Looking for a completely sexist boss?

If that’s the case, then you should seriously consider this little nugget of awesomeness that popped up on craigslist today.

Web Guy Part time

I didn’t realize that all web developers are guys. No one told me that when I got my degree. Jackass.

34 Comments so far

  1. Ben (unregistered) on December 9th, 2005 @ 3:13 pm

    It doesn’t say all web developers are guys.

    Maybe it was an honest mistake.

    Or maybe they’re just looking to hire a guy. What’s wrong with that?

  2. tom (unregistered) on December 9th, 2005 @ 4:16 pm

    personally, i’m looking for a web gal.

  3. Lauren (unregistered) on December 9th, 2005 @ 4:48 pm

    “Or maybe they’re just looking to hire a guy. What’s wrong with that?”

    Seriously? You need to ask what is wrong with that?


    That is what is wrong with that. It’s morally and ethically insulting to the entire female race. If they want be to be sexist in their hiring practices and weed out all female candidates, then that is their problem. But to specifically state “guy” is insulting to every woman like me that works in that industry. They should hire based upon capabilities, not based upon genitalia.

    “Maybe it was an honest mistake.”

    Yeah, I am assuming it was an honest mistake. An ignorant mistake. A mistake that, in their mind, makes them think that people that work with technology are inherently male.

    Come on. Are you seriously going to defend that?

  4. khyle (unregistered) on December 9th, 2005 @ 7:47 pm

    Lauren, maybe you’re over-reacting a bit?

    The guy’s ignorance isn’t really worth the emotion.

  5. kimberly (unregistered) on December 9th, 2005 @ 8:18 pm

    And nobody even comments on the $10/hour bit?


    You could make more panhandling.

  6. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 9th, 2005 @ 10:06 pm

    An uncommon fact about a lot of languages, whether you think this fact is sexist or not is your choice:

    When there is a group of people in Romance languages, German and English (those are the ones I know for a fact), you refer to them only in the “feminine” sense if they are ALL girls. If there is even one guy, its masculine. Take for example french:

    Ils sont… “They are” if any of them are guys. Elles sont if all are gals. Similarly in the English language one could say “guys” expecting that at least one of the people they are addressing are guys. I don’t know about you, but everyone I know walks into a room and says “hey guys.”

    So what are you upset about?

  7. Lauren (unregistered) on December 10th, 2005 @ 12:11 am

    Khyle- I don’t think I am overreacting. Ben asked ‘What’s wrong with that?”, and I was just answering his question.

    Ben2 – True in most languages, but not in English. And the posting wasn’t directed as an informal / slang “guys” – plural. If it had said “Hey guys, we need someone to help with out website”, this would be a nonissue. But the word “guy” (singular) is not gender-neutral.

    I am sure I find it more insulting than most, but when you work in this industry and people are constantly shocked by the fact that you have boobs and are able to program in multiple different languages, it gets really tired – really fast.

  8. Dave! (unregistered) on December 10th, 2005 @ 10:58 am

    Okay, you are shocked that *sportslined.com* is looking for a “web guy” and you aren’t shocked that they’re only willing to pay $10/hr?? Puh-lease!

    Your post shouldn’t say, “Looking for a completely sexist boss?” it should say, “Looking for a completely cheap ass boss?” :)

  9. steven (unregistered) on December 10th, 2005 @ 11:28 am

    Should be “Looking for a completely sexist cheap ass boss.”

    I can see where Lauren is coming from…us guys can say what’s the big deal, but that’s because we’ve never been in a woman’s shoes. Well, maybe I shouldn’t speak for everyone…

  10. Lauren (unregistered) on December 10th, 2005 @ 11:55 am

    I didn’t want to call it cheap because, frankly, it was just for site maintenance – not site creation. There are plenty of students out there that have the chops for site maintenance, need the portfolio work, and wouldn’t mind an extra $10 an hour.

    It’s not a high enough rate of pay for me, but it is for someone.

    And Steven is right – sort of. The ad itself wasn’t that big of a deal. I posted it because I thought it was really ignorant and slightly humorous. The big deal came along when people started defending him. I mean, seriously. Can you really look at this and say that, in this day and age, it’s not a big deal for someone to look to specifically hire a male? I don’t care what the industry is – that’s just ridiculous and sad.

  11. JenniferRoche (unregistered) on December 10th, 2005 @ 3:40 pm

    Ooooh, so sorry Lauren that I’m coming to this late.

    What’s wrong with that? Idiots!

    A) Let’s say Lauren was looking for a job.
    B) Let’s say she’s well-qualified to be a web person because she’s well qualified.
    C) We know for a fact that gender has NOTHING to do with qualifications to do this job well. (Maybe repeated heavy 70lbs+lifting would be a credible reason to hire a guy.)
    D) Thus, that firm is making their hiring decisions not based on qualifications but on gender. That makes them losers. As in it’s their loss.
    E) If they said they wanted to hire a white person would you recognize the ridiculousness then?

    Peace out.

  12. Lauren (unregistered) on December 10th, 2005 @ 4:05 pm

    Thank you, Jennifer!

  13. Ben (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 8:30 am


    Do you think it would be wrong for an employer to not want to hire a woman that was planning on birthing a child in the next year?


    “Maybe repeated heavy 70lbs+lifting would be a credible reason to hire a guy” – that statement is sexist and offensive. How dare you!

  14. nikkos (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 9:11 am

    Ben, Ben2, etc…

    Do I need to post something else about Christmas, Bush, or Republicans to keep you guys busy? Do you just search the blog looking to pick fights?

    C’mon, get a fucking life.

  15. Ben (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 9:19 am

    Who’s fighting Nikkos?

    I thought blogs were places to share ideas and talk about different issues.

    Do you prefer that I send you my thoughts for proofreading before I post them?

  16. nikkos (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 9:23 am


    Your handle, beneath your comment posts, used to link to your website, which featured your resume. On first reading Lauren’s post, I thought this might be a perfect job for you- since I seem to recall your resume stating that you have some sort of IT background.

    However, your handle no longer links to your resume- what gives? Did you apply for and get the job which has been the cause of the controversy or did you simply forget to pay the web hosting bill?

    Anyways, the employer sounds like your kind of guys: insensitive to basic social courtesy, hopelessly mired in a mindset whose shelf life expired circa 1959, a total refusal to accept the last 50 years of social progress, painfully unfunny and immune to humor and/or irony.

  17. Ben (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 9:49 am

    Always resorting to the personal attacks, Nikkos.

    You don’t seem to deal very well with people who’s opinions differ from yours.

    You should try to be a bit more compassionate. Maybe you should take some sensitivity training so you can “understand” Ben2.

  18. nikkos (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 10:32 am

    Actually, personal attacks are my last resort- and I think my repeated dialogues with yourself, the other Ben and Gabe will bear this out.

    I have attempted to engage both yourself and the other Ben on the issues, yet you have both repeatedly demonstrated yourselves to be not much better than the common troll.

  19. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 10:35 am

    I really don’t know where I got into this. I posted once in a light-hearted manner here, certainly not looking for fights. I did think that getting so riled up over it may be incorrect, especially since through one word we have detemined that the employer is “insensitive to basic social courtesy, hopelessly mired in a mindset whose shelf life expired circa 1959, a total refusal to accept the last 50 years of social progress, painfully unfunny and immune to humor and/or irony.” You also managed for some reason include Ben and I into that which is quite cruel.

    I have accepted a job but it is by no means one relating to being an “web guy” since that is so horrible.

  20. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 10:37 am

    Oh, and as always, if you can point out an issue that I didn’t address, I’ll address it and try to find why it wasn’t. If I don’t have a good reason, I’ll apologize. I do believe I have asked many questions and they have gone unanswered by you. I also do not appreciate the personal attacks.

  21. Ben (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 10:43 am

    I guess that depends on how you would define “engage” – and I won’t even bother using the definition from the dictionary.

    You certainly must not mean responding to questions about statements you’ve made.

    Also, I find it amusing that in your post about how you use personal attacks as a last resort, you make a personal attack against myself and Ben2.

    Anyways, we seem to be off topic…again.

  22. nikkos (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 11:13 am

    Congrats on getting a job, Ben2.

  23. Marty (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 12:52 pm

    I believe the courts have settled that hiring a woman based on her ability or desire to have children is unconstitutional as it is prejudiced against women. I could be wrong. Regardless, decisions to hire or fire someone based on anything other than ability to do a job is not just immoral: it is illegal. This type of thinking violates the equal protection of the law clauses in the constitution.

    in regards to other comments (specifically Ben) you pulled part of Jennifer’s comment out of context and attacked her with her own words. You didn’t ask for clarification, you didn’t confront her, you attacked with Sarcasm. Such attacks hamper the free expression of ideas you complained to Nikkos about. People tend to be put off by such “talk,” either by saying “I don’t need this type of discussion” or “what’s the point in talking if they need to attack instead of using reason.” I find it interesting that you accuse other commentors of similar behavior, then demonstrate said behavior quite elegantly.

  24. Ben (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 1:56 pm


    I didn’t pull her comments out of context, and anyways, I was just joking. I don’t really find that to be sexist or offensive.

    I wouldn’t consider that to be an attack – lighten up. I was simply making a joke. That’s definitely not even comparable to Nikkos comments that I’ve viewed on this site – I’m starting to actually think I am a troll.

    I understand that rude comments can put off some people but I really don’t think I was being rude. You seem to have missed the part were she called me an idiot.

  25. Lauren (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 9:22 pm

    To move things back on topic…

    Do you think it would be wrong for an employer to not want to hire a woman that was planning on birthing a child in the next year?

    Is this a serious question? Yes, that is absolutely wrong. And illegal. Who are you kidding? An employer could go to jail for that. It’s simple sexual discrimination – plain and simple. What decade do you live in that makes you think that treating women like this is ok?

    For argument’s sake, let’s pretend that there was never such a thing as the Pregnancy Disability Act. Let’s pretend I was a man, and an employer. I would still hire that woman, and here are a couple of reasons…

    a) Stability – If a woman (either pregnant or planning to become pregnant) is looking for a job, then she needs the income. While I might temporarily lose her to pregnancy leave, I would feel very confident that she would come back and do her job – and probably stick around for a while. With a child to feed, she is less likely to quit her job. She needs the income

    b) Responsability – If a woman can look after a child, I can trust her to look after business. Raising a child requires a huge amount of responsability. As an added bonus, mothers can multitask – another good feature in an employee.

    Most importantly, if she was equally capable and adept as other candidates, she should get the job just as much as anyone else.

  26. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 12th, 2005 @ 11:42 pm

    I guess I get to play the bad guy devil’s advocate.

    I think hiring that woman depends on a few things. I know she is going to be not 100% at the workplace for the last bit of her pregnancy, and I am going to be missing an employee I still have to pay for a few months after the pregnancy.

    Is she married? What job does her husband have? Many women, believe it or not, choose not to go back to work after having children, especially if their husbands can support the family. Its that whole differences between men and women thing.

    Frankly, I’d wait til she was back on the market after her pregnancy. Its still a tough call considering many women as an ingrained evolutionary trait put family and child first, so while men tend to focus on careers and being a bread-winner for their families, women tend to be more inclined to take days off for child-care, etc. Its a fact of life. If she is back in working condition and the best qualified, I’d take her, but there are a lot of considerations when thinking about hiring a pregnant woman.

  27. Ben (unregistered) on December 13th, 2005 @ 9:08 am

    First off, I

  28. Lauren (unregistered) on December 13th, 2005 @ 9:14 am

    First off, I

  29. Ben (unregistered) on December 13th, 2005 @ 9:28 am

    My intention was to find out what you thought. Just like it said.

    My comment about jumping to conclusions came when you said “What decade do you live in that makes you think that treating women like this is ok?”

    What do you think about my other points, such as women not coming back to work and parenting not being equal to responsibility.

  30. Lauren (unregistered) on December 13th, 2005 @ 9:40 am

    I am assuming that you are stating these points under my previous “pretend mode” in which the PDA doesn’t exist?

    As far as the responsability thing, I was refering to a woman that you had already deemed qualified for the job. And, if you deemed her qualified, then I would assume she was already as responsible as any other candidate. I was then stressing that parenting is real world experience on top of that. Being a mother should be a posistive trait in an already capable employee.

    As far as a woman not coming back to work, I can’t really make a sweeping generalization. I can say that it is a trend to have a 2 income household, and if a woman is taking a job knowing that she is going to get pregnant within the next year (which was in your initial scenario), she likely isn’t just taking the job for the hell of it. From that, I would assume that she needs the income and would be returning to work.

    On that note, it isn’t just the woman who is absent during the time just before and just after pregnancy. Most men will take some time off to be with the child, and most companies allow for that and even factor it in as an employee benefit. As far as the inital state after giving birth, I would count men and women equally mentally absent. They are both going to be thinking about their child. Most couples I know split prenting duties down the middle if they are a two income household – it is very rare to find a two income family where it is the woman’s sole responsability to care for a child.

  31. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 13th, 2005 @ 10:30 am

    Most men actually do not take that given leave, even if given the chance.

    I also never assumed that a woman took on the sole role of parenting the child. I do think that those people you know are not entirely with the norm of society. Men in general take care of the child “directly” less than the female. They tend to do their duties but are also much more responsible for the long term stability of the family (men think macro generally, women think micro) and therefor are focused on bringing home the income and caring for the family as a whole, including the mother whom is caring for the child. Some research also shows that two income families are not something the woman or man wishes on themselves, and that it even may not be the trend. No offense, but Chicago is not the rest of the United States.

    But as far as the argument goes, if a woman is equally responsible and qualified for a position as someone else, but that woman has made a decision to have a child soon, then I’d think if given the ability most employers would choose the other person. As Ben said, parenting does not equal responsible, it doesn’t mean they will certainly come back to work, and especially small businesses hurt most when one of their employees needs a long amount of paid leave. Being pregnant in this country today is entirely a choice, and sometimes that choice brings consequences.

  32. Marty (unregistered) on December 13th, 2005 @ 10:40 am


    When you take half a statement, instead of the whole statement, and then use that statement as a “joke” you are using it out of context.

    I’ve also noticed that you have a tendency to say, “I was joking, Lighten up!” when you’re confronted, and then point out “someone else is attacking as well!” You can’t antagonzie people, claim it was a joke and then get defensive because someone called you a name.

    Well, I guess you can if you’re practicing to be a Fox News Anchor….

    Lighten up, it’s a joke!

  33. Ben (unregistered) on December 13th, 2005 @ 11:32 am


  34. Fogarty (unregistered) on December 16th, 2005 @ 1:01 am

    What’s wrong with being sexy?

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.