[LRUG] Coaches for RG London workshop - 4-5 October

brendan murphy brendan at enthuse.me
Thu Sep 19 06:25:11 PDT 2013

My 2p…

RailsGirls is in international origin, Despo and the team are just doing a great job of helping the organisation grow here in London and the UK. 

We could argue about bad taste here all day in our industries inherit miss understood female/male balance. let's not this time… why not just fulfil the request to help women and girls alike gain experience in the industry.

I have helped coach before and lent our office to RailsGirls for a Weekly. It is a great atmosphere and rewarding for both parties.

So I would say if anybody can give up some time to help out Despo and the team please do!



On 19 Sep 2013, at 13:37, Rachel Graves <rachel at didlix.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, George Spencer <george at rentify.com> wrote:
> No. People make concessions when they brand things, and it's impossible to please everyone. Cf. the founders of the business & your view on girls. E.g. I find it hilarious and a bit sad that the men's prostate cancer charity has to be called SLEDGEHAMMER to give it some manliness, and that the adverts are all oriented around FOOTBALL and LADS and BETTING. But I also know that a lot of men don't feel that way.
> When you said "Females on Rails" not only did you reduce Women to a sex of an undefined species, but you also intentionally or unintentionally made a sexual joke. It was really offensive to me. 
> I took a straw poll of the females in my office. They don't like "women" and suggested that some people also have a problem with the class connotations of "ladies". Sounds like it's a hard thing to get right, and that the intention of the term is absolutely paramount.
> Why are you calling them females? What didn't they like about Women?
> Here's an article I just found on why not to use girls, or females.
> http://canbebitter.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/i-am-woman-so-dont-call-me-a-female/
> In this very specific instance, whilst I think you're 100% right to voice your opinion, I'm also (doubtless as someone who has never experienced an ounce of misogyny) sensitive to the fact that branding something in a memorable way is hard, and we sometimes opt for a catchy name at the expense of being inoffensive.
> By the way, the branding is obvious, it's for Women of all ages, they explain the spice girls relation and that's when it stops. The rest of that pages uses Women. My complaint earlier was at the use of girls outside of the brand. I only meant to educate, not cause an uproar.
> I think these emails are being moderated, hopefully they'll make it to the list.
> On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 12:51, Rachel Graves wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM, George Spencer <george at rentify.com> wrote:
>> Females on Rails®
>> So are you now trolling me, and degrading Women to just their sex? Is there a sexy pun?
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20130919/c989b1ac/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Chat mailing list