TLDR: elixir and otp worked fantastically well for Bleacher Report and was super efficient, but Warner Media as an institution did not like having a non-mainstream language and also fired 50% of the Bleacher Report devs.
Keep in mind that the person telling you this [stupid and superficial decision] makes approximately 5-10x the amount of money you do. I mean, I assume. They wouldn’t tell me the exact amount even though when they opened the room for questions at the end of all-hands they said, “Ask me anything; I’m an open book.”
In the USA, salary and compensation discussions are protected; while the executive did not have to answer, they also were not permitted to retaliate against the questioner. Of course, retaliation is likely because the typical executive flaunts the law, but the law does protect this sort of question and it sounds like a fun topic to bring up during an all-hands meeting.
In a healthy relationship, you don’t have to assert “I’m open to questions”, you just are. In my ~80 people company I feel I can always walk in to any of my colleagues, from the new girl to the boss, to talk about my work or theirs.
I’m not sure how we maintain this, perhaps the fairly flat hierarchy (~3 levels). Talk regularly and preemptively. Or maybe I have observation bias, having worked there for 17 years.
I think that kind of environment comes from the top down. If the people on the higher part of those 3 tiers are open and honest it gives room for the people below. I’m in a similar position at my company with the same, relatively flat structure and we all value openness.
I you see this as infantilizing, I think it says more about your mindset or experience than mine. I wonder what you feel would have been a better term.
My point is that we seem to manage to make even new hires (who tend to be shy about pointing out problems to their mentors or project leads) comfortable with asking/receiving question to/from anybody. Male vs female doesn’t make a difference here, but senior vs junior (time in the company, not actual age) does.
That does seem better when you leave out the context like that. But would you refer to the latest hire (assuming she is female, and her actual name is yet unknown) as “the new woman” ?
Maybe our English dialects differ, but to me using “woman” here feels really inappropriate, because it puts a strong emphasis on the person’s gender (or even sex), which I’d rather avoid when it’s irrelevant. In contrast, “girl” is a more neutral term, when one needs to talk about “a person” but the gender-neutral terms are too awkward. It’s not reserved for children or young women, you can “go out with the girls tonight” whether you’re 15 or 50. The male equivalent is “guy” (thought amusingly the plural “guys” designates any group, even an all-female one).
You may not agree with these definition subtleties, and that’s ok. English is not the same around the globe. Please keep that in mind before posting another snarky political-correctness admonition.
That does seem better when you leave out the context like that. But would you refer to the latest hire (assuming she is female, and her actual name is yet unknown) as “the new woman” ?
I wouldn’t, because her gender is immaterial. You chose to use a gendered word and then further chose one that refers to children.
All I did was point out that it was a weird thing to do while trying to high road about how great and equitable and open your workplace is.
The rest of what you’ve written here is pretty worthless tbh, but you might wanna reflect on why you felt the need to defend yourself so much. Hopefully next time you wanna just be casually misogynistic you’ll put your energy into being better instead of doubling down.
p.s. don’t bother responding I’ve already read enough of what you have to say
Fine, last reply because indeed this is getting nowhere.
We agree that gender is immaterial here. As I’ve explained, that’s one reason that to me makes “girl” more appropriate than “woman” here. Fully gender-neutral terms like “person” or “employee” are great for official communication or when you don’t know the gender, but they’re less natural.
You keep eluding the question of what term you would have used in that context.
You choose to ignore the fact that there are contexts where “girl” refers to an adult, steadfastly protecting your initial judgement.
You took one small hint and concluded a hard fact, throwing bayesianism out of the window.
You turn what could have been an interesting discussion about culture, semantics, and respect into something confrontational.
You’re dropping down to ad hominem (calling me a misogynist out of nowhere), and resort to the bully argument (“why do you defend yourself”).
You casually dismiss my past and future arguments (“this is worthless”, “don’t bother responding”, “do $THING instead of doubling down”).
I think we have in common the principle of being respectful and generally good to other people, and the understanding that word choice is important. This should be celebrated. But this social justice warrior approach is not the right way to go about it. You need to genuinely listen to people, and assume good faith.
TLDR: elixir and otp worked fantastically well for Bleacher Report and was super efficient, but Warner Media as an institution did not like having a non-mainstream language and also fired 50% of the Bleacher Report devs.
the key part is that developers should be replaceable, not that tools should be mainstream.
Businesses want employees to be replaceable; employees want job security and high wages.
That’s the tension, isn’t it? “Should” is certainly a take!
Just to be clear, I was just reporting what OP said, not endorsing their managers.
Best part:
Apparently not so open as all that.
Maybe I’m just cynical but a I feel those open door policies are traps to find people who ask the wrong questions so they can be gotten rid of.
Maybe that’s not the intention, but it just happens to work that way.
In the USA, salary and compensation discussions are protected; while the executive did not have to answer, they also were not permitted to retaliate against the questioner. Of course, retaliation is likely because the typical executive flaunts the law, but the law does protect this sort of question and it sounds like a fun topic to bring up during an all-hands meeting.
In a healthy relationship, you don’t have to assert “I’m open to questions”, you just are. In my ~80 people company I feel I can always walk in to any of my colleagues, from the new girl to the boss, to talk about my work or theirs.
I’m not sure how we maintain this, perhaps the fairly flat hierarchy (~3 levels). Talk regularly and preemptively. Or maybe I have observation bias, having worked there for 17 years.
I think that kind of environment comes from the top down. If the people on the higher part of those 3 tiers are open and honest it gives room for the people below. I’m in a similar position at my company with the same, relatively flat structure and we all value openness.
Hopefully you’re not casually infantilizing your female co-workers as part of your flat open and equitable workplace.
I you see this as infantilizing, I think it says more about your mindset or experience than mine. I wonder what you feel would have been a better term.
My point is that we seem to manage to make even new hires (who tend to be shy about pointing out problems to their mentors or project leads) comfortable with asking/receiving question to/from anybody. Male vs female doesn’t make a difference here, but senior vs junior (time in the company, not actual age) does.
I would call a female adult a “woman” not a “girl”.
That does seem better when you leave out the context like that. But would you refer to the latest hire (assuming she is female, and her actual name is yet unknown) as “the new woman” ?
Maybe our English dialects differ, but to me using “woman” here feels really inappropriate, because it puts a strong emphasis on the person’s gender (or even sex), which I’d rather avoid when it’s irrelevant. In contrast, “girl” is a more neutral term, when one needs to talk about “a person” but the gender-neutral terms are too awkward. It’s not reserved for children or young women, you can “go out with the girls tonight” whether you’re 15 or 50. The male equivalent is “guy” (thought amusingly the plural “guys” designates any group, even an all-female one).
You may not agree with these definition subtleties, and that’s ok. English is not the same around the globe. Please keep that in mind before posting another snarky political-correctness admonition.
I wouldn’t, because her gender is immaterial. You chose to use a gendered word and then further chose one that refers to children.
All I did was point out that it was a weird thing to do while trying to high road about how great and equitable and open your workplace is.
The rest of what you’ve written here is pretty worthless tbh, but you might wanna reflect on why you felt the need to defend yourself so much. Hopefully next time you wanna just be casually misogynistic you’ll put your energy into being better instead of doubling down.
p.s. don’t bother responding I’ve already read enough of what you have to say
Fine, last reply because indeed this is getting nowhere.
I think we have in common the principle of being respectful and generally good to other people, and the understanding that word choice is important. This should be celebrated. But this social justice warrior approach is not the right way to go about it. You need to genuinely listen to people, and assume good faith.
Keep well.
[Comment removed by author]
Uh I think you’ll find they’re talking about child labor so get off your high horse 😃