Could have done without the random sexism ("The guy who spends a few hours a week teaching the designer girl a little bit of CSS even though she’ll probably never use it? Baker. The woman who becomes passive aggressive if she isn’t explicitly invited to a meeting she sees going on? Eater.")
But hey, pointing that out probably marks me as an eater.
Agreed. I don't think it makes you an eater. Being an ally encourages development of other potential bakers, which is itself baking (at least in the spirit of the article).
Marks you as somebody who reads way too much into stuff, that's for sure.
One person in the sentence is male. The other person is female. The female person is described as never going to use some skill the first person is teaching her.
Maybe she owns the company. Maybe she won the lottery. Maybe, just maybe, learning CSS isn't that much of a super-cool thing to do.
Maybe we're taking all of our pre-existing bullshit and putting it into some random sentence in some article somewhere.
What?? How is that possibly sexist? Since we are not being sexist and treat both sexes with equal respect and attention, it doesn't matter if he used two guys, two girls, or a mix in his example - it's all the same. It's only sexist if you want to find it sexist - if you believe that it's sexist because he said that a guy is teaching a girl some CSS, then well, there's something wrong with your head.
This kind of fake parable gets to me; a useful analogy is a process where you gain insight from studying a real world situation and seeing how this analysis applies to another situation, also real.
Useless fluff such as this is where you create imaginary situations and characters that have no other existence or justification than to support a preconceived (and already artificial) point.
You only work with bakers? That's too bad, I only work with pink butterflies, a category of my own making. I guess we won't be able to work together much.
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 29.4 ms ] threadBut hey, pointing that out probably marks me as an eater.
One person in the sentence is male. The other person is female. The female person is described as never going to use some skill the first person is teaching her.
Maybe she owns the company. Maybe she won the lottery. Maybe, just maybe, learning CSS isn't that much of a super-cool thing to do.
Maybe we're taking all of our pre-existing bullshit and putting it into some random sentence in some article somewhere.
But definitely not an eater.
Useless fluff such as this is where you create imaginary situations and characters that have no other existence or justification than to support a preconceived (and already artificial) point.
You only work with bakers? That's too bad, I only work with pink butterflies, a category of my own making. I guess we won't be able to work together much.
See also this magnificient rebuttal of "Hackers and Painters": http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm
BTW my friend is a baker and he hates cakes...
Great, that will be October's job filter: making sure our candidates are Bakers, not Eaters.
I wonder what November's job filter will be.