[cannonedhamster]

Keep in mind the author is a coder, not necessarily a writer. In re-reading the article though he only seems to specify gender when it's a woman. Perhaps he really disliked this woman or he has some bias he isn't aware of.

[zamadatix]

In using the search function through the article it seems the exact opposite. Perhaps you have some bias you weren't aware of when reading the article?

[cannonedhamster]

Nope, just re-read the entire article. Your using the search function doesn't seem to have been appropriate to the task nor does it address the entire context of my comment.

I'll break down my points to make myself simpler to understand as my points seems to have been misunderstood which is a lack of clarity on my part.

1. The author isn't a writer by trade. Just as coders develop best practices, writers do as well. It's not fair to judge the author for bias based on his writing style if he's not someone who's been trained on this.

2. It's entirely possible that this particular COO was one of many, however they were so odious as to cause a more emotional reaction, which isn't related to gender. As far as gender specific comments there aren't many one about a man and to about one particular woman. We may be more sensitive to this now as this article was written before the MeToo movement really gained stride, so it's possible we're seeing this through our current understanding without taking into account that we've shifted as a culture since then.

3. The third possibly is that there's an inherent bias. It's a possibility, but it's not a definite, and certainly even if there is a bias it didn't reflect terribly on the author as it's really minor. I have biases, you have biases, they were/are an important function in quick decision making that can save lives or not. The book "Thinking Fast and Slow" goes into this really well if you're interested.

Hopefully this clarifies better what I was attempting to address.

[zamadatix]

"Your using the search function doesn't seem to have been appropriate to the task"

The search function is unbiased, interpretation is.

I appreciate your breakdown of how you delve into judging a author's intent factoring in the (assumed) writing skill but this is not the content of your comment I was referring to, rather:

"In re-reading the article though he _only seems to specify gender when it's a woman_. Perhaps he really disliked this woman or he has some bias he isn't aware of."

The _noted_ section is what I was describing as factually false and why I said maybe your delving into the author's work was biased. The search function reveals " he ", " him ", & " his " to be used more than " she ", " her ", an " hers ". In diving into interpretation it seems to be ignored that 2 paragraphs down the author resents a micromanaging male director, if this had contained "her" instead of "him" would it be interpreted total condemnation rather than chance? Why is this not also an emotional reaction and if so why does it matter less?

I.e. the article is balanced in calling out gender overall (as shown by word frequency) and the author seems to dislike people based on what they did (as seen by reviewing the sections called out) so the only way bias in re-reading can be called out here is if you're searching for it and ignoring what doesn't match.

[cannonedhamster]

I think your response to my comment is fair. Interpretation being required is why I disagree with a simple count function of gender pronouns. In rereading I did see what you were talking about with the make manager being discussed. I personally agree with your conclusion and could have worded my initial comment better to be clearer, it was early morning for me which is not when I'm at my peak mental faculties, so I apologise for my lack of clarity.