| “I can't believe that any woman” — stop right here. Whenever anyone on HN ever says this, they're really showing themselves to: 1) lack imagination
2) lack empathy (egregiously so)
3) generally be wrong about whatever follows next What you're doing here is saying you think all women who would have an interest in tech are exactly the same. This is IDIOTIC and you're revealing yourself to seeing women as "a demographic" rather than as 3.6 billion unique individuals who each have their own unique personality, interests, etc. Also, you're revealing your massively shortsighted perspective and utter inability to educate yourself a little on the matter before chiming in with your assertions, but let me help you improve perspective and learn something new: Study: Women Do Not Apply To ‘Male-Sounding’ Jobs
http://time.com/48578/study-women-do-not-apply-to-male-sound... You Don’t Know It, But Women See Gender Bias in Your Job Postings
http://www.ere.net/2013/03/01/you-dont-know-it-but-women-see... > A scientific study of 4,000 job descriptions revealed that a lack of gender-inclusive wording caused significant implications for recruiting professionals tasked to recruit women to hard-to-fill positions underrepresented by women. So, your assertion that it's "ridiculous goop" has actually been proven (repeatedly) by scientific studies, and is a tremendously stupid assertion to begin with (it hinges on the assumption that all women are exactly the same). Perhaps next time, before opening your mouth, assess whether you actually have any fucking knowledge of what you're about to assert. |
No, I asserted the opposite by specifically qualifying the women I was targeting with the clause "of substance". That's the part of my quote you left out to make it look like I was lumping "all" women together.
I just showed those supposedly better job descriptions to a female coworker I would categorize as a "woman of substance" and she just rolled her eyes at it. The word "intimate" is groan-inducing and out of place.
I don't personally know Marissa Mayer (ex Google, now CEO Yahoo) or Carol Bartz (ex AutoDesk) but I don't believe women of such caliber require baby talk. In my opinion, it would be quite insulting to them.
>Study: Women Do Not Apply To ‘Male-Sounding’ Jobs
I never asserted that a text can't be overtly (even offensively) male gendered. That part I agree with. However, the over-zealous post-modernism rewrite does not always make the end result gender-neutral. On the contrary, the article shows that the end result looks silly and idiotic. (EDIT TO ADD: the article's author recently commented in this thread and she herself conceded[1] that the wording in those "improved" job descriptions could use some work so I'm not totally off base in my criticism.)
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8020992