How many times are we going to keep hearing the non-apology apology: "We are sorry if some were offended..."? I am so tired of it, it has become a cliche. When did the business world/lawyers decide this was the optimal legal response to customers? My blood boils every time I read it as it is the most disingenuous, calculated, shallow tripe you can trot out when you fuck up. What ever happened to just owning up to your mistakes? What exactly are the massive consequences between saying "We're sorry" and "We're sorry some were offended"? Is it liability, lack of character, "best practices", what?
Actually apologizing admits to wrongdoing, which opens one up to liability and other consequences. Not apologizing at all is seen as callous and only incites the mob against you. A non-apology apology is still enough to settle the mob but not enough to open one up to liability. The only downside is that it upsets intelligent people like you and I who are capable of actually parsing and understanding these kinds of statements. Most people are content with something that sounds like an apology.
I actually think there are lots of cases where it is perfectly warranted.
It's a big world; if you are on the world stage, it is quite difficult not to offend somebody no matter what you do. There are experts in the fields of diplomacy and etiquette who devote their careers to getting this stuff right, and usually even then there is someone offended about efforts to be so "proper". ;-)
So, I think it is a perfectly valid apology if basically the only thing you regretted about your actions was that it made someone upset. Most people don't get off on pissing other people off, but they do want to live their life and go about their business. That apology is perfect for that context.
What's freaky is when it is used for cases where you'd think there'd be a lot more that someone ought to be sorry for. What's even freakier is when someone everyone pretends it is apologizing for more than it is.
> How many times are we going to keep hearing the non-apology apology: "We are sorry if some were offended..."?
About as many times as we make powerful people apologise in public, especially when they're not really feeling guilty. And it's not always in that form, sometimes it's closer to Clinton's "mistakes were made". While most non-apologies are pretty standard, there is some variation and innovation.
But that's exactly what they're sorry for. It's not like Dell's going to say "We're sorry we hired a jerk." That implies that they meant to hire a jerk. "We're sorry you're offended" means "We didn't do this out of malice, but we recognize that it was hurtful regardless, and that's why we're sorry."
I always get the feeling that what they're really supposed to do is grovel--to admit that it wasn't an honest mistake, but that they really were being evil, and that they've finally been caught and forced to own up. I don't think people are comfortable with diversity when it means that some people think it's totally okay to do something that other people would find horribly offensive.
I'm sorry if that's offensive. But that's all I'm sorry for.
I do think it is the correct response to nutjobs - so whenever I see this, I read it as a statement that the company is REALLY saying "I disagree with your points completely: still, I would prefer if you weren't offended right now!"
If a nutjob were to tell you, "Hey gfodor, your comment is extremely offensive to those of us working in public relations. We're the people who are actually trying to placate the population, yet you paint us as disingenuous, calculating, and shallow. Even though we have NO other job than to placate the public after we mess up. That's the ONE THING we do. How can you be so offensive to us?"
Then the proper response would be "Well, I'm very sorry if you are offended. I do like companies to take genuine corrective action, and any company that has public relations employees who make true apologies out of regret for the hurt and other negative effects they have caused, especially if these people also have enough power and will within the organization to effect policies to ensure the company can't do such a thing in the future, is a company that I support."
see, the nutjob was completely misreading you. You don't have to apologize to them.
This is the CORRECT use for "Well, I'm sorry you feel this way." It means you disagree, but still, would prefer the other side see things correctly. You care about them, but you stand by your actions.
In summary, I completely agree with you. But given the number of nutjobs out there, sometimes a nutjob-placating response is appropriate. Whenever I see nutjobs attacking a company for completely stupid reasons, I am glad to see this response trotted out. In the present instance, like you, I am not happy to see it.
Also, if an intelligent person uses this formula with me, "I'm sorry you feel this way" it means that they are interested in my understanding and feelings, and interested in talking about why I feel this way, but feel that they are justified (without crossing their arms and lifting their chin about it). This is very valuable feedback, and can open the dialogue to where either I or this person modifies their view. It's a lot better than just shutting down or blindly apologizing! No one should apologize 'genuinely' just to placate people, if they feel they did the right thing. They should at least give the reasons for their actions. On the other hand, if they know they did do the wrong thing, then they should take responsibility for it.
Look at how well startups apologise when they get things wrong compared to long-established companies. They admit wrong and seek to put things right as soon as they are called on it. This is not just good PR: It's good morality, but it takes backbone.
Startups, though, are still run by their founders: people who know what they started their company to achieve and what moral code they were determined to adhere to while they achieved it…
…Dell on the other hand is, these days, run by some guy called "Michael Dell". Oh. Hang on.
Just to give a short recap of who this Mads Christensen guy is, coming from a Dane:
His tag line is "Denmarks big show-off" and he basically markets himself as a provocative bragging show-off, always with the rolexes, sports cars, slick hair and better-than-thy appearance.
He's not perceived as a comedian but rather as an entertainer hired for various corporate events - some obviously less successful than others.
Unless this was booked by Dell US without doing any kind of checkup, they would've been aware what would be coming. He's knowing for his provocative presentations and I have a hard time seeing exactly how a Danish Dell branch would find it appropriate or interesting to book Mads Christensen. If they wanted stand-up comedy we've got lots of skilled comedians. Mads Christensen is not in that line of work.
To be fair I don't think Mads Christensen personally believes what he presents on stage. It's the persona he's built up. Not that that makes it better in this scenario, just so flak is directed where it's most appropriate - Dell, and especially whoever made the decision to book him.
This is beyond disgusting. How did the people in the room not simply walk out?
ETA: Scripts are good for these things. It's difficult, in the shock and confusion of the moment, to decide what to do. So, here's one script. When you're in a presentation, and a speaker starts talking like this (or talking about "gang-bang interviews" or whatever else) you stand quietly, and you leave. You tweet what happened. If there isn't a clear apology (and we haven't heard one from Dell yet) you don't attend the conference the following year. This is how we, as a community, communicate to one another what kind of behavior is and is not acceptable.
After a recent experience of being confronted with sexism and, ultimately, not handling it how I feel like I should have, I think this is a really good idea. Having a script (or at least thinking about what I would do, in advance) would've made a big difference.
A lot of the time, our natural response is to freeze or act as if it didn't happen, and that's not ok. Raging on twitter after the fact is not nearly as effective as direct and immediate feedback.
I don't think leaving and tweeting about how you feel is a very useful response. It could lead to a form of evaporative cooling[1] and cause the behavior of the group to worsen. It may be better to put pressure on the group to change. Find someone who is in charge and complain about the behavior you find inappropriate and encourage other people who find the behavior inappropriate to complain as well.
Half way through Mads Christensen's 'spot/tirade' Michael Dell walks onto the stage carrying a microphone. Mad's microphone goes dead. "Well Mads, I know we (Dell) asked you to come along and speak today" says Michael "but your views about women are very, very wrong. They don't represent my views, the views of my company, and they have no place at this conference. We're going to have a 15-minute impromptu Q&A with Nicolai Moresco while I make sure the PR people who invited Mads here today never receive another cent from Dell, and then I'll host the panel. I'm deeply sorry for this mistake."
Michael Dell stamps his authority on things, shows leadership, puts forward a positive message, guaranteed to be a memorable moment/talking point with attendees rather than some the usual bland corporate crap. Wouldn't the world be a lot better if there was more of this?
Once when I was a kid the TV station (Channel 9 in Australia) ran a show with some highly questionable content. I was a kid so I didn't see it but from what I gather it was pretty base. Half way through the show the guy running it (Graham Kennedy I think) came out and said Kerry Packer (who owned the 9 network) had called up and cancelled the show. I didn't/don't care much for Kerry Packer, but I remember thinking at the time that this was a classy move.
Was the show you were wathching "Australia's Naughties Home Videos"? I know that was cancelled half way through it's first episode by the network owner.
I'll keep an open mind about the company for now, because I've not found their side of the story (this occurred a few weeks ago), but Michael Dell should personally and sincerely apologize for his company. This doesn't match at all what I have long understood to be their internal culture.
That's my feeling too. It's plausible that Dell outsourced the entertainment to a local Danish agency of some sort, and that to Dell it just looked like "Mads something, some Danish comedian". Although Mads Christensen is vaguely notorious in Denmark (for multiple things), afaict this is the first incident that actually made the English-language media, so you'd have to read Danish (or ask someone) to know who he was previously. Though whoever in Denmark recommended/booked him certainly knew who they were booking. Possibly Dell should've exercised a bit more control over the program. Definitely should've reacted more emphatically, though it's not too late to say something now.
“The IT business is one of the last frontiers that manages to keep women out. The quota of women to men in your business is sound and healthy” he says. “What are you actually doing here?” he adds to the few women who are actually present in the room.
Although Michael Dell is ultimately responsible, I think the blame here lies squarely with Dell's Danish office.
Dealing with cultural differences is a minefield for multinationals. To take an extreme example - imagine running a similar event in Kyrgyzstan, where the rural population has a charming tradition of kidnapping teenage girls and forcing them into marriage. Reckon a local MC there would be a pillar of progressive commentary?
One reason that Dell has regional offices is precisely to avoid offending the local population. If the Danish CEO said “To stay within code of conduct I don’t want to comment on what you just said. But you did a good job” then he should be harshly sanctioned and possibly fired. If he isn't called to account, well that is Michael Dell's responsibility.
In the danish version of the article (http://elektronista.dk/socialt/dress-code-blat-slips-og-mand...) there are some comments from people from Dell who was present. Most of them disparage the journalist for not getting the joke, and several finish with a witty "Shut up bitch" (the journalist is a woman), echoing what MC said in the show.
Several commenters underline that it was only comedy and not intended to be taken seriously - and noting that it is typical for women not to be able to take a joke and overreact and play the victim and wanting special treatment.
So I don't know if Dell have a culture of misogyny, but they clearly have their share of stupidity.
The crazy part of this is it seems once he started spouting this crap, no-one from Dell pulled him off stage and did any damage control! So people say "let's not judge Dell," etc but we can judge their employees' lack of action.
If someone speaks like this at an event I'm running and I'm within earshot, I'm getting in their face, no matter how famous the speaker. I'd hope other organizers and chairs would act similarly.
Christensen is the best speaker I've ever heard, a paragon of equality. After hearing his deeply enlightened views on women in the workplace, my whole perspective on hiring and employee management changed. Absolutely recommended five stars A++.
I know it's fashionable to have a knee jerk reaction and not actually check backstory etc, but just quietly.
http://www.madschristensen-foredrag.dk/mc/Aktuelt-og-media
This guy is clearly a comedian / over the top on purpose, to say that he actually genuinely believes the purposefully crafted bullshit on display in this particular article is to say that Les Patterson from Australia actually thinks that it's appropriate to be a permanent drunken idiot, or Guido Hatzis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=domXumvTVI8 really thinks everything he says.
Actually, do US comedians have this brand of self deprecating over the top humor? Nothing springs to mind, perhaps this is why it doesn't translate well?
As to whether the choice of this guy was appropriate? Different question but even there you'd need to assume that the audience wouldn't "get" that this was all an act and honestly felt insulted by it. I guess it's already clear they've misjudged their audience but it maybe wasn't so obvious beforehand that this would actually be the result?
Here's the thing: it's not humour. It's misogyny thinly dressed as an "edgy" dig so that anyone who protests can be deflected with this sort of defence. It's a tried and true technique to broadcast bigotry and slander with a wink and a nudge.
I'm not saying you agree with his sentiments, but I am saying that it's not ok to say "it's just a joke". And it's not ok for Dell to let him continue to moderate their conference - even if they didn't realise what they were getting into, they should have removed him at the first sign things were not as they seemed.
PS we have very different definitions of 'self-deprecating'.
It is not an act. He is not a stand-up comedian or actor, he is a writer of self-help books about lifestyle and relationships.
He uses exaggeration, hyperbole and humor to get his point across, but he do actually sincerely believe the core of his message, and his show is intended as a pep-talk to men to help them "be real men", and stand op to the women who is pushing them around.
Wait, so is he a comedian MC'ing the event? If it's a roast or something, and he's poking at the fact that there's not a lot of women in tech:
The IT business is one of the last frontiers that manages to keep women out. The quota of women to men in your business is sound and healthy
As in, what are you guys doing to cause not a lot of women to be in IT. It's almost as if there's a quota!
If that's the case it's still terrible and tasteless, but at least sort of comprehendible. If he's serious and those are his actual beliefs, the situation is so far outside the range of reasonable corporate behavior, I don't know what to think. I'm just perplexed, really.
He is not a comedian but kind of a pundit and lifestyle expert. He sincerely believes women are getting stronger and more successful than men, and men have to fight back. For the sake of entertainment he presents his viewpoints in an over-the-top and exaggerated manner, so it is hard to say how much is serious and how much is hyperbole.
He's an act, the similar manner Christopher Hitchens was about religion and Jeremy Clarkson is about cars. Not that they are fakers, but their presentations are intentionally over the top and insensitive to arouse interest and entertain the audience.
Danish Dell fucked up this time. This is really not the kind of PR Dell can afford to receive.
I am quite lacking words here. Not that some people believe this -- some people hates Jews, so why not women -- but that they would him on stage.
The only guess I can come up with is that we currently, or until very recently, had politicians with power in the government who wanted quotas for the number of females in the boards of companies. This may be what he referes to when he talks about having a nice female ratio.
What gets me though is that usually US companies go way too far on the other side on the PC issues like this.
Well, Dell is getting plenty of PR out of this, so congrats to the people who hired the Danish version of Andrew 'Dice' Clay.
Little miss muffet, sat on her tuffet, eating her curds and whey. Along came a spider, who sat down beside her, and said, "What are all these bitches doing in Information Technology! Eyyyyy!"
Well, Dell is getting plenty of PR out of this, so congrats to the people who hired the Danish version of Andrew 'Dice' Clay.
Little miss muffet, sat on her tuffet, eating her curds and whey. Along came a spider, who sat down beside her, and said, "What are all these bitches doing in Information Technology!" Eyyyyy!
It's especially brutal that people involved in tech believe they're changing ("improving") the world yet decide gender determines skill.
What really matters: the people without prejudice - who will hire/work with talented engineers regardless of gender or race - will have an advantage via a larger talent pool.
While some might say I've missed the point of the article for making the following comment, I think it's somewhat relevant to the whole concept of the author's argument:
USE SPELLCHECK.
I don't disagree with the sentiments of the author. The tech industry is one that is very much male dominated, and one where women are very much underrepresented. Some of the brightest people I have worked with in my time in the tech field have been women, and I welcome the opportunity to work with them; or anyone regardless of race, creed, color, background or sex, as long as they're intelligent and can do their job and do it well.
But when I read something put up for public display on a high-traffic blog such as this, and the author forgets to use spell check... I can't help but point it out.
[+] [-] gfodor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbsmith|14 years ago|reply
It's a big world; if you are on the world stage, it is quite difficult not to offend somebody no matter what you do. There are experts in the fields of diplomacy and etiquette who devote their careers to getting this stuff right, and usually even then there is someone offended about efforts to be so "proper". ;-)
So, I think it is a perfectly valid apology if basically the only thing you regretted about your actions was that it made someone upset. Most people don't get off on pissing other people off, but they do want to live their life and go about their business. That apology is perfect for that context.
What's freaky is when it is used for cases where you'd think there'd be a lot more that someone ought to be sorry for. What's even freakier is when someone everyone pretends it is apologizing for more than it is.
[+] [-] spindritf|14 years ago|reply
About as many times as we make powerful people apologise in public, especially when they're not really feeling guilty. And it's not always in that form, sometimes it's closer to Clinton's "mistakes were made". While most non-apologies are pretty standard, there is some variation and innovation.
[+] [-] byrneseyeview|14 years ago|reply
I always get the feeling that what they're really supposed to do is grovel--to admit that it wasn't an honest mistake, but that they really were being evil, and that they've finally been caught and forced to own up. I don't think people are comfortable with diversity when it means that some people think it's totally okay to do something that other people would find horribly offensive.
I'm sorry if that's offensive. But that's all I'm sorry for.
[+] [-] Tichy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] its_so_on|14 years ago|reply
If a nutjob were to tell you, "Hey gfodor, your comment is extremely offensive to those of us working in public relations. We're the people who are actually trying to placate the population, yet you paint us as disingenuous, calculating, and shallow. Even though we have NO other job than to placate the public after we mess up. That's the ONE THING we do. How can you be so offensive to us?"
Then the proper response would be "Well, I'm very sorry if you are offended. I do like companies to take genuine corrective action, and any company that has public relations employees who make true apologies out of regret for the hurt and other negative effects they have caused, especially if these people also have enough power and will within the organization to effect policies to ensure the company can't do such a thing in the future, is a company that I support."
see, the nutjob was completely misreading you. You don't have to apologize to them.
This is the CORRECT use for "Well, I'm sorry you feel this way." It means you disagree, but still, would prefer the other side see things correctly. You care about them, but you stand by your actions.
In summary, I completely agree with you. But given the number of nutjobs out there, sometimes a nutjob-placating response is appropriate. Whenever I see nutjobs attacking a company for completely stupid reasons, I am glad to see this response trotted out. In the present instance, like you, I am not happy to see it.
Also, if an intelligent person uses this formula with me, "I'm sorry you feel this way" it means that they are interested in my understanding and feelings, and interested in talking about why I feel this way, but feel that they are justified (without crossing their arms and lifting their chin about it). This is very valuable feedback, and can open the dialogue to where either I or this person modifies their view. It's a lot better than just shutting down or blindly apologizing! No one should apologize 'genuinely' just to placate people, if they feel they did the right thing. They should at least give the reasons for their actions. On the other hand, if they know they did do the wrong thing, then they should take responsibility for it.
[+] [-] sambeau|14 years ago|reply
Look at how well startups apologise when they get things wrong compared to long-established companies. They admit wrong and seek to put things right as soon as they are called on it. This is not just good PR: It's good morality, but it takes backbone.
Startups, though, are still run by their founders: people who know what they started their company to achieve and what moral code they were determined to adhere to while they achieved it…
…Dell on the other hand is, these days, run by some guy called "Michael Dell". Oh. Hang on.
[+] [-] orcadk|14 years ago|reply
His tag line is "Denmarks big show-off" and he basically markets himself as a provocative bragging show-off, always with the rolexes, sports cars, slick hair and better-than-thy appearance.
He's not perceived as a comedian but rather as an entertainer hired for various corporate events - some obviously less successful than others.
Unless this was booked by Dell US without doing any kind of checkup, they would've been aware what would be coming. He's knowing for his provocative presentations and I have a hard time seeing exactly how a Danish Dell branch would find it appropriate or interesting to book Mads Christensen. If they wanted stand-up comedy we've got lots of skilled comedians. Mads Christensen is not in that line of work.
To be fair I don't think Mads Christensen personally believes what he presents on stage. It's the persona he's built up. Not that that makes it better in this scenario, just so flak is directed where it's most appropriate - Dell, and especially whoever made the decision to book him.
[+] [-] AJ007|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spoiledtechie|14 years ago|reply
Just curious? I would hope not, but if so, my entire image of him got thrown out the door.
[+] [-] vellum|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhughes|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mahyarm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MBlume|14 years ago|reply
ETA: Scripts are good for these things. It's difficult, in the shock and confusion of the moment, to decide what to do. So, here's one script. When you're in a presentation, and a speaker starts talking like this (or talking about "gang-bang interviews" or whatever else) you stand quietly, and you leave. You tweet what happened. If there isn't a clear apology (and we haven't heard one from Dell yet) you don't attend the conference the following year. This is how we, as a community, communicate to one another what kind of behavior is and is not acceptable.
[+] [-] polemic|14 years ago|reply
A lot of the time, our natural response is to freeze or act as if it didn't happen, and that's not ok. Raging on twitter after the fact is not nearly as effective as direct and immediate feedback.
[+] [-] Lanzaa|14 years ago|reply
[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli...
[+] [-] josephcooney|14 years ago|reply
Half way through Mads Christensen's 'spot/tirade' Michael Dell walks onto the stage carrying a microphone. Mad's microphone goes dead. "Well Mads, I know we (Dell) asked you to come along and speak today" says Michael "but your views about women are very, very wrong. They don't represent my views, the views of my company, and they have no place at this conference. We're going to have a 15-minute impromptu Q&A with Nicolai Moresco while I make sure the PR people who invited Mads here today never receive another cent from Dell, and then I'll host the panel. I'm deeply sorry for this mistake."
Michael Dell stamps his authority on things, shows leadership, puts forward a positive message, guaranteed to be a memorable moment/talking point with attendees rather than some the usual bland corporate crap. Wouldn't the world be a lot better if there was more of this?
Once when I was a kid the TV station (Channel 9 in Australia) ran a show with some highly questionable content. I was a kid so I didn't see it but from what I gather it was pretty base. Half way through the show the guy running it (Graham Kennedy I think) came out and said Kerry Packer (who owned the 9 network) had called up and cancelled the show. I didn't/don't care much for Kerry Packer, but I remember thinking at the time that this was a classy move.
[+] [-] kingkilr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aperrien|14 years ago|reply
Sad, really.
[+] [-] kylemaxwell|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callil|14 years ago|reply
“The IT business is one of the last frontiers that manages to keep women out. The quota of women to men in your business is sound and healthy” he says. “What are you actually doing here?” he adds to the few women who are actually present in the room.
Are you kidding me?
[+] [-] tjmc|14 years ago|reply
Dealing with cultural differences is a minefield for multinationals. To take an extreme example - imagine running a similar event in Kyrgyzstan, where the rural population has a charming tradition of kidnapping teenage girls and forcing them into marriage. Reckon a local MC there would be a pillar of progressive commentary?
One reason that Dell has regional offices is precisely to avoid offending the local population. If the Danish CEO said “To stay within code of conduct I don’t want to comment on what you just said. But you did a good job” then he should be harshly sanctioned and possibly fired. If he isn't called to account, well that is Michael Dell's responsibility.
[+] [-] olavk|14 years ago|reply
Several commenters underline that it was only comedy and not intended to be taken seriously - and noting that it is typical for women not to be able to take a joke and overreact and play the victim and wanting special treatment.
So I don't know if Dell have a culture of misogyny, but they clearly have their share of stupidity.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|14 years ago|reply
Seems like a sound approach. The whole thing was a surreal read; something has got to be afoot.
[+] [-] petercooper|14 years ago|reply
If someone speaks like this at an event I'm running and I'm within earshot, I'm getting in their face, no matter how famous the speaker. I'd hope other organizers and chairs would act similarly.
[+] [-] unimpressive|14 years ago|reply
Christensen is the best speaker I've ever heard, a paragon of equality. After hearing his deeply enlightened views on women in the workplace, my whole perspective on hiring and employee management changed. Absolutely recommended five stars A++.
XKCD: http://xkcd.com/958/
EDIT: Let this be a lesson to other companies out there, vet the people you book for...anything.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etherael|14 years ago|reply
Actually, do US comedians have this brand of self deprecating over the top humor? Nothing springs to mind, perhaps this is why it doesn't translate well?
As to whether the choice of this guy was appropriate? Different question but even there you'd need to assume that the audience wouldn't "get" that this was all an act and honestly felt insulted by it. I guess it's already clear they've misjudged their audience but it maybe wasn't so obvious beforehand that this would actually be the result?
[+] [-] polemic|14 years ago|reply
I'm not saying you agree with his sentiments, but I am saying that it's not ok to say "it's just a joke". And it's not ok for Dell to let him continue to moderate their conference - even if they didn't realise what they were getting into, they should have removed him at the first sign things were not as they seemed.
PS we have very different definitions of 'self-deprecating'.
[+] [-] olavk|14 years ago|reply
He uses exaggeration, hyperbole and humor to get his point across, but he do actually sincerely believe the core of his message, and his show is intended as a pep-talk to men to help them "be real men", and stand op to the women who is pushing them around.
[+] [-] johnpowell|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlgreco|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antidoh|14 years ago|reply
Firefox: View/Page Style/No Style turns the page into plain, readable text.
Think of all the effort someone went through, to take perfectly good content and deface it.
[+] [-] losvedir|14 years ago|reply
The IT business is one of the last frontiers that manages to keep women out. The quota of women to men in your business is sound and healthy
As in, what are you guys doing to cause not a lot of women to be in IT. It's almost as if there's a quota!
If that's the case it's still terrible and tasteless, but at least sort of comprehendible. If he's serious and those are his actual beliefs, the situation is so far outside the range of reasonable corporate behavior, I don't know what to think. I'm just perplexed, really.
[+] [-] olavk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsnk|14 years ago|reply
Danish Dell fucked up this time. This is really not the kind of PR Dell can afford to receive.
[+] [-] jtoscano42|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaysonL|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chris_wot|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|14 years ago|reply
The only guess I can come up with is that we currently, or until very recently, had politicians with power in the government who wanted quotas for the number of females in the boards of companies. This may be what he referes to when he talks about having a nice female ratio.
What gets me though is that usually US companies go way too far on the other side on the PC issues like this.
[+] [-] peterwwillis|14 years ago|reply
Little miss muffet, sat on her tuffet, eating her curds and whey. Along came a spider, who sat down beside her, and said, "What are all these bitches doing in Information Technology! Eyyyyy!"
[+] [-] peterwwillis|14 years ago|reply
Little miss muffet, sat on her tuffet, eating her curds and whey. Along came a spider, who sat down beside her, and said, "What are all these bitches doing in Information Technology!" Eyyyyy!
[+] [-] maclaren|14 years ago|reply
It's especially brutal that people involved in tech believe they're changing ("improving") the world yet decide gender determines skill.
What really matters: the people without prejudice - who will hire/work with talented engineers regardless of gender or race - will have an advantage via a larger talent pool.
[+] [-] board7786|14 years ago|reply
USE SPELLCHECK.
I don't disagree with the sentiments of the author. The tech industry is one that is very much male dominated, and one where women are very much underrepresented. Some of the brightest people I have worked with in my time in the tech field have been women, and I welcome the opportunity to work with them; or anyone regardless of race, creed, color, background or sex, as long as they're intelligent and can do their job and do it well.
But when I read something put up for public display on a high-traffic blog such as this, and the author forgets to use spell check... I can't help but point it out.
[+] [-] antidoh|14 years ago|reply
I guess that was a typo, one too many commas.
[+] [-] shasta|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duck|14 years ago|reply