short circuited the discussion to "Oh man, you're implying women are as immature as babies!". >> The slide presents a strong implication that the audience will empathize with a "clingy girlfriend" stereotype By virtue of experiencing empathy, are you saying that the audience is in fact sexist? So is the issue that the speaker puts this on the slide or the fact that according to you the audience has sexist proclivities where they stereotype all girlfriends. It seems to me that If I were to make a presentation to an audience where you were sitting, and have a slide that says that my father, a sexagenarian, tends to not use the latest technology, you would stand up and accuse me of saying "all relatively older people are luddites". That's just plain wrong, and I think this sort of hyper sensitive overreaction needs to be thought through. This developer is question could very easily lose his job, so this is no joking matter.
    - aidenn0 12y ago
      > Are you accusing me of discrimination? See this is the exact sort of thing I take issue with. I was talking about babies as a substitute for the 'girlfriend' analogy where the characteristics the speaker mentioned could apply in order to illustrate that people wouldn't be that upset about it. But instead of viewing it in this light, you've short circuited the discussion to "Oh man, you're implying women are as immature as babies!". Perhaps I misunderstand your first post. I interpreted it roughly as saying "Nobody would be offended if you say all these things about babies, so nobody should be offended when you say all these things about women" Based upon your reply, I'm now guessing that's not what you intended. Care to clarify? >> The slide presents a strong implication that the audience will empathize with a "clingy girlfriend" stereotype > By virtue of experiencing empathy, are you saying that the audience is in fact sexist? Sorry, that was a typo, I meant "expectation" rather than "implication." The point is that the presenter is expecting the audience to be those who have been annoyed by and attracted to clingy girlfriends. In fact, I would guess that the assumption is true for the majority of the audience, but perhaps you can see how it might be exclusionary to the remainder of the audience? Particularly those who are or have been girlfriends of people?
McDoku 12y ago
This is stupid and wastes every ones time... He was stupid for doing it (should know the climate) Atlassian was stupid. This article was stupid and I am stupid for STILL letting my humanism be exploited for click bait. The whole kerfuffle is embarrassingly skewed...
- thrillgore 12y ago
  Just wait till you see the NPR take on this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/04/318882549/women-complain-a-lot-interrupt-developer-says-at-conference http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/04/318882...
  - saddestcatever 12y ago
    That's rough. I feel like they're itching to turn the developer's joke into a 'hot topic' of feminism debate.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nicomoto1 12y ago
I read through his original slide, and I see what was wrong about it. I think changing the name of the slide to "...is my significant other" (or some other term that does not mention any sex) would have still got his point across (a satirical view on (clingy?) relationships). I understand why people are upset seeing how he made a very clear reference to one particular sex. That being said, it is perfectly natural for him to impose his specific preferences when talking in the first perspective (a way of story telling). Eg. You always say gf/bf instead of significant other if you were making any other statement about them (good/bad). The above discussion is purely since we are at the edge of what we would consider sexism, and although I don't know the presenter personally, I would assume his point was to compare a clingy relationship to maven (some software), and not to compare to girls in general or imply that girls are more prone to (clingy?) relationships. (I am assuming the best in him) Given the context and mood of society though I can see how this can be perceived in the way it is being perceived. (Context being clingy seems to be associated with girls, I cant think of any other reason why one gender should be offended if it is perceived to be equally prevalent in both genders.) It seems unfortunate that this is the case, but all in all he should have kept in mind societal perceptions when making his slides. (Rule 1 of making presentations, always keep your audience in mind). I personally would not condone such a slide since it seems to be exploiting to be exploiting a particular gender stereotype. We as a society are guided by our history and perceptions. (A quick example, asking a female chef to return to the kitchen would be considered sexist versus asking a female software engineer to return to her computer which might be insulting but would never be construed as sexist). We must take care to avoid sensitive stereotypes.
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
Wow, I thought it was going to be a lot worse when I read that headline.

26 points by _mayo 12y ago

I don't understand. This guy was talking about HIS girlfriend comparing her to Maven and the perceived quirks and similarities. He was not talking about ALL girlfriends or girls in general. Would there be such a massive uproar if the slide mentioned his baby daughter? Seems like the qualities of "complaining, demanding attention, interrupting while working" could easily apply to a small child regardless of gender. But no, we prefer to be particularly sensitive when he talks about his PERSONAL life, and describes his PERSONAL girlfriend and her qualities. And then we're just saying that he's suggesting that this is characteristic of all girlfriends. That's garbage. Of course, the easiest thing for Atlassian to do is throw this guy under the bus saying that "immediate action will be taken". Give the guy a public forum and a decent shot to defend himself. This is getting ridiculous.

alttab 12y ago
If anything, it highlights the insensitivity. Its not that its debatable based on nuance that it was his girlfriend, all girlfriends, or all women. The point is, women got offended. If the industry was sensitive to this, they wouldn't get offended. That said, yes, using a baby would have been a much better analogy. One, babies can't get offended. Two, babies have those qualities because they are underdeveloped (which I think was the point trying to be made about Maven), a statement that is much harder to stand behind if you are talking about women, or even a woman, in general. People got pissed so the line was clearly crossed. Looking at the picture I can easily see why. Its objectifying his girlfriend which, if done, usually implies a consistent mental theme about all women. If this is how you think/treat your girlfriend, what about other women you do not know at all?
aidenn0 12y ago
> This guy was talking about HIS girlfriend comparing her to Maven and the perceived quirks and similarities. He was not talking about ALL girlfriends or girls in general. I disagree. The slide presents a strong implication that the audience will empathize with a "clingy girlfriend" stereotype. I personally seriously doubt he is referring to a specific individual here. Consider if someone had said "This piece of software is like my black friend: It's lazy, eats fried chicken and beats me at basketball"; that's a sentence that clearly 1) Probably isn't talking about a specific person 2) Invokes common stereotypes (both positive and negative) 3) Is racist. Furthermore it implies a certain amount of objectification, since the only positive thing in the list is "Looks Beautiful" Finally you just implied that assigning qualities to someone because they are female is equivalent to assigning qualities to someone because they are immature. [edit] One more point; even if this is about a specific person, rather than a reflexive usage of common stereotypes, it does contain the assumption that the audience empathizes with having a "clingy girlfriend" which expresses an expectation that the audience is straight men.
- fizwhiz 12y ago
  >> Finally you just implied that assigning qualities to someone because they are female is equivalent to assigning qualities to someone because they are immature. Are you accusing me of discrimination? See this is the exact sort of thing I take issue with. I was talking about babies as a substitute for the 'girlfriend' analogy where the characteristics the speaker mentioned could apply in order to illustrate that people wouldn't be that upset about it. But instead of viewing it in this light, you've short circuited the discussion to "Oh man, you're implying women are as immature as babies!". >> The slide presents a strong implication that the audience will empathize with a "clingy girlfriend" stereotype By virtue of experiencing empathy, are you saying that the audience is in fact sexist? So is the issue that the speaker puts this on the slide or the fact that according to you the audience has sexist proclivities where they stereotype all girlfriends. It seems to me that If I were to make a presentation to an audience where you were sitting, and have a slide that says that my father, a sexagenarian, tends to not use the latest technology, you would stand up and accuse me of saying "all relatively older people are luddites". That's just plain wrong, and I think this sort of hyper sensitive overreaction needs to be thought through. This developer is question could very easily lose his job, so this is no joking matter.
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    > Are you accusing me of discrimination? See this is the exact sort of thing I take issue with. I was talking about babies as a substitute for the 'girlfriend' analogy where the characteristics the speaker mentioned could apply in order to illustrate that people wouldn't be that upset about it. But instead of viewing it in this light, you've short circuited the discussion to "Oh man, you're implying women are as immature as babies!". Perhaps I misunderstand your first post. I interpreted it roughly as saying "Nobody would be offended if you say all these things about babies, so nobody should be offended when you say all these things about women" Based upon your reply, I'm now guessing that's not what you intended. Care to clarify? >> The slide presents a strong implication that the audience will empathize with a "clingy girlfriend" stereotype > By virtue of experiencing empathy, are you saying that the audience is in fact sexist? Sorry, that was a typo, I meant "expectation" rather than "implication." The point is that the presenter is expecting the audience to be those who have been annoyed by and attracted to clingy girlfriends. In fact, I would guess that the assumption is true for the majority of the audience, but perhaps you can see how it might be exclusionary to the remainder of the audience? Particularly those who are or have been girlfriends of people?

McDoku 12y ago

This is stupid and wastes every ones time... He was stupid for doing it (should know the climate) Atlassian was stupid. This article was stupid and I am stupid for STILL letting my humanism be exploited for click bait. The whole kerfuffle is embarrassingly skewed...

thrillgore 12y ago
Just wait till you see the NPR take on this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/04/318882549/women-complain-a-lot-interrupt-developer-says-at-conference http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/04/318882...
- saddestcatever 12y ago
  That's rough. I feel like they're itching to turn the developer's joke into a 'hot topic' of feminism debate.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nicomoto1 12y ago

I read through his original slide, and I see what was wrong about it. I think changing the name of the slide to "...is my significant other" (or some other term that does not mention any sex) would have still got his point across (a satirical view on (clingy?) relationships). I understand why people are upset seeing how he made a very clear reference to one particular sex. That being said, it is perfectly natural for him to impose his specific preferences when talking in the first perspective (a way of story telling). Eg. You always say gf/bf instead of significant other if you were making any other statement about them (good/bad). The above discussion is purely since we are at the edge of what we would consider sexism, and although I don't know the presenter personally, I would assume his point was to compare a clingy relationship to maven (some software), and not to compare to girls in general or imply that girls are more prone to (clingy?) relationships. (I am assuming the best in him) Given the context and mood of society though I can see how this can be perceived in the way it is being perceived. (Context being clingy seems to be associated with girls, I cant think of any other reason why one gender should be offended if it is perceived to be equally prevalent in both genders.) It seems unfortunate that this is the case, but all in all he should have kept in mind societal perceptions when making his slides. (Rule 1 of making presentations, always keep your audience in mind). I personally would not condone such a slide since it seems to be exploiting to be exploiting a particular gender stereotype. We as a society are guided by our history and perceptions. (A quick example, asking a female chef to return to the kitchen would be considered sexist versus asking a female software engineer to return to her computer which might be insulting but would never be construed as sexist). We must take care to avoid sensitive stereotypes.

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

Wow, I thought it was going to be a lot worse when I read that headline.