The point I was replying to was not that porn should be in the workplace, but whether or not women are affected differently by it. Are women going to need a fainting couch put in because work isn't a "safe space", because the "guys" have had a long day and have dropped the appearance of propriety, or are they going to grow up and deal with it like an adult?
Moreover, it's a tried-and-true business practice to not linger where you're not appreciated. If you're never going to get promoted, or get a raise, or internal office politics are going to kill morale, what do you do? Do you bitch and moan? Do you start trouble? Or do you find someplace else where things are more stable?
I've found that the best option tends to be the last one in virtually all cases. Don't burn bridges, just say "sorry it didn't work out" and move on.
And I'll call bullshit on the sexist (and heteronormative) notion that women can't handle the idea of porn. That we're all so scared of guys liking porn and sharing porn that it's scaring us out of male-dominated fields.
Aside from that, if porn is the thing that alters your life plan, then your life plan wasn't that good to begin with.
You may need to find a new job, but there is a substantial difference between saying the industry is sexist versus a single studio being sexist.
I guess I'm going to be that person that raises a hand and says this isn't a binary condition.
I'm smart and highly motivated. I'm a pretty good self-starter in an environment where things are well-structured. But I'm also a trifle scatter-brained and lose focus without decent structure in my environment (where everyone is expected to be a self-starter...yes, there are environments where this happens).
Maybe we'll be in disagreement and you'd think that the second is simply a case in poor management. Well, I agree there. You're probably a good manager and keep the chaos to a minimum, and you don't work in an environment where people are expected to produce projects from whole cloth. But I'd still argue that self-management works by degrees: you can have people who are good self-starters for projects but not programs. And you can have people that order the hell out of chaos at the program level, but readily admit they'd be lost at the nuts-and-bolts level.
I have mod points, but there are times when what I want to say is more nuanced than a mod point can convey.
That in this case being, thank you for sharing your experience. Primarily because I appreciate it when someone who "just loves to code" speaks up and shows how truly valuable he or she is.
And on the other side of the argument, I'd hate to think that I was hired to meet a quota, especially in a place where the reputation of those already hired under the same system results in poor candidates.
Because people would automatically assume that I, too, was poor right from the gate.
And even worse, might blow smoke at me for how "good" my performance was in case my predecessor on the quota list did a particularly great deal of tongue-wagging to HR, who, being the good little set of diversity-promoting drones they are, fell right in line to avoid getting a lawsuit.
I'd hate to believe I'm being overly inflated while being constantly undermined. It cripples me as an employee and it kills any ability I have to be a member of the team.
The argument, as I understand it, is that women provide a "different perspective" and offer possibilities for "new solutions".
Which is bunk, really (at least in STEM fields; in other more creative fields, a change in perspective might make a difference). Because if women consistently offered such successful outside-the-box thinking, all women would be worthy of promotion just for showing up*. This also assumes that most men think alike and if given a certain problem will always come to the same conclusion as if all men are the same**.
Most women, like most men, aren't visionaries by some inherent characteristic, and most had the same level and quality of education. Why there's an automatic assumption that women somehow have such a usefully divergent set of neural pathways, I'm not really sure about.
*Because we need more female CEOs, naturally. **But that isn't a sexist assumption if we're talking about men, right?
The part that gets me is the internal inconsistency of all of these initiatives.
I hear a lot of drum-pounding over how hostile tech environments are to women and minorities (they MUST be, or else there would be more of them in these environments*). But, let's make it so more of them want to head into the jaws of the wolf anyway?
What am I missing here?
*Yes, I am well aware that research dictates those candidates are self-selecting out of careers in STEM for other reasons, but I'm playing devil's advocate here.
Okay, that's probably a bit of trivia that's passed me by.
However, another aficionado of the same movie I know claimed that Dallas and Zorg didn't even know each other existed. While it's true they never met, there's no way Dallas didn't know Zorg owned the company he worked for, and Zorg had to know all about the winner of the Gemini Croquettes sweepstakes.
No, I'm in agreement with you here. As much as I don't buy from ThinkGeek anymore (unless they have a really, really wantable T-shirt on sale*...because I'm cheap as hell), having something akin to an Amazon Locker is a boon and a win for them.
It's a heck of a smart business strategy and it's going to be interesting (to me at least) to see how successful it is.
*I have a "Fhloston Paradise" t-shirt, and alas, no one ever recognizes the reference. That causes me to be bummed in almost unreasonable amounts.
It's thumbing the nose at ISIS, saying, the spirit of those artifacts live on and you can't destroy that.
Okay, sure, it isn't the same thing, but saying these objects deserve a place in the world by re-creating them is saying something, no matter how small.
And you think all schools can magically accommodate this? Or even will?
What happens when well-meaning but misguided parents who know the school can't but go all Tiger parent because they just know that making the kid learn how to code is the "recipe" for success?
Sure, but kids, like adults, have only so much time in a day.
And frankly, the way I see some kids overscheduled (especially since not all schools offer music and art) and gives them no time to be kids and *breathe*, some sacrifices have to be made somewhere.
I met one overly-harried parent of a TKD student that made sure her girls were not only doing TKD, but leadership and golf classes (her reasoning: "She'll never be a CEO if she doesn't learn how to play golf!"). The kid in question seemed barely interested in TKD, though I can't speak to how she felt about other activities. Still, she never came across as enthusiastic or even particularly happy. Come to think of it, I barely ever remember seeing her smile.
Point is: kids shouldn't be our receptacles for our hopes and dreams, and all of these ideas about kids learning this particular thing that's popular is only going to make kids stressed out, miserable, neurotic adults that don't know how to enjoy life.
I'm not talking about the Slashdot crowd. I'm talking to the politicians pushing the ludicrous idea that "not enough" kids learn CS/STEM and the nodding heads in the audience that think the problem isn't so nuanced that all "winning the future" is really going to take is pushing enough kids to do things that they weren't interested in doing to start with.
Outside of that, I'm regretfully not terribly surprised that the logical conclusion of pushing the misbegotten idea that kids need computer science (despite everyone in the conversation not knowing what it means) hasn't made its way to the mainstream press: that is, flooding the employment pool with applicants to drive down salaries, for positions that aren't filled with H1Bs anyway. It's funny how none of these talking heads talk about THAT part.
Nope, it's always about how sexy these jobs are; spoken by people who have at most done little more coding than the obligatory "Hello World" script. Except, no, they really, really aren't. In the immortal words of Jonathan Coulton, in a song about this very topic: "This job fulfilling in creative way/such a load of crap."
It can be long, grueling, and irritating. It's filled with demands for certification by people who barely understand how to use Outlook. And it's a career that requires lifelong learning. Which, for the record, I find nothing wrong with, BUT if you have a life-plan that doesn't involve any severe paradigm shifts and long hours of self-teaching (fuck's sake, half the languages people use now weren't even a thing fifteen years ago), then CS, coding, or whatever the hell non-techie types are calling is isn't sexy or fun. And the people who make the big bucks doing this ARE the kind of people that are willing to put up with all the long and grueling stuff that comes with the turf.
I don't blame anyone for the life choices they make. I just get pissed when I hear politicians make a career field out to be sexier than it actually is, and trying to turn people into miserable worker-bots.
Slashdot Mirror
The point I was replying to was not that porn should be in the workplace, but whether or not women are affected differently by it. Are women going to need a fainting couch put in because work isn't a "safe space", because the "guys" have had a long day and have dropped the appearance of propriety, or are they going to grow up and deal with it like an adult?
Moreover, it's a tried-and-true business practice to not linger where you're not appreciated. If you're never going to get promoted, or get a raise, or internal office politics are going to kill morale, what do you do? Do you bitch and moan? Do you start trouble? Or do you find someplace else where things are more stable?
I've found that the best option tends to be the last one in virtually all cases. Don't burn bridges, just say "sorry it didn't work out" and move on.
Indeed.
And I'll call bullshit on the sexist (and heteronormative) notion that women can't handle the idea of porn. That we're all so scared of guys liking porn and sharing porn that it's scaring us out of male-dominated fields.
Aside from that, if porn is the thing that alters your life plan, then your life plan wasn't that good to begin with.
You may need to find a new job, but there is a substantial difference between saying the industry is sexist versus a single studio being sexist.
I guess I'm going to be that person that raises a hand and says this isn't a binary condition.
I'm smart and highly motivated. I'm a pretty good self-starter in an environment where things are well-structured. But I'm also a trifle scatter-brained and lose focus without decent structure in my environment (where everyone is expected to be a self-starter...yes, there are environments where this happens).
Maybe we'll be in disagreement and you'd think that the second is simply a case in poor management. Well, I agree there. You're probably a good manager and keep the chaos to a minimum, and you don't work in an environment where people are expected to produce projects from whole cloth. But I'd still argue that self-management works by degrees: you can have people who are good self-starters for projects but not programs. And you can have people that order the hell out of chaos at the program level, but readily admit they'd be lost at the nuts-and-bolts level.
I have mod points, but there are times when what I want to say is more nuanced than a mod point can convey.
That in this case being, thank you for sharing your experience. Primarily because I appreciate it when someone who "just loves to code" speaks up and shows how truly valuable he or she is.
Better a corporate whore than an Anonymous Coward.
I thought I was the only one with this as a first thought.
Thank you for confirming there are other sick people in the world like me. :-P
And on the other side of the argument, I'd hate to think that I was hired to meet a quota, especially in a place where the reputation of those already hired under the same system results in poor candidates.
Because people would automatically assume that I, too, was poor right from the gate.
And even worse, might blow smoke at me for how "good" my performance was in case my predecessor on the quota list did a particularly great deal of tongue-wagging to HR, who, being the good little set of diversity-promoting drones they are, fell right in line to avoid getting a lawsuit.
I'd hate to believe I'm being overly inflated while being constantly undermined. It cripples me as an employee and it kills any ability I have to be a member of the team.
The argument, as I understand it, is that women provide a "different perspective" and offer possibilities for "new solutions".
Which is bunk, really (at least in STEM fields; in other more creative fields, a change in perspective might make a difference). Because if women consistently offered such successful outside-the-box thinking, all women would be worthy of promotion just for showing up*. This also assumes that most men think alike and if given a certain problem will always come to the same conclusion as if all men are the same**.
Most women, like most men, aren't visionaries by some inherent characteristic, and most had the same level and quality of education. Why there's an automatic assumption that women somehow have such a usefully divergent set of neural pathways, I'm not really sure about.
*Because we need more female CEOs, naturally.
**But that isn't a sexist assumption if we're talking about men, right?
The part that gets me is the internal inconsistency of all of these initiatives.
I hear a lot of drum-pounding over how hostile tech environments are to women and minorities (they MUST be, or else there would be more of them in these environments*). But, let's make it so more of them want to head into the jaws of the wolf anyway?
What am I missing here?
*Yes, I am well aware that research dictates those candidates are self-selecting out of careers in STEM for other reasons, but I'm playing devil's advocate here.
Okay, that's probably a bit of trivia that's passed me by.
However, another aficionado of the same movie I know claimed that Dallas and Zorg didn't even know each other existed. While it's true they never met, there's no way Dallas didn't know Zorg owned the company he worked for, and Zorg had to know all about the winner of the Gemini Croquettes sweepstakes.
It's like old email addresses or other internet accounts that you don't even remember you have anymore, I would guess.
Depends. Is it any more reliable than SourceForge?
As in what the actual song the Diva sang was?
No, northeast US.
No, I'm in agreement with you here. As much as I don't buy from ThinkGeek anymore (unless they have a really, really wantable T-shirt on sale*...because I'm cheap as hell), having something akin to an Amazon Locker is a boon and a win for them.
It's a heck of a smart business strategy and it's going to be interesting (to me at least) to see how successful it is.
*I have a "Fhloston Paradise" t-shirt, and alas, no one ever recognizes the reference. That causes me to be bummed in almost unreasonable amounts.
No mod points. Still want to call this interesting.
I'm not your buddy, guy!
Nice. I legit chuckled at that.
20 seems a bit high.
I was in a small business of 10.
Two of them turned out to be complete assholes.
It's thumbing the nose at ISIS, saying, the spirit of those artifacts live on and you can't destroy that.
Okay, sure, it isn't the same thing, but saying these objects deserve a place in the world by re-creating them is saying something, no matter how small.
And you think all schools can magically accommodate this? Or even will?
What happens when well-meaning but misguided parents who know the school can't but go all Tiger parent because they just know that making the kid learn how to code is the "recipe" for success?
Answer: Miserable kids.
Sure, but kids, like adults, have only so much time in a day.
And frankly, the way I see some kids overscheduled (especially since not all schools offer music and art) and gives them no time to be kids and *breathe*, some sacrifices have to be made somewhere.
I met one overly-harried parent of a TKD student that made sure her girls were not only doing TKD, but leadership and golf classes (her reasoning: "She'll never be a CEO if she doesn't learn how to play golf!"). The kid in question seemed barely interested in TKD, though I can't speak to how she felt about other activities. Still, she never came across as enthusiastic or even particularly happy. Come to think of it, I barely ever remember seeing her smile.
Point is: kids shouldn't be our receptacles for our hopes and dreams, and all of these ideas about kids learning this particular thing that's popular is only going to make kids stressed out, miserable, neurotic adults that don't know how to enjoy life.
I am stealing your analogy and making it a thing. I hope that's okay with you.
I'm not talking about the Slashdot crowd. I'm talking to the politicians pushing the ludicrous idea that "not enough" kids learn CS/STEM and the nodding heads in the audience that think the problem isn't so nuanced that all "winning the future" is really going to take is pushing enough kids to do things that they weren't interested in doing to start with.
Outside of that, I'm regretfully not terribly surprised that the logical conclusion of pushing the misbegotten idea that kids need computer science (despite everyone in the conversation not knowing what it means) hasn't made its way to the mainstream press: that is, flooding the employment pool with applicants to drive down salaries, for positions that aren't filled with H1Bs anyway. It's funny how none of these talking heads talk about THAT part.
Nope, it's always about how sexy these jobs are; spoken by people who have at most done little more coding than the obligatory "Hello World" script. Except, no, they really, really aren't. In the immortal words of Jonathan Coulton, in a song about this very topic: "This job fulfilling in creative way/such a load of crap."
It can be long, grueling, and irritating. It's filled with demands for certification by people who barely understand how to use Outlook. And it's a career that requires lifelong learning. Which, for the record, I find nothing wrong with, BUT if you have a life-plan that doesn't involve any severe paradigm shifts and long hours of self-teaching (fuck's sake, half the languages people use now weren't even a thing fifteen years ago), then CS, coding, or whatever the hell non-techie types are calling is isn't sexy or fun. And the people who make the big bucks doing this ARE the kind of people that are willing to put up with all the long and grueling stuff that comes with the turf.
I don't blame anyone for the life choices they make. I just get pissed when I hear politicians make a career field out to be sexier than it actually is, and trying to turn people into miserable worker-bots.