Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Re^7: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

by Anonymous Monk
on Apr 09, 2013 at 10:47 UTC ( #1027705=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^6: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
in thread How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

Over sensitive. Sure. You've just been told that something that is an immutable part of who you are: female, minority, foreign - is inherently less. No, that isn't painful at all.

You were told no such thing, the joke doesn't even mention women

None - I refuse to acknowledge the term man hours, you patriarchical pig. But I have many person-hours. And let me tell you.....


Comment on Re^7: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
Re^8: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by pemungkah (Priest) on Apr 09, 2013 at 14:19 UTC
    I can't say I really believe that you think this, but okay. What then is the meaning you derive from the sentence you quote?

      Its a poll option, men and women and dogs are I, whomever is hanging on the poll

      I dog refuse to acknowledge the term man hours, you patriarchical pig. But I have many dog-hours. And let me tell you.....

      It makes fun of people incapable of carrying on a normal conversation who turn every syllable into a tirade on something or other (gender neutral language..)

      In no way does it say women/minority/foreign are inherently less

      That its screams worthless-female-feminist-trope to you speaks to your bias, not mine, I don't live in a patriarchal society

      If I said look at that casserole would you say I'm prejudiced against poodles? Even if its 80% macaroni and 20% cheese?

      Yeah, that last one got away from me -- feel free to now claim I called you worthless poodle hanging mac and cheese casserole

        That's the thing about bias. It says, "I'm already sure there's no problem here," and then someone says "seriously, can we look at this? I think there's a problem", and bias says, "No, there's no problem, we already know that, what is wrong with you?".

        When Perl throws an error message in a program you're "sure" is correct, how do you treat that? Do you ignore it because you're already sure that everything's fine? Or do you actually investigate until you know why the error was thrown?

        Let me explain why I'm throwing an error here.

        There is no reason to use the phrase "patriarchal pig" on Perlmonks unless you are a) ineptly attempting to call out someone for abusing privilege which you see as stemming from their being male, or b) using it as a dog-whistle to send the message "nudge-nudge, wink-wink, oh those silly women and their silly ideas about male privilege!". The poll writer was not a member of (a), therefore it seems likely that he was going for meaning (b). His non-apology to us "flakes" seems to confirm my conclusion.

        The fact that you literally cannot believe that patriarchy exists at all surprises me. If you live in an equal society, does it not seem then that one "equal" group its taking the mickey out on another here? Isn't that wrong in an equal society, that one group should belittle another?

        I'm just trying to understand what it is exactly you are trying to say here.

      That wasn't me, but FWIW, it seemed clear to me that the original joke was against feminists, and I am both amused and offended by the sexism shown by some complaining about it here in seemingly assuming it was against females.
        it seemed clear to me that the original joke was against feminists

        1. Do all feminists make that mistake about gender-specific terminology?

          Obviously not.

        2. Have some non-feminists -- civil government and corporate Public Relations bods with no particular feminist sympathies or antagonism - ever been guilty of trying to 'gender-wash' their public communications for the (mostly undue) fear of antagonising 50% of the voting public.

          I'm sure a well-crafted search could turn up numerous examples.

        3. Have some people, purporting to be 'feminist', so completely misunderstood the issues around gender specificity in everyday language that they do the movement a disservice by rendering the real issue 'faintly ludicrous' by their misapplications.

          You bet your sweet bippy.

        Three possible targets; one can't be, the other two could.

        The rest of your post is so ambiguous that I cannot decide which posts you are targeting as trollism; and which you are 'supporting'; but either way, over-simplified, and ill-thought through 'conclusions' are what started this mess in the first place.


        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1027705]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (3)
As of 2014-09-20 05:08 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (153 votes), past polls