[PatriceM]

I completely disagree. As a woman in the industry I find it excludes people who aren't male. Sure it's a small thing, but that means it's easy to correct. Recently I had a recruiter email me asking if I wanted to come on site and meet the chaps. Great, a men's club, how diverse and welcoming.

[jheriko]

why is this though?

i get your point about 'chaps', its a term only ever used to describe a group of men. with 'man hours' its more difficult because the intent is never to talk about gender, just how much time something takes, and there are not commonly understood alternative terms for this (although maybe we need to pioneer an alternative...).

i'm also curious why you are offput from working with a group that is exclusively men because of the use of this term though? you are assuming its some kind of 'old boys club'. i think this is sexism

the perception of sexism won't go away until these groups get some women in them... i would find it hard to believe that there was a sexist intent behind that statement. it sounds like he is trying to be welcoming in fact... and to encourage diversity by not excluding you from this opportunity for such a weak reason as your gender.

maybe i am missing something obvious...

[andy_ppp]

I loved reading that in a controlled study simply writing at the top of a PHD level maths paper "This maths paper has been tested to be gender neutral"[1] caused the scores of women to magically change to be equal with men.

Never underestimate social conditioning of outcomes.

[1] I wish I could remember or find a reference for this!

[jheriko]

that is fantastically interesting. i'd be curious if the effect was on the men or women or both, as well as if there were any other experiments in similar areas.

it solidifies my belief that most gender inequality today is perceived rather than real. (not that that makes it any less of a problem to solve)