Comments on: A Rant on People, Resources, Men and Women

By: Jon Ingham

Jon Ingham — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:34:14 +0000

I think it depends upon how the language is used and interpreted. I use the terms ‘human resources’ and ‘human capital’ very frequently – but to refer to very specific things. HR is about using people to achieve business ends. Sorry, it doesn’t sound very nice, but this is what companies have to do. Blame capitalism, not me! HC is about people acting as the basis for achieving and doing new things. And HC needs to be invested in for this to happen. It’s a very enabling and empowering perspective – I don’t agree with Charles’ subtext. But the main point of my comment is to agree with you. I still call people people.

By: Maia

Maia — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:50:45 +0000

Heh, I get sick of that language too.

My development team is predominantly female and I’ve been using ‘people’ for a long time. Yesterday they suggested ‘people’ potentially wasn’t inclusive enough and proposed , aliens and pot plants.

I’m now trialling addressing the team as ‘sentient beings and cacti’ :p

By: M.E.

M.E. — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:19:21 +0000

“I don’t care if those people are red, white, blue, black, brown, purple, men, women, something else.”

I don’t want to derail this discussion, this is just a small hint: http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/03/invoke-strangely-colored-people.html

By: Charles H. Green

Charles H. Green — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 02:30:52 +0000

Then there’s my favorite, Human Capital; the subtext is the reducibility of people to financial metrics.

A bit more on the subject at
http://ow.ly/ROyC

Charles H. Green

By: The definitive linkspam of this decade (1st January, 2010) | Geek Feminism Blog

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:31:39 +0000

[...] Johanna Rothman discusses problematic terminology for referring to the human beings who make up project teams in A Rant on People, Resources, Men and Women [...]

By: Eugene Nizker

Eugene Nizker — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:25:00 +0000

Wow, Johanna,

It looks like i’m gonna disagree with you for the first time! :-)

I learnt that “Resources” is a more or less neutral term that economists use to name everything related to… well, RESOURCES that are required to affect a material change. It can be hardware or funds or… well, people! There is nothing derogatory about it to me! This has nothing to do with HR or disrespect. I don’t feel upset considering myself a resource either. To me it’s just a convenient economic term.

Similarly, man-hours, woman-hours… who cares? Yes, i know, some people do. But let me tell you, these people aren’t gonna change no matter how we call these X-hours. And believe me, there are less and less of these people.

(Disclaimer on.

Of course, God didn’t make men and women equal, and i hate the extent to which our political correctness goes, to me this is insanity. I’m going to continue to open a door in front of a woman and i’m going to continue to give her a hand when she steps out of a bus. I’m not going to give a hand to a man, unless i think he’s sick or too old and can hurt himself. And no, i don’t think all women are sick or weak :-).

However, this has nothing to do with the discussion in question.

Disclaimer off.)

So, I think we overplay this matter a bit…

With this, all the best to you and yours in 2010. I hope to enjoy your wonderful presentations and your posts. I always do.

Cheers,
Eugene Nizker

By: jon hagar

jon hagar — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:11:19 +0000

Interesting observation about HR…. HR and some managers believe people are interchangeable, hence, a “resource”. Many of us believe only aspects of a person are interchangeable (I can do some parts of the job Tom does, but I am not TOM). The human person is not interchangeable. It is interesting, I saw a job posting for a mid level HR person in the news media, the salary was equal (more?) than a mid level engineer/tester. Hmmmm…..

By: abby, the hacker chick blog

abby, the hacker chick blog — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:10:21 +0000

t doesn’t matter how many hours I work, dammit. I am never going to be a man.

*snickers*

Go, Johanna! :-)

Very freaky on the “men wanted” vs. “women wanted” though. Glad we’re past THAT!

By: Jason little

Jason little — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:30:08 +0000

Agreed. Could be worse tho, around here people are often referred to as bodies.

By: Gabriela Martinez

Gabriela Martinez — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:32:01 +0000

Definitely I agree with you Johanna.. and I go on this concept too. I wonder how much time executives need to stop using all the impersonal terms that now, much more people see that doesn’t help to measure the value people has inside any IT company. At the end of the day computers without people doesn’t seem to value at all.