[JabavuAdams]

It's pretty obvious that your intent was innocent. But the fact that you didn't realize how awful a headline that is sends a different message.

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.

[ekidd]

It's pretty obvious that your intent was innocent. But the fact that you didn't realize how awful a headline that is sends a different message.

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."

[ErrantX]

It shouldn't be an awful headline; that's the sad thing. I submit that those taking issue with it (i.e. those pointing out a potential offence) are actually part of the problem.

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 :)

[JabavuAdams]

> 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.

[ErrantX]

BUT ... it's evidence that she may have other ideas that I may not agree with -- especially if she's my boss.

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.

[rfrey]

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.

[ErrantX]

Oh yes, words have power. But they are not inherently right or wrong.

It is how they are used that makes them.