On failing our values, our team, and our industry(blogs.atlassian.com)
blogs.atlassian.com
On failing our values, our team, and our industry
http://blogs.atlassian.com/2014/06/failing-values-team-industry/
59 comments
Yep, agreed that this is how this kind of thing should be handled, so long as it's also actually followed up on as described.
Wow. Political correctness at its best: bring on the witch hunt! What if he replaced girlfriend with boyfriend? Would that still be sexist? His joke was not on the sex, but on the fact that she was his life partner. You know couple stuff. I kind of feel sorry for him because he was not intending to offend but just be funny. It would be sad if he lost his job over that. I find Atlassian's response makes sense since they are walking on eggs with such a topic.
First: This isn't acceptable, especially in the current ecosystem where we are all working incredibly hard to change a sexist tech culture, and when women have very solid reasons to feel like an objectified minority.
Second: Since part of having an open mind is attempting to empathize with people even when they make mistakes (And understand the mentality behind the mistake, since we are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER), I would like to try to un-demonize this guy at an individual level -- again, not trying to detract the larger, meta picture: jokes at the expense of women are NOT OK.
I think a lot of the outrage here comes from the fact that we are reading his slide as though he said "Maven is like a woman." He didn't, he said his girlfriend. The issue is that on a public presentation the goal is to say things others can relate to, so the natural conclusion is that he was indeed making a generalization.
I'm curious if we would have read it as a more appropriate joke if he had replaced "girlfriend" with a genderless noun like "significant other" or "schnuckums."
Really, though, next time you're making a slide like this spare yourself and all of us a lot of trouble and say "my cat" instead.
Second: Since part of having an open mind is attempting to empathize with people even when they make mistakes (And understand the mentality behind the mistake, since we are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER), I would like to try to un-demonize this guy at an individual level -- again, not trying to detract the larger, meta picture: jokes at the expense of women are NOT OK.
I think a lot of the outrage here comes from the fact that we are reading his slide as though he said "Maven is like a woman." He didn't, he said his girlfriend. The issue is that on a public presentation the goal is to say things others can relate to, so the natural conclusion is that he was indeed making a generalization.
I'm curious if we would have read it as a more appropriate joke if he had replaced "girlfriend" with a genderless noun like "significant other" or "schnuckums."
Really, though, next time you're making a slide like this spare yourself and all of us a lot of trouble and say "my cat" instead.
If that slide said cat, it would have worked perfectly. Brilliant.
Typical pattern: a developer associated with a company says something racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., there is public outrage on the internet, the company issues a nicely formatted public apology that includes all the typical tropes: "it's not OK", "we failed our values", "we let everyone down" etc. (someone should make a website to generate those) - all while not really saying anything meaningful.
The developer is an Atlassian employee. He gave the talk at an Atlassian organized conference. I would assume his talk must have been approved internally in some way or form (unless any employee was able to give any talk they wanted without any form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper problem here).
So here's my question: why wasn't this terrible "joke" cut out from the slides months ago? Why, when the guy was preparing his talk, presumably rehearsing it in front of his coworkers, sending the PDF of the slide to organizers of the event, etc., did no one speak up and say "Dude, that slide is sexist and doesn't add anything of value to your talk - just remove it"?
The fact that this didn't happen leads me to believe that the internal culture at Atlassian must be quite terrible, and very much the opposite of an environment where acceptance and diversity flourish.
(EDIT: received 3 downvotes on this comment less than one minute after it was posted. Looks like the Atlassian PR department is keeping watch. Hi guys! :) )
The developer is an Atlassian employee. He gave the talk at an Atlassian organized conference. I would assume his talk must have been approved internally in some way or form (unless any employee was able to give any talk they wanted without any form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper problem here).
So here's my question: why wasn't this terrible "joke" cut out from the slides months ago? Why, when the guy was preparing his talk, presumably rehearsing it in front of his coworkers, sending the PDF of the slide to organizers of the event, etc., did no one speak up and say "Dude, that slide is sexist and doesn't add anything of value to your talk - just remove it"?
The fact that this didn't happen leads me to believe that the internal culture at Atlassian must be quite terrible, and very much the opposite of an environment where acceptance and diversity flourish.
(EDIT: received 3 downvotes on this comment less than one minute after it was posted. Looks like the Atlassian PR department is keeping watch. Hi guys! :) )
> I would assume his talk must have been approved internally in some way or form (unless any employee was able to give any talk they wanted without any form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper problem here).
I would detest working at such a place; having to run my technical presentations through a filter would be constricting and off putting.
Unless given by a person in the marketing department, I would never assume a presentation made by an employee reflected the values aims or goals of the company as a whole.
> why wasn't this terrible "joke" cut out from the slides months ago? Why, when the guy was preparing his talk, presumably rehearsing it in front of his coworkers, sending the PDF of the slide to organizers of the event, etc., did no one speak up and say "Dude, that slide is sexist and doesn't add anything of value to your talk - just remove it"?
pfffft, I'm lucky if I've created my decks the day before the presentation. It's not unusual to go to a conference/event and find half the speakers writing decks in the hours before.
I would detest working at such a place; having to run my technical presentations through a filter would be constricting and off putting.
Unless given by a person in the marketing department, I would never assume a presentation made by an employee reflected the values aims or goals of the company as a whole.
> why wasn't this terrible "joke" cut out from the slides months ago? Why, when the guy was preparing his talk, presumably rehearsing it in front of his coworkers, sending the PDF of the slide to organizers of the event, etc., did no one speak up and say "Dude, that slide is sexist and doesn't add anything of value to your talk - just remove it"?
pfffft, I'm lucky if I've created my decks the day before the presentation. It's not unusual to go to a conference/event and find half the speakers writing decks in the hours before.
> I would detest working at such a place; having to run my technical presentations through a filter would be constricting and off putting.
I think it can be done without being restrictive or off putting. The place I last worked at required all public talks and training sessions to happen internally first. It was a great way to promote constant learning, share new skills and emphasise company values. It had the side effect of being a great way to check presentations, even if that's just checking for typos, but it would also catch this sort of issue.
As many startups are finding, there comes a time, and a size of company, when you do need some process specifically to prevent things like this. It's annoying, but there way ways to make it a positive thing instead of a negative thing.
> Unless given by a person in the marketing department, I would never assume a presentation made by an employee reflected the values aims or goals of the company as a whole.
Unfortunately that's not what the press think, and even more unfortunately, it's often the press view that matters most.
I think it can be done without being restrictive or off putting. The place I last worked at required all public talks and training sessions to happen internally first. It was a great way to promote constant learning, share new skills and emphasise company values. It had the side effect of being a great way to check presentations, even if that's just checking for typos, but it would also catch this sort of issue.
As many startups are finding, there comes a time, and a size of company, when you do need some process specifically to prevent things like this. It's annoying, but there way ways to make it a positive thing instead of a negative thing.
> Unless given by a person in the marketing department, I would never assume a presentation made by an employee reflected the values aims or goals of the company as a whole.
Unfortunately that's not what the press think, and even more unfortunately, it's often the press view that matters most.
> As many startups are finding, there comes a time, and a size of company, when you do need some process specifically to prevent things like this. It's annoying, but there way ways to make it a positive thing instead of a negative thing.
Quite possibly, but this is one of the lures of an early stage start up for me.
Quite possibly, but this is one of the lures of an early stage start up for me.
Downed you, and I'm not Atlassian employee. Just because you seem to believe each word in each talk of each employee in each company should be scrutinized by thought police and I don't agree.
I don't believe that "each word in each talk of each employee in each company should be scrutinized".
I do believe that if you're giving a talk on behalf of your company at a major event organized by your company, and your talk contains an extremely inappropriate slide, then either a) your company is terrible at organizing events (and it's a miracle that nothing worse happened) or b) no one in your company cared about that inappropriate slide, in which case your company has terrible culture.
(here gbog is using the 3rd stratagem from Schopenhauer's "Art of Being Right": "Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements")
I do believe that if you're giving a talk on behalf of your company at a major event organized by your company, and your talk contains an extremely inappropriate slide, then either a) your company is terrible at organizing events (and it's a miracle that nothing worse happened) or b) no one in your company cared about that inappropriate slide, in which case your company has terrible culture.
(here gbog is using the 3rd stratagem from Schopenhauer's "Art of Being Right": "Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements")
Quoting you:
> (unless any employee was able to give any talk they wanted without any form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper problem here)
I think any employee being able to give any talk they wanted without helicopter parenting should be the norm. I think one employee saying once one stupid thing should not be the end of the world. I think everyone should be allowed to say stupid things. We do anyway, right?
> (unless any employee was able to give any talk they wanted without any form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper problem here)
I think any employee being able to give any talk they wanted without helicopter parenting should be the norm. I think one employee saying once one stupid thing should not be the end of the world. I think everyone should be allowed to say stupid things. We do anyway, right?
or c) the presenter slipped it in at the last minute on his own accord.
And was never told ahead of time that risky edgy gender humor is a stupid idea in a professional context.
Kind of shameful that it even has to be said, but I guess it does.
Kind of shameful that it even has to be said, but I guess it does.
> "I would assume his talk must have been approved internally in some way or form (unless any employee was able to give any talk they wanted without any form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper problem here)."
Your comment hinges on this assumption but it is ludicrous. Especially in this context. It is the antithesis of trusting your employees (and understanding that people sometimes screw up). It does makes me wonder about the kind of companies you've worked at.
Your comment hinges on this assumption but it is ludicrous. Especially in this context. It is the antithesis of trusting your employees (and understanding that people sometimes screw up). It does makes me wonder about the kind of companies you've worked at.
Agreed. My company does not review my slides before I present them, they vest me with the responsibility to moderate myself.
Never at a company that made the news in the way Atlassian did, I can tell you that much. ;)
It seems that people interpreted my comment as implying that the talk would be reviewed by some pointy haired boss stamping a stack of forms. That is not what I meant at all.
Rather, that a talk presented at such a venue would be given and vetted internally first, if only for the sake of technical correctness. In my career, I have never given a talk (whether while working for a private company, research lab, etc) without it having been given to colleagues first- again, if only for technical correctness/typos/etc.
So again, here either no one from Atlassian saw the talk until the day of, which is terrible. Or people from Atlassian saw the talk beforehand and no one objected at the slide- which is even worse.
It seems that people interpreted my comment as implying that the talk would be reviewed by some pointy haired boss stamping a stack of forms. That is not what I meant at all.
Rather, that a talk presented at such a venue would be given and vetted internally first, if only for the sake of technical correctness. In my career, I have never given a talk (whether while working for a private company, research lab, etc) without it having been given to colleagues first- again, if only for technical correctness/typos/etc.
So again, here either no one from Atlassian saw the talk until the day of, which is terrible. Or people from Atlassian saw the talk beforehand and no one objected at the slide- which is even worse.
The fact the slide made it into the presentation might be what they mean when they talked about implementing process where it is needed. This is exactly the sort of process that larger companies will have (managers signing off on things) but that startups often attempt to avoid.
If someone didn't sign off on the presentation, then I hope process is implemented that prevent this from happening again, and if it was signed off, it sounds like more employees need some education.
The way the last company I worked for dealt with this stuff was great, all talks and training sessions to be given externally were given internally first, which means multiple employees could give feedback (which was heavily encouraged) and also things like this would hopefully not slip through.
If someone didn't sign off on the presentation, then I hope process is implemented that prevent this from happening again, and if it was signed off, it sounds like more employees need some education.
The way the last company I worked for dealt with this stuff was great, all talks and training sessions to be given externally were given internally first, which means multiple employees could give feedback (which was heavily encouraged) and also things like this would hopefully not slip through.
I met Mike Cannon-Brookes at an event that I attended some time ago and I happened to have a reasonably lengthy and interesting chat to him about - amongst other things - the culture at Atlassian. It happened to be the same week when GitHub had that PR disaster related to the apparently inappropriate treatment of one of their staff. I discussed this issue with Mike and asked if Atlassian had a similar view on the efficacy of the flat company structure that Valve, GitHub, et al espouse. He said that no, this was not the case at Atlassian because he felt that this kind of flat structure contributed to a poorer culture in the long run.
Obviously no one and no company is perfect and this story is a case in point, but I came away from that conversation with a much higher opinion of Atlassian than I had previously. It certainly seemed to me that Mike was serious about trying to cultivate a good culture at Atlassian and he also seemed like a genuine, no bullshit kind of guy.
I've also happened to have dealings of the professional networking/information exchange kind with one of the staff at Atlassian and was again impressed by how helpful that person was and the way they conducted themselves.
So in my anecdotal but first person experience, I would say that the culture at Atlassian is probably above par when compared to other similarly sized companies.
Obviously no one and no company is perfect and this story is a case in point, but I came away from that conversation with a much higher opinion of Atlassian than I had previously. It certainly seemed to me that Mike was serious about trying to cultivate a good culture at Atlassian and he also seemed like a genuine, no bullshit kind of guy.
I've also happened to have dealings of the professional networking/information exchange kind with one of the staff at Atlassian and was again impressed by how helpful that person was and the way they conducted themselves.
So in my anecdotal but first person experience, I would say that the culture at Atlassian is probably above par when compared to other similarly sized companies.
I discussed this issue with Mike and asked if Atlassian had a similar view on the efficacy of the flat company structure that Valve, GitHub, et al espouse. He said that no, this was not the case at Atlassian because he felt that this kind of flat structure contributed to a poorer culture in the long run.
Events like the Github fiasco should not be mentioned in the open allocation debate, because it's not like they're rare in a closed-allocation company. They're just as common, if not moreso. It just doesn't surprise us, when that shit goes down at a closed-allocation company, because open-allocation companies are held to a higher standard-- because open allocation companies are better.
Open allocation isn't a panacea. The Github event established that, if it wasn't already obvious. Open allocation isn't perfect. It is, however, superior to closed allocation is almost every way (at least, in software). Closed allocation only works better under severe time constraints.
"Flat organization" is somewhat different and usually (like "unlimited vacation") undesirable. Just as "unlimited vacation" means the policy is undefined, "flat organization" usually means the hierarchy is undefined-- which is dangerous, because "unofficial managers" are more likely to compete with those below them than official, titled ones.
In reality and perhaps paradoxically, true open allocation requires that people with credibility and leadership skill keep the company open and fair, which means that it requires (lightweight) management. It's not the Traditional Dickhead Management (i.e. you subordinate to this assigned person, whose goals may conflict with the company's and yours, or you are fucked) that you see in 90+ percent of companies, but it's not "flat" either. "Flat" is like "anarchy"; not stable. Open allocation, however, is the absolute right way to go.
Events like the Github fiasco should not be mentioned in the open allocation debate, because it's not like they're rare in a closed-allocation company. They're just as common, if not moreso. It just doesn't surprise us, when that shit goes down at a closed-allocation company, because open-allocation companies are held to a higher standard-- because open allocation companies are better.
Open allocation isn't a panacea. The Github event established that, if it wasn't already obvious. Open allocation isn't perfect. It is, however, superior to closed allocation is almost every way (at least, in software). Closed allocation only works better under severe time constraints.
"Flat organization" is somewhat different and usually (like "unlimited vacation") undesirable. Just as "unlimited vacation" means the policy is undefined, "flat organization" usually means the hierarchy is undefined-- which is dangerous, because "unofficial managers" are more likely to compete with those below them than official, titled ones.
In reality and perhaps paradoxically, true open allocation requires that people with credibility and leadership skill keep the company open and fair, which means that it requires (lightweight) management. It's not the Traditional Dickhead Management (i.e. you subordinate to this assigned person, whose goals may conflict with the company's and yours, or you are fucked) that you see in 90+ percent of companies, but it's not "flat" either. "Flat" is like "anarchy"; not stable. Open allocation, however, is the absolute right way to go.
> Events like the Github fiasco should not be mentioned in the open allocation debate ...
Well I guess you'd have to take that up with Mike as you're really referencing his opinion not mine. In that instance I was neither trying to praise or criticise the kind of company structure that appears to be represented by Valve/GitHub (if "open allocation" better describes this phenomenon then I'll take your word for that). In fact I only mentioned it because it was the context within which my discussion of Atlassian's culture began on the evening in question.
I personally find this open allocation concept quite fascinating and think it potentially holds a lot promise. Most people working in corporate environments today would be lying if they said there wasn't huge room for innovation and efficiency gains at their workplace. To my knowledge however, I am unaware of any situation where an open allocation culture has been successfully retro-fitted to an existing corporate environment (if you know of one, I'd be interested). I'm also skeptical in relation to how well an open allocation culture would work out once a company grows beyond a certain inflection point. I'm not well read enough on this matter to put a stake in the ground and define that exact inflection point. But for the sake of illustration, let's say I'd be interested to know how such a culture would work out when applied to an organization consisting of thousands of employees as opposed to dozens or even hundreds.
Well I guess you'd have to take that up with Mike as you're really referencing his opinion not mine. In that instance I was neither trying to praise or criticise the kind of company structure that appears to be represented by Valve/GitHub (if "open allocation" better describes this phenomenon then I'll take your word for that). In fact I only mentioned it because it was the context within which my discussion of Atlassian's culture began on the evening in question.
I personally find this open allocation concept quite fascinating and think it potentially holds a lot promise. Most people working in corporate environments today would be lying if they said there wasn't huge room for innovation and efficiency gains at their workplace. To my knowledge however, I am unaware of any situation where an open allocation culture has been successfully retro-fitted to an existing corporate environment (if you know of one, I'd be interested). I'm also skeptical in relation to how well an open allocation culture would work out once a company grows beyond a certain inflection point. I'm not well read enough on this matter to put a stake in the ground and define that exact inflection point. But for the sake of illustration, let's say I'd be interested to know how such a culture would work out when applied to an organization consisting of thousands of employees as opposed to dozens or even hundreds.
To my knowledge however, I am unaware of any situation where an open allocation culture has been successfully retro-fitted to an existing corporate environment (if you know of one, I'd be interested).
That is hard as hell, to be honest. Paradoxically, I think it requires a top-down commitment. Companies usually want to try this sort of thing incrementally. So they put their best people into an R&D group that has a fair amount of autonomy. However, over time what seems to happen is that it's resented and attacked, and eventually has to spend more time fighting political battles than innovating. At that point, it's often just as underperforming as the rest of the organization, the experiment is judged a failure, and that autonomy is taken away. It's the "fish frying" problem (http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/).
I'm also skeptical in relation to how well an open allocation culture would work out once a company grows beyond a certain inflection point. I'm not well read enough on this matter to put a stake in the ground and define that exact inflection point.
Gore-tex uses open allocation and is large (almost 10,000 employees, if I recall correctly). What I don't think OA can survive is too-rapid growth. I think it can scale to thousands of employees. I don't think it can tolerate personnel growth at the 100-150%/year levels that VCs want to see.
That is hard as hell, to be honest. Paradoxically, I think it requires a top-down commitment. Companies usually want to try this sort of thing incrementally. So they put their best people into an R&D group that has a fair amount of autonomy. However, over time what seems to happen is that it's resented and attacked, and eventually has to spend more time fighting political battles than innovating. At that point, it's often just as underperforming as the rest of the organization, the experiment is judged a failure, and that autonomy is taken away. It's the "fish frying" problem (http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/).
I'm also skeptical in relation to how well an open allocation culture would work out once a company grows beyond a certain inflection point. I'm not well read enough on this matter to put a stake in the ground and define that exact inflection point.
Gore-tex uses open allocation and is large (almost 10,000 employees, if I recall correctly). What I don't think OA can survive is too-rapid growth. I think it can scale to thousands of employees. I don't think it can tolerate personnel growth at the 100-150%/year levels that VCs want to see.
> Gore-tex uses open allocation and is large (almost 10,000 employees, if I recall correctly).
Thanks for the tip on Gore-tex, hadn't heard about them.
> What I don't think OA can survive is too-rapid growth. I think it can scale to thousands of employees. I don't think it can tolerate personnel growth at the 100-150%/year levels that VCs want to see.
So the important thing is to ensure that there remains a solid core of staff of an influential enough size that understands the open allocation process/culture in order to successfully orient new comers arriving at a reasonable pace. That's potentially quite an interesting insight, I'll remember that one.
Thanks for the tip on Gore-tex, hadn't heard about them.
> What I don't think OA can survive is too-rapid growth. I think it can scale to thousands of employees. I don't think it can tolerate personnel growth at the 100-150%/year levels that VCs want to see.
So the important thing is to ensure that there remains a solid core of staff of an influential enough size that understands the open allocation process/culture in order to successfully orient new comers arriving at a reasonable pace. That's potentially quite an interesting insight, I'll remember that one.
I have read your post several times. I still have no idea what you're trying to say.
Valve and Github are well-known for open allocation, which is different from "flat organization". You can both, either without the other, or neither.
"Flat" organization is unstable and therefore probably not desirable. Open allocation (people can transfer freely as they wish) is a good thing and the only way to function at high levels as a technology company.
"Flat" organization is unstable and therefore probably not desirable. Open allocation (people can transfer freely as they wish) is a good thing and the only way to function at high levels as a technology company.
Well, I don't know why the downvotes but I think this is hyperbolic. I saw the slide, it is crass and bad taste and I don't defend but what you're saying about this as evidence of some terrible culture because someone didn't see this "months ago" is just hard to even take seriously.
So in your mind, presentations that are not made 6 months in advance and are not thoroughly vetted means there is a bad culture problem at a company and not a place where diveristy can flourish? That's just ... I wouldn't want to be anywhere that you would find ideal; it sounds like a horrible place.
So in your mind, presentations that are not made 6 months in advance and are not thoroughly vetted means there is a bad culture problem at a company and not a place where diveristy can flourish? That's just ... I wouldn't want to be anywhere that you would find ideal; it sounds like a horrible place.
Cf my response to other commenters who raised a point similar to yours. Of course I'm not expecting the talk to be thoroughly vetted 6 months in advance. However, demanding that all speakers give their talk internally a month or two in advance, if only for the sake of technical correctness/typos/etc., seems like a very reasonable minimum.
I downvoted you because (a) you jumped to conclusions about the company culture at Atlassian; and (b) you jumped to conclusions about why someone might downvote you.
While this was a stupid judgement error (when in doubt about gender, religion or politics, just stay clear), I wonder what would be the reaction if it was a woman talking about her husband. Or, better yet, someone talking about the same-sex partner.
It would be no less wrong, but I believe reaction would be very different.
It would be no less wrong, but I believe reaction would be very different.
Applying symmetry to an asymmetrical situation is neither a new idea, nor is it very insightful.
It's when the majority is making jokes about the minority that people get riled up. Even if it's only perceived. Also, taking things out of context adds to the effect.
It would, however, still be a terrible and counter-productive slide.
I feel like this isn't really a "the thought police have rejected your slide" moment so much as a "fucking hell, dude, that was dumb" moment.
I feel like this isn't really a "the thought police have rejected your slide" moment so much as a "fucking hell, dude, that was dumb" moment.
It would be no less wrong, and would deserve the same scorn this case received.
Still, as a thought experiment, I'd love to see how different the reactions would be. It seems that gender discrimination is, sadly, influenced by gender.
Still, as a thought experiment, I'd love to see how different the reactions would be. It seems that gender discrimination is, sadly, influenced by gender.
Sure, in the same way you would water a sapling more than you would water a tree. You need to take special care when it is needed -- right now women face a toxic environment in the tech industry; men do not.
It isn't sad that we are training ourselves to be more sensitive to things that worsen that divide.
It isn't sad that we are training ourselves to be more sensitive to things that worsen that divide.
Referenced story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7847351
I read through his original slide, and I see what was wrong about it. I think changing the name of the slide to "...is my significant other" (or some other term that does not mention any sex) would have still got his point across (a satirical view on (clingy?) relationships). I understand why people are upset seeing how he made a very clear reference to one particular sex.
That being said, it is perfectly natural for him to impose his specific preferences when talking in the first perspective (a way of story telling). Eg. You always say gf/bf instead of significant other if you were making any other statement about them (good/bad).
The above discussion is purely since we are at the edge of what we would consider sexism, and although I don't know the presenter personally, I would assume his point was to compare a clingy relationship to maven (some software), and not to compare to girls in general or imply that girls are more prone to (clingy?) relationships. (I am assuming the best in him)
Given the context and mood of society though I can see how this can be perceived in the way it is being perceived. (Context being clingy seems to be associated with girls, I cant think of any other reason why one gender should be offended if it is perceived to be equally prevalent in both genders.) It seems unfortunate that this is the case, but all in all he should have kept in mind societal perceptions when making his slides. (Rule 1 of making presentations, always keep your audience in mind).
I personally would not condone such a slide since it seems to be exploiting to be exploiting a particular gender stereotype. We as a society are guided by our history and perceptions. (A quick example, asking a female chef to return to the kitchen would be considered sexist versus asking a female software engineer to return to her computer which might be insulting but would never be construed as sexist). We must take care to avoid sensitive stereotypes.
That being said, it is perfectly natural for him to impose his specific preferences when talking in the first perspective (a way of story telling). Eg. You always say gf/bf instead of significant other if you were making any other statement about them (good/bad).
The above discussion is purely since we are at the edge of what we would consider sexism, and although I don't know the presenter personally, I would assume his point was to compare a clingy relationship to maven (some software), and not to compare to girls in general or imply that girls are more prone to (clingy?) relationships. (I am assuming the best in him)
Given the context and mood of society though I can see how this can be perceived in the way it is being perceived. (Context being clingy seems to be associated with girls, I cant think of any other reason why one gender should be offended if it is perceived to be equally prevalent in both genders.) It seems unfortunate that this is the case, but all in all he should have kept in mind societal perceptions when making his slides. (Rule 1 of making presentations, always keep your audience in mind).
I personally would not condone such a slide since it seems to be exploiting to be exploiting a particular gender stereotype. We as a society are guided by our history and perceptions. (A quick example, asking a female chef to return to the kitchen would be considered sexist versus asking a female software engineer to return to her computer which might be insulting but would never be construed as sexist). We must take care to avoid sensitive stereotypes.
Wait, seriously?
First off; technicalities: he didn't say "Maven is all women". He said "My girlfriend". Presumably referring to a specific person. His girlfriend has the right to be pissed off, I suppose.
Second off, if mild gender stereotypes are worth so much hate you might as well cancel every sitcom on TV.
First off; technicalities: he didn't say "Maven is all women". He said "My girlfriend". Presumably referring to a specific person. His girlfriend has the right to be pissed off, I suppose.
Second off, if mild gender stereotypes are worth so much hate you might as well cancel every sitcom on TV.
> Second off, if mild gender stereotypes are worth so much hate you might as well cancel every sitcom on TV.
Many people (including, of course, feminists) do indeed think that virtually every sitcom on TV is unacceptably sexist. And while I don't know that the slide justifies "hate," I do think that it justifies widespread criticism since it perpetuates an unfortunate pattern of gender discrimination in the industry. (Or, if you prefer, it perpetuates an unfortunate pattern of complaining and arguing about gender discrimination. Even if you think that there is no gender discrimination in tech, it seems like you ought to agree that inviting that critique is itself a mistake.)
And, no, I don't think it's presumable that he is just referring to a specific person since everything he lists is, as you note, a well worn gender stereotype.
Many people (including, of course, feminists) do indeed think that virtually every sitcom on TV is unacceptably sexist. And while I don't know that the slide justifies "hate," I do think that it justifies widespread criticism since it perpetuates an unfortunate pattern of gender discrimination in the industry. (Or, if you prefer, it perpetuates an unfortunate pattern of complaining and arguing about gender discrimination. Even if you think that there is no gender discrimination in tech, it seems like you ought to agree that inviting that critique is itself a mistake.)
And, no, I don't think it's presumable that he is just referring to a specific person since everything he lists is, as you note, a well worn gender stereotype.
Yeah, people don't seem to get that there is a different standard for decorum in different contexts. Late night TV? Be as edgy as you want. Conference setting? A little more professional, please.
Right, he couched his sexist tropes in specific language that provided him with deniability. It's standard, and you seem to have fallen for it.
No: you read into it what you wanted to read into it. He made a specific statement about a person, and you generalized it into all women. That's on you.
Does nobody get the benefit of the doubt anymore because bored social justice warriors are looking for a fucking witch-hunt?
Downvote away.
Does nobody get the benefit of the doubt anymore because bored social justice warriors are looking for a fucking witch-hunt?
Downvote away.
Thank you. Great comment. I was blown away that all my comments on this thread got down voted because I defended the presenter. Even ones where I was thanking someone for posting a reference link. This is a witch-hunt. This is a forum for people to find a fire and add fuel to it. There was nothing wrong with the guys presentation.
Up voted.
Up voted.
No, people who spout sexism that was already old in the 90s do not get the benefit of the doubt. Next question.
So basically, comments made about one person obviously apply to all people, in your world.
(Also: do you seriously think that women have such fragile psyches that they can't take a simple joke? What does that say about your view on women?)
(Also: do you seriously think that women have such fragile psyches that they can't take a simple joke? What does that say about your view on women?)
"do you seriously think that women have such fragile psyches that they can't take a simple joke? What does that say about your view on women?"
I think that plenty of people, men and women, have such fragile psyches that they can't take a joke - or, at least, that taking a joke requires extra effort which distracts from the matter at hand.
For the record, I don't think the slide was as bad as some people are making it out to be, but to dismiss concerns over it as motivated by sexism is rhetorical prestidigitation and not an actual argument.
I think that plenty of people, men and women, have such fragile psyches that they can't take a joke - or, at least, that taking a joke requires extra effort which distracts from the matter at hand.
For the record, I don't think the slide was as bad as some people are making it out to be, but to dismiss concerns over it as motivated by sexism is rhetorical prestidigitation and not an actual argument.
Here's a great post about why, even if this were specifically about his specific girlfriend and didn't code sexist tropes, it would still be unacceptable: http://blog.izs.me/post/87902115343/re-maven-is-like-my-girl...
This is not sexist. This is anti-his-girlfriend-ist.
Some people just love being victims I guess.
Some people just love being victims I guess.
Every time I see one of these threads, I'm unable to understand responses such as yours.
Whether he's referring to his girlfriend or women in general, he's perpetuating a stereotype. This has less to do with sexism, and more to do with offensive stereotyping. You could replace the girlfriend example with anything from this page (first link i found) - http://examples.yourdictionary.com/stereotype-examples.html - and it's equally wrong.
He's doing it as a representative of his company, and so Atlassian needs to acknowledge that it's wrong, and they're going to do something about it. An employee made a mistake in a public forum - simple as that.
Whether he's referring to his girlfriend or women in general, he's perpetuating a stereotype. This has less to do with sexism, and more to do with offensive stereotyping. You could replace the girlfriend example with anything from this page (first link i found) - http://examples.yourdictionary.com/stereotype-examples.html - and it's equally wrong.
He's doing it as a representative of his company, and so Atlassian needs to acknowledge that it's wrong, and they're going to do something about it. An employee made a mistake in a public forum - simple as that.
From your link:
>The definition of a stereotype is any commonly known public belief about a certain social group or a type of individual.
That definition kind of contradicts your point. He wasn't referring to women in general (certain social group) or to girlfriends in general (type of individuals). He was referring to his girlfriend. For you to accuse him of perpetuating a stereotype, you would have to claim that his girlfriend represents all women or all girlfriends (which is sexist).
>The definition of a stereotype is any commonly known public belief about a certain social group or a type of individual.
That definition kind of contradicts your point. He wasn't referring to women in general (certain social group) or to girlfriends in general (type of individuals). He was referring to his girlfriend. For you to accuse him of perpetuating a stereotype, you would have to claim that his girlfriend represents all women or all girlfriends (which is sexist).
>Whether he's referring to his girlfriend or women in general, he's perpetuating a stereotype.
it is you who perpetuates the stereotype by forcefully projecting/extending his reference to his girlfriend onto women in general.
Your brain is the exact place where the generalization from his girlfriend to all women happened, and you hold him responsible for that action of your brain.
it is you who perpetuates the stereotype by forcefully projecting/extending his reference to his girlfriend onto women in general.
Your brain is the exact place where the generalization from his girlfriend to all women happened, and you hold him responsible for that action of your brain.
Yes, but there is a subtext there. However, I don't totally disagree with you. It was bad taste, unneccessary, and childish but not exactly Douglas Sterling.
"I know the engineer responsible well. I hired him. I know the slide does not reflect his values any more than it reflects Atlassian’s"
If the slide reflects his values _less_ than it does Atlassian's, that's pretty bad, no?
If the slide reflects his values _less_ than it does Atlassian's, that's pretty bad, no?
Well, technically, "any more than" means it reflects his values <= Atlassians, and <= 0 is 0.
But I got a chuckle from what you said.
But I got a chuckle from what you said.
[deleted]
so, the guy had bad luck with girlfriends. Now he will be witch hunted for mentioning his experience to other people.
Maven is my Feminist...
* Looks Good * Complains a Lot * Demands My Attention * Interrupts Me When I'm Working * Doesn't Play Well With My Other Friends
* Looks Good * Complains a Lot * Demands My Attention * Interrupts Me When I'm Working * Doesn't Play Well With My Other Friends
Hmmm...he was talking about his girlfriend not women in general. Who are we to contest his relationship? Maybe she is pretty. Maybe she does complain a lot. That's his choice to be with her. I don't see the problem. Certainly not a sexist slide. If his girlfriend is pretty and complains then it's factual.
It's not a "sorry if you were offended" non-apology.
It's throwing a particular person under the bus or offering his head on a stake.
It is thoughtful and direct and raises my opinion of Atlassian. Well done, guys.