Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Geeks and Gays

newstilt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#71

Post by caryme »

cj wrote: post #57
tman wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I reply, I'd like to find out what you mean by that statement. Do you mean, "Let us be willfully blind and refuse to engage our senses, not recognizing any differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals despite large behavioral differences (beyond sexual preference) which do exist." Or do you mean, "Despite your arguments, I categorically state that no differences between these groups exist (beyond the sexu…

You'd be surprised at the number of straight-acting gay men that you interact with everyday. You're basing your judgments on the flamboyant feminine gay men, the ones who you know are definitely gay. That's a very biased sampling to base your judgments on.

Just as an aside, "straight-acting" isn't an appropriate term to use. It perpetuates false stereotypes of both gay and straight men.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#72

Post by bootload »

drunkpotato wrote: post #65
bootload wrote: post #2

"... When I was a teenager at school I definitely did not fit in. I had glasses, was awkward, brainy, wore the school uniform because I had no idea what else to wear, and suffered insults from my classmates. One of these was the frequent and common slander “poof” (which is probably the closest thing to the American term “fag”). I was either ignored, or verbally abused, or physically assaulted. In one attack two boys…

This is something I have an interest in, but from a different perspective. I wasn't bullied. I was smart, fat, unapologetically nerdy, and never paid a social price (I had friends, girlfriends in high school, and was not socially maladjusted other than a stubborn anti-authority streak that remains with me). Seemingly I also had higher confidence and was more physically oriented than many geeks I have met later in lif…

"... I was smart, fat, unapologetically nerdy, and never paid a social price (I had friends, girlfriends in high school, and was not socially maladjusted other than a stubborn anti-authority streak that remains with me). Seemingly I also had higher confidence and was more physically oriented than many geeks I have met later in life. ..."

Extrovert? This matters because if you are introverted people see less information. Being in social situations might also give off a "discomfort" signal in body language. It's easy to see someone is uncomfortable. Harder to understand why? Reading body language is one way Bullies select targets.

Simple experiment. Next time someone is in an argument with you change your stance by placing your hands on your hips, "arms akimbo". The stand of defiance. It's no coincidence US Marine Corp instructors use this stand. It means don't mess with me, I'm standing my ground. Extroverts won't have a clue about these subtle body language because they have more interesting things to think about. Hence they can become TARGETS.

"... I know one is that I went to high school in a highly educated town where geeks and jocks were nearly equally respected. ..."

Now that's a good place to be. I'm not sure it's Geeks v's Jocks as much as Geeks being the bottom of the short lived social graph. PG refers to this phenomena in "Why Nerds are unpopular" ~ http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html

"... I want to provide a counterpoint to the picked-on geek, and I'm curious why the bullied geek is such a common stereotype (seems to be a true stereotype; I don't argue otherwise). ..."

Because they show weakness. Because they could be introverted and therefore appear weak. Because not enough people stand by them when it counts. These reasons alone make them a TARGET for bullies.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#73

Post by joubert »

j-g-faustus wrote: post #33
mpk wrote: post #11

I'd say that geeks tend to think about their environment a lot more than other people because geeks tend to think about systems in general. I have never encountered a rational argument for homophobia. Gay people seem to me to be just as likely to be virtuous or decadent as straight people. Discriminating against people for having a different sexual orientation seems totally irrational to me. As far as I'm concerned,…

I've always thought that [gay | labor | women's | black's | etc] rights all collapse to merely human rights, and find it curious that we see the need to carve it up in a whole bunch of special cases.

In princle perhaps, but in practice what happens is that particular groups of people are specifically excluded in all sorts of insidious ways. Usually they're excluded by a "homogenous" majority (homogenous relative to the aspect that defines the minority) and so there is no incentive for members of the majority to stand up for those in the minority.

Examples include gays' right to marry, women's right to vote, slaves' right to freedom, etc.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#74

Post by aphyr »

tman wrote: post #42
aphyr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...you have to make a case for choosing a segment of our population (homosexuals) that is more likely to do drugs, have psychiatric problems, etc., etc., and singling them out to allow adoption We are not singling them out to allow adoption, unless by "singling out" you mean "including in the same privileged class as straight housewives, baristas, scientists, garbage collectors, members of the armed service, naturali…

I don't think that convicted felons, baristi, or garbage men are great choices for adoption either. The first, obviously, the second two because we can afford to have high standards. We can afford to insist on college degrees and middle-class incomes. High standards. Now, the problem that gay men seem to have with sexual abuse (while Catholic) wasn't enough to give you pause? It gives me pause. I'm even worried about…

How is barring individuals from adoption on the basis of their sexual identity not identity politics?

For that matter, why do you think scientists or armed service members are better candidates than baristi or garbage men? Late nights in the lab, relationship failure, and heavy drinking are a part of the science life. For that matter, lawyers have some of the highest alcoholism rates of any profession. Shall we conclude that they are unfit, as a class, to raise children?

(Disclaimer: I'm a gay physics major with a boyfriend in law school. I'd like kids some day.)

I... reluctantly conclude you are trolling. Strange, you don't see that often here.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#75

Post by joubert »

natrius wrote: post #6
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #4

All in all, a great essay. But: >I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Why on earth shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

If the demand for adoption outstrips supply, and if (big if) a man and a woman parent substantially better than two people of the same gender, it might make sense to have a blanket preference for heterosexual couples when choosing parents. There could be something innate in each gender that contributes to a child's upbringing, and depending on the value of those traits, it could be responsible to maximize the number…

And what may that innate quality be? And what about gay children? Aren't straight parents the wrong setup for them?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#76

Post by aphyr »

dejb wrote: post #56
wdewind wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BIG if

It is an arrangement that is extremely uncommon through most of human history/evolution so it seems reasonable to believe that humans may not be well adapted to brought up by gay couples. You could argue that the lack of genetic relationship to the parents overwhelms any difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. But on balance it is not difficult to see why being reared be both a male and female parent…

Luckily, plenty of gay couples have tried raising kids, and they do just fine, thank you very much. :)

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

"Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation."

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#77

Post by barry-cotter »

j-g-faustus wrote: post #33
mpk wrote: post #11

I'd say that geeks tend to think about their environment a lot more than other people because geeks tend to think about systems in general. I have never encountered a rational argument for homophobia. Gay people seem to me to be just as likely to be virtuous or decadent as straight people. Discriminating against people for having a different sexual orientation seems totally irrational to me. As far as I'm concerned,…

I've always thought that [gay | labor | women's | black's | etc] rights all collapse to merely human rights, and find it curious that we see the need to carve it up in a whole bunch of special cases.

Where, exactly, do you draw the line? Do you want tolerance or support?

Gay: Suppose the "gay germ theory"[1] is correct. To allow vaccination/prophylaxis or not?

Labor: Freedom to legally organise is to me utterly unobjectionable, but I remember picking up a book on trade unionism in the library once and being completely unable to grasp the sense behind one of the articles in which the authors took it as given that striking should not even in theory be grounds for firing. Striking is part of a negotiation, it's a tool in the dance of "How shall we divide the money that is earned as a result of my employment between empolyer and employee?"

Where is the "right" place between freedom to organise + at-will employment, and a system like France, where unions "represent" workers in their economic sector who aren't members and get legally binding regulations, or like Germany's, where union representatives are always on the board, with voting positions?

Women's: Women make less than men on average. They also make very different choices of what jobs to work in, how many hours to work, and they are much more likely to have interruptions in their career. Given the second, is the first unjust, especially if the difference when you compare like with like is small?

Black's: Affirmative action here

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogenic_theory_of_homosexual...

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#78

Post by joubert »

natrius wrote: post #16
caryme wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize this is an explanation for the argument against same-sex couple adoption, but in the same vein I'd like to point out that where this argument falls apart is in the legality of single parent adoption. In the US, it is legal in every state for single parents to adopt. However, in some states it is illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children. For the real kicker, in Florida (where I am from), homosexual peo…

I was being excessively charitable in my framing of the argument. It makes zero sense for it to be illegal for gay people to adopt. It could make sense to prefer straight couples over gays and singles, which would effectively exclude them if the demand for adoption outstrips supply as much as I presume.

Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#79

Post by caryme »

tman wrote: post #42
aphyr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...you have to make a case for choosing a segment of our population (homosexuals) that is more likely to do drugs, have psychiatric problems, etc., etc., and singling them out to allow adoption We are not singling them out to allow adoption, unless by "singling out" you mean "including in the same privileged class as straight housewives, baristas, scientists, garbage collectors, members of the armed service, naturali…

I don't think that convicted felons, baristi, or garbage men are great choices for adoption either. The first, obviously, the second two because we can afford to have high standards. We can afford to insist on college degrees and middle-class incomes. High standards. Now, the problem that gay men seem to have with sexual abuse (while Catholic) wasn't enough to give you pause? It gives me pause. I'm even worried about…

Do you know any gay men? This is beyond offensive to me.

I'm a hacker, a Christian, and a gay man. I've been a babysitter and a church camp counselor (of children from fourth through twelfth grade).

Before you talk about the "problem gay men seem to have with sexual abuse," we should talk. A man's value is not defined by his sexual orientation.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#80

Post by aphyr »

profgubler wrote: post #49
aphyr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...you have to make a case for choosing a segment of our population (homosexuals) that is more likely to do drugs, have psychiatric problems, etc., etc., and singling them out to allow adoption We are not singling them out to allow adoption, unless by "singling out" you mean "including in the same privileged class as straight housewives, baristas, scientists, garbage collectors, members of the armed service, naturali…

Just for my information, what do you mean by parenting outcomes? How is that defined?

There are a bunch of metrics out there. Off the top of my head...

- Division of child care and house routine - Ability to devote time to children - Self-reported satisfaction in childrearing relationships - Parenting awareness skills - What types of discipline techniques are used (i.e. reasoning vs. spanking) - Character of relationships with parents, peers, and other adults - Longitudinal studies of mental health factor (depression, acting out, ...)

Obviously, controls and sample distribution are complicated. You also need to separate the fact that more gay couples are adopting children from one partner's previous marriage which dissolved when they came out to themselves and/or their spouse. That can be stressful--but it can also bring a family together. I've heard stories from all over the map.

Post reply on HN