Child's play
devreaction.blogspot.comI don't know that it is worse for devs than other workers. Have any of you seen the incredibly demeaning chanting/cheering fake-excitement bullshit that service workers have to put up with[1]? And that's for shit pay, little meaningful chance of advancement and crappy alternatives.
Being talked down to by a bean counter in a superhero suit is empowering in comparison.
[1] For one example, google "wallmart pep rally".
This was satirized pretty well in the movie Office Space with the "15 pieces of flair" thing...
I'm far removed from this particular scene, but doesn't anyone else get the sense that we as a world culture are starting to get a better grip on the concept of taking care of one another? Surely "infantilization" is one possible awkward misstep in such a process, but the signs mentioned don't point only toward immaturity. They also point toward fun, work-life balance, and broader availability of gentle workplace training and onboarding. Guess I could be wrong, but I'd rather have this kind of infantilization than some of the other missteps like dehumanization that we see in other work environments. People can be taught to grow up over time, but oppression is a much harder problem.
There's nothing funnier than watching a new manager who's good with clients try to onboard somebody.
I wish there were firmer guidelines and pay structure around the title, "practice lead", that it came with the same face time with the C-Suite, and non-billable hours to actually do the job of onboarding and workplace training as managers get.
I feel like we've been infantalizing an entire generation. From where I stand it seems like marketing to millenials is oddly pedantic. Meme culture, "doggos", baby talk in tweets and texts, "adulting" and the strange pedantic tone you see in ads, all feel connected. I'm not sure if it's developer thing, or just a cultural thing.
Granted, I'm well aware the above is almost a caricature of what an old guy would say. Happens I guess.
> Meme culture, "doggos", baby talk in tweets and texts, "adulting"
As a younger person ('92 - I guess I qualify for millenial depending on who you ask?) who was on the internet and a part of nonsensical and whimsical communities like YTMND during my formative years and beyond, the items you listed are lost on me to some extent; I know what they are/what they mean, but all of it is brand new to my eyes. All I can tell you is that in my age group, way before any of this stuff started leaking from the internet, a meme was just an image macro based upon a repeating/old joke. Anything new and trending was appropriately called a "fad" on YTMND; if it stuck, it became a "classic" or was worthy of the title "meme" because of its permanence through the community. There are lots of little things that I wish I could explain that have been altered by outside groups that they no longer resemble what they were to my cohort, or at the very best are caricatures of what they used to be, but that would be a fruitless endeavor.
I used to think that all of what you listed was something targeted at people half my current age. However, my coworker at my last job managed to prove me wrong by being a solid 4 years older than I was and using the above cultural dialects you've referenced above. I think it's a bit of a problem, though not necessarily an emergency in the making.
Side note: It's kind of ridiculous; aforementioned subscribers think they can relate to me, "outsiders" (adults over 30) think I would relate to the subscribers (was an annoyance at college), but I can't relate to them at all. I definitely consider them the outgroup who came in, brought their friends, trashed the place, and went to find the next new thing.
Well a couple of decades ago IBM for example had very "infantile" rules "fired for being seen in a Mc Donalds" let alone the older IBM songbook tradition!
IBM was controlling, not infantilizing (at least with that example).
Infantilizing is companies thinking that they can win over employees with ping pong tables, free sodas, and not give them, you know, actual compensation.
Of course, as the dot com boom demonstrated, many in our industry fell for it.
Well I think having a company songbook and starting the day with a song just like primary school is.
That's fair. I was specifically referring to the McDonald's bit (and what I know of their former dress code). I had meant to look up the songbook thing.
EDIT: Actually, looking at that songbook, I'd still say it leans more towards controlling than infantilizing. By having people participate in a common display like that you get them to act as a group (positive thing), but based on the lyrics they're almost like corporate versions of jingoistic/nationalistic songs. It's a brainwashing thing.
This is still very different than infantilizing. It does signal a lack of respect for their employees (to a degree). But it does not indicate treating them as children.
If you don't want to be infantilized, don't go to the conferences where you feel infantilized and don't find your jobs through contracting firms that treat you like an infant.
You are not powerless in your situation. Stand up for yourself.
Bingo! Vote with your feet.
> "I hate being called 'IT'"
Oh man I hate this. An "IT" job to me just means an admin job where the subject of the admin tasks happens to be computers.
It's worse when "IT workers" try to lump actual technically-skilled roles in with them, like it's just another task to be performed.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I have nothing against actual IT workers, but grouping developers under "IT" is like referring to ER surgeons as EMTs.
IT also gives people the impression that one is a "computer expert", which can't be further from the truth for many developers. I happen to have a relatively detailed understanding of how computers work, but I'm by no means an expert on hardware, setting up large networks, troubleshooting, etc.
Yeah, taking Information Technology literally, we would fall under that. But so would someone operating a book press.
Yeah, it works both ways. "No, Auntie Susan. I have no idea how to fix your printer. Never call me again."
Um wow there's a lot wrong with this comment. But that aside, what if I told you programming was just modern accounting, glorified data entry? All programmers do is put code into repositories. Very very few people are actually inventing new systems and algorithms. If you're a "framework programmer" you know what I mean.
Anyway point is it's a spectrum. Yes some "IT" labor is menial, but I also know IT people who know way more about security and networking and identity etc. than most software engineers will in their entire career.
I would put security experts and networking experts in the "technically-skilled" category. However, my experience of most people who have something like "IT security" in their job title, is that they're just the guy who updates a spreadsheet that has a list of security policies in it, and they send emails out to people who have breached one of those policies. Admin.
That's very true, although I am sure that IT experts wouldn't be particularly happy being called "programmers" if the tables were turned. Then again, I could be wrong... it has surprised me over and over how few programmers care about being referred to as IT. I personally prefer having my specialization be explicit as opposed to being generalized or misattributed.
So its the common term for the entire industry in the UK its like the USA is bad as India or Germany in being obsessed with job titles.
Are we not supposed to not denigrate people needlessly on here?
There's a big difference between "childlike" and "childish." I see nothing wrong with professionals that engage with media and culture that stokes our childlike sense of wonder and play, and I count us fortunate indeed to live in a time and place where such luxury exists. It never ceases to astonish me just how far geeky interests have invaded the mainstream over the years.
A danger is the potential exclusion of people who do not participate in that specific culture, and that's something I'm more cognizant of now than I was in the past. If you should have a concern about the interweaving of tech professions and geek culture, I figure this is the most important one.
As an adult, my relationship to comics and geek culture has definitely changed enormously from where it was when I was a child, a teenager, or a college student. Things I thought were awesome I now see as cheesy, trite, or problematic. Things I didn't appreciate earlier on have come to take on new resonance. A few things have remained constant. The opening fanfare to Star Wars, for example, when infrequently presented in a dark theater, will probably never stop sending shivers down my spine.
The trick, then, is to approach the intersection of tech professions and geek culture as grown-ups, shrugging off the (usually blatant) attempts at manufacturing hype, and enjoying the real connection that our culture affords, without pursuing it to exclusion.
Seems like this has been a common thread in tech for a long time. In Douglas Couplamd's 1995 novel 'Microserfs' one of the main characters lamented how tech employers infantile their employees. Perhaps this is a lingering effect from the early days of home computer when there was a large explosion in very young programmers and things have just carried over through the years?
The consulting shops get a hefty cut of the pay (and it's hard for them to find and place talent too), so they feel compelled to do everything they can to make things work. Not to say these things aren't patronizing/infantilizing and due to be shut-down, but until the supply/demand situation works itself out, we'll likely just replace one weird attention/talent-grab gambit for another.
Another possibility would be for these companies to just pay more and "cut the crap". If companies paid more, there would be more talent on the market (presumably) and companies wouldn't need to put on the dog-and-pony shows to attract and retain because the economics are doing that for them.
(And of course there are people who like the dog-and-pony shows and the 'un-corporate' vibe of these things. Power to them, but at least personally it would be nice for the "cut the crap and pay more" idea to be more common.)
I don't think some leader acting like Michael Scott and dressing up like Captain America points to a broader problem of childishness in the industry. I'd agree with other commenters that the reference to "a female or two [to] work the booth" is more problematic, culturally.
Infantilization seems to be a wholly inaccurate description of the behavior; "pandering" or "courting" is much more accurate.
TBH, if folks are having fun, and companies want to join in, I see nothing wrong with it. Devs are likely aware that the companies don't normally wear super hero costumes, and companies are probably aware that making a good first impression is only the first part of a successful relationship.
The blog post seems to have a pretty toxic view of employers (there are a bunch of assumed "to be explored" paragraphs), and I think that view is poisoning the entire experience.
Companies don't wear superhero costumes. Companies also don't have fun or awareness. This is because companies are a collection of contracts, not living things.
Some person dressed in the costume. They may have been "representing" a company, but that doesn't matter. It was still a human acting like a condescending twit for their own reasons.
I'm not sure what's "toxic" about identifying insulting behaviors in others. I don't want to be around people who do things like that, whether or not I work for them, and many others feel the same way. Being an employer doesn't mean you suddenly get to be horrible and not get called on it. (It just means your employees might be afraid to call you on it until they can get out from under you.)
> If you've ever been placed in a job by a contracting firm, you know this routine. Oftentimes, the agent will meet you at the employer's office, and walk you in.
This is a thing? Never seen this!
This is a W2 "contractor" aka disguised employment with shit rates for the contractor.
Id expect 2.5 to 3x my FTE rate in the UK where in the USA people seem surprised that people dare it ask for even 20% more.
Same here. I am working in a contracting firm (not in the US), and I'm just told the address and name of the person I should ask for in the client company.
Most definitely my favorite example of this ever:
I like this one. It's funnier.
"This reminds me of north korea"
Salesforce is a big time offender here.
Trailhead Conference was absolutely pedantic not only did you have the booth babes with the cheap Chinese promo objects. They turn the Moscone center into a goddamned forest, we're talking theme park level decor complete with furries.
I found it cult-like and infantile. Seemed like people were eating it up, not really ever going back.
-Grumpy 30 y/o dev
I sat in a fiber glass canoe with an oculus VR head set to play a custom made Salesforce game...
This company sells a CRM...
But what they really sell is a dream but you gotta pay to play. The bigger they get the more they take away.
Isn't this just a reflection of changes our culture generally?
When I was a kid "grown men" were only allowed to be really into sports or maybe cars. Now those barriers of what is "acceptable" for adults to be into (among other things) are broken down.
As far as someone dressing up as a super hero for a professional conference; I'm sure if you could dig through the reports of Comdex from the 80s you'll find lots of ridiculous stuff. Most of which would be totally unacceptable today.
Also I think the author maybe should have taken a little more care when referencing attractive females working the booth to contextualize it for people that won't give him the benefit of the doubt that he was pointing out it was absurd. Gender politics being a hot button issue right now.
None of this post is new or groundbreaking, it's been that way at every conference I've been to for 15 years. If anything we've moved to less booth babes, more kitchzy comic book characters - that's ok with me.
Trade shows or any place where you're basically a sales prospect are all about infantilizing you as much as possible. An adult thinks long-term, is independent, makes/does things using skill, doesn't need pampering... and a host of other characteristics that are inconvenient to the sales process.
If Captain America was instead dressed in a suit, would more people talk to him? In almost any context? I doubt it.
Sure. Most would rather speak to someone in a suit than in someone wearing their underpants on the outside and with full-on nationalistic emblems on their spandex uniform.
What version of Captain America has underpants on the outside? I'm not familiar with that version of the character's outfit...
On a more serious note, the point of the comment is that if the context allows you to be taken relatively seriously in a superhero outfit, it might not be a bad idea to attract people to a booth... Yes, those contexts might not be extremely common.
>What version of Captain America has underpants on the outside? I'm not familiar with that version of the character's outfit...
Perhaps you only know him from the movies?
Most versions of Captain America do have this characteristic:
http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/c/captainamerica....
https://www.geeksaresexy.net/2016/05/07/captain-america-cost...
to be honest I find it hard to take writing that uses "females" as a synonym for "women" super seriously
Did you just latch onto this without intpreting it in context? The tone he used in that part of the article is derogatory towards the employers of these women, the inference being that these employers don't look past them as being "female" and exploiting this for their purposes.
You know what I can't stand? People broadly dismissing something because of ONE word they don't agree with. Grow up.
I took that reference more to be a slant that men are fairly predictable and companies exploit the sausage fest that is the IT/tech world.
To be honest, I find it hard to take comments that focus on irrelevant points seriously.
(Or that seem to forget that on the web there are non-native English speakers too, and that particular "language crime" can be totally how the words work in their language -- though in this case the original author does have an english name).
Look at the bright side: at least it did not say "Booth bunnies" or "booth babes"
I have actually noticed this becoming more common. “Females” is what you refer to as strictly cis-females, where as women generally means a mix of transgendered and cis-females. So if a man’s dating profile says “females only”, you know what he’s talking about.
like omg that's so ableist!
What if I were a trans-woman and wanted to be called female??
This horrible trans-normative oppression needs to stop!
I am going to go protest at a starbucks.
it is quite ironic, considering the topic of the post
to be honest you are missing the forrest for the tree. start a flamewar somewhere else.
In current culture, especially SV, not all women are female. It is necessary to specify female if one is actually referring to biological sex instead of cultural gender. Some find this an annoying distinction but it is the cultural norm in an increasingly growing number of places.
But the story obviously wasn't referring to biological sex, but rather to the gender presented by the booth-worker. So "female" was also the incorrect term, besides being off-putting.
Yet is still a very small minority, and it appears that you are needlessly seeking out ways to be offended when no offense was meant.
Not sure what in my post indicated that I was offended. The cultural context of the industry might be apparent to you from within that context but not everyone who reads Hacker News lives in that same context. That biological sex and cultural gender are not the same is not something that is held to be true everywhere. Explaining the context we live in is not the same thing as being offended that some either don't understand or dislike that part of our culture. Or to put it another way, don't shoot the messenger.
I do not think that was the intended usage.
gender is not a theory.
'identifying' as another gender means wearing a stereotype.
Actually, gender is and was always a theory. Before it was applied to humans in the current sense, it was a grammatic theory. This idea of gender as another name for sex is simply ahistorical - seriously, just go to Google Books and search for "gender" before 1955. It's only about grammar. Then John Money came around and use the word exactly to draw a distinction between biological sex and the cultural/sociological construct.
I do wonder why something so serious has turned into something so childish.
But then the other day I got a haircut and while waiting to pay spied a shelf full of beard products in that cute, hipster art style, the whole display blending in perfectly with all the other hair products. It's difficult to watch something we have defined as the apex of manliness (beards) being treated with the same tone of voice as cosmetics and children's toys.
Infantilisation is endemic at the moment, and I see it as part of a comprehensive attack on American masculinity.
But even those cases where the beard products are on wire shelves with minimalistic old school labels, that's still just a marketing trick where someone did analysis and thought that strategy would be better for their demographic.
If you want to escape infantilisation, you need to in many ways escape consumerism and go back to the days of just whipping up your own beard oils.
Exactly. That popular, cute 'craft' style is winning out because it resonates with the target audience. (Same with that popular, functional aesthetic you describe.)
I guess I am against the softening of traditionally 'hard' things. Painful to watch our world (even software!) devolve into bright colors and cute mascots.
One could also interpret this phenomenon as young adults refusing to grow up -- hanging on to childish symbolism concomitant with the rest of millennials' (economically necessary) delayed development into adulthood.
And for the record I am (unwillingly) part of the millennial set and do not have a beard.