Not quite getting your point. As you acknowledge, there's peril in being impolite. It's the peril of getting called out or shunned. The only thing that's different now from 30 years ago is that things have shifted enough that saying something sexist is rude.
Also, we may disagree on what's rude. If I throw a party and somebody is sufficiently offensive, I'll show them the door. If they see that as rude, then it's only for the same reason they were acting offensively: they were too clueless to understand the harm they were causing.
I agree that some people take it too far and are rude in return. But given that they were provoked, I'm more inclined to forgive that. And given that those links are perfectly useful guides to discussing these topics, I don't think bringing them up is rude.
It was the company culture to have fun with a joke aimed at nobody in particular (sex is not sexistic). A bad, unfunny joke but a joke nontheless.
One person decieded she did like it and ruined it for everybody.
If you show up to a frat house party and don't like it, do you demand that the others change their behavior to something that isn't rude or do you leave?
She essentially demanded that everybody else acted a new way just to please her and when she was refused forced them to.
B) As she explained, she was not the only co-worker who didn't like it.
C) If I walk into a frat party and see something abusive, unsafe, non-consensual, or illegal, you bet I'll speak up. Because hi, I'm a citizen, and that's not the kind of country I want.
D) If I merely don't like the frat party, I will indeed walk right back out. Total time invested: 60 seconds. Harm to my professional reputation: zero. Can you see that's different than forcing somebody out of a job?
E) She made no demands and did not force anybody to do anything. They put up a bot; she put up a bot.
Its an analogy, not a comparison. Different workplaces have different cultures and different standards of behavior. Startups in particular are known for having unique work environments, and how well you fit into the culture of any business is an important part of determining if you should be hired there. e.g. http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2010/09/how-t...
Another difference, of course, is that when you casually walk into a frat house, there is no contract between you and the frat. There is an appropriate time to discover a cultural mismatch: the job interview. Once there is an employment contract, the law is involved and the law in this country is rather precise about what may not constitute part of your workplace culture.
I have never worked at a company in which the workplace culture really achieved anything like the kind of professionalism my peers in other fields seem to have, but that's irrelevant to the law. If your workplace is perceived hostile, the onus is on the employer to fix it, or face legal repercussions. If you and your two friends form a startup and make life hard on your first employee, that means you--there is no "oh, but if you're a software startup, then your culture is more important" clause.
I think we should endeavor to appreciate the broadness of this protection rather than complain about having to grow up just because in our particular industry, we haven't had to yet. If you still need an outlet for your "culture," form a private club (analogous to a frat) and invite your buddies from work, but keep it out of the workplace.
I meant definition 5, which apparently is not as popular as I thought.
e.g. Peanuts are to elephants as bananas are to monkeys. Peanuts are not being compared to bananas, and elephants are not being compared to monkeys.
The workplace was not being compared to a frat house. What's being compared is the decision a person would make about those environments: if you don't like it, don't join.
If the comparison is between my reaction to some behavior in a frat house I just walked into versus my reaction to some behavior at my company, then my reaction/decision process falls out of the equation. Then the plausible comparisons I can see are: A) frat house party <-> workplace, B) some random place <-> place I am committed to, or C) private club <-> place of employment.
I'm pretty sure he meant A, as B and C don't make much sense for his argument.
Thirty years ago all nerds were shunned and nobody cared, so we formed a kind of semi-aspie ghetto. What we're seeing now is an influx of ordinary people chasing paychecks who brought very different expectations about interpersonal tact and its relevance.
I agree in part, but that's a little unfair. Many of those people coming in actually like the field. I don't care about the clock-punchers; it's the ones who really like programming that I am rooting for here.
I also think the nature of the work has changed a lot. When my dad started programming, most code didn't really have a user interface. At least not one more complicated than a fan-fold printout for the CFO. These days, a lot of code has direct human implications, both for individual users and for society at large. Programming is also a much more collaborative activity than it used to be. E.g., github.
I got into computers because I like hiding in my basement. But those days are fading. It may indeed have been a semi-aspie ghetto in the past, but that's not the future.
Also, we may disagree on what's rude. If I throw a party and somebody is sufficiently offensive, I'll show them the door. If they see that as rude, then it's only for the same reason they were acting offensively: they were too clueless to understand the harm they were causing.
I agree that some people take it too far and are rude in return. But given that they were provoked, I'm more inclined to forgive that. And given that those links are perfectly useful guides to discussing these topics, I don't think bringing them up is rude.