6 ms·

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 gir

by 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?

by fizwhiz 12y ago

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?