561–570 of 692 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being honest about your sexism doesn't make it any better.
I dunno, to me it's more of a generational problem than a gender one, I'm just advocating keeping a safe distance from one of the most lethal weapons until society regains some sense of sanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Context is everything. If your employer called you "boy" you would be upset. If a judge in a court of law called you "boy" you would be upset as well. And rightly so. While if a friend refers to your group of friends as "the boys", that's clearly a term of endearment. Calling women "girls" while discussing something like the politics of harassment has the effect of subtly diminishing their credibility and personhood.
You seem to think the grandparent deliberately used this term to demean women. I don't think so. I think the usage is common enough that you are being oversensitative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For context, I looked up a summary of the US law (and it's complicated, there's a lot of dense material) but here is a succinct definition: "Although harassing conduct must be objectively viewed as creating a hostile work environment to be unlawful, the subjective perception of the particular harassed employee is still significant. If the employee does not perceive the work environment to be hostile because of that c…
You are way overthinking this bordering on absurd paranoia. If you make a blonde joke once and someone says "hey, I don't like being teased about that" then you're not going to face any legal consequences. If you persist in the jokes after that point, you might. It's not that complicated to not be a jerk. I'd also gently suggest to reread your post and consider how slanted your characterizations are. Do you know the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It sounds like the union needs special legally granted monopoly powers to sell me services I don't actually want." To paraphrase the classic anti-union argument, "Nobody is forcing you to work somewhere with a compulsory union."
No one is forcing you to work at a company which colludes with competitors to avoid poaching each other's employees. No one forces you to purchase products from companies that form cartels. However, we've decided as a matter of public policy that collusion of this sort harms consumers and workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Women, girls and ladies are used interchangeably to refer to females. Grown women will also refer each other girls. To read such a common usage as misogyny is idiotic.
Context is everything. If your employer called you "boy" you would be upset. If a judge in a court of law called you "boy" you would be upset as well. And rightly so. While if a friend refers to your group of friends as "the boys", that's clearly a term of endearment. Calling women "girls" while discussing something like the politics of harassment has the effect of subtly diminishing their credibility and personhood.
Do you mean "adulthood" instead of "personhood", or are you using "personhood" as a term d'art unfamiliar to me? (I am assuming you consider a child or adolescent to be a person as much as an adult is a person, with as much personality.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is forcing you to work at a company which colludes with competitors to avoid poaching each other's employees. No one forces you to purchase products from companies that form cartels. However, we've decided as a matter of public policy that collusion of this sort harms consumers and workers.
So the "You don't have to work there" argument isn't ok here, but it's ok for pretty much any other facet of the job? I mean, when someone talks about conditions with Uber drivers or Instacart shoppers, the number one dismissal is always "you don't have to work there". Why is that acceptable there, but not here?
That's why Cable/Telecoms need to negotiate with regulators to change prices, but Joe's Pizza can charge $20/slice if they want. Joe's Pizza lives in a competitive market and if Joe abuses customers, Mario will show up and sell Pizza on better terms. The same is not true if Comcast abuses customers, or if a union does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the distinction you're making, but I don't see at all how it supports the "almost never teasing" lead-in. I'm making a general point, and there are plenty of workplaces where "different subjects and people laugh at themselves also" is a perfectly good summary. I also agree that teasing really shouldn't tread on race/sex/etc - even if it's innocently meant it can easily be a topic too raw for human, and t…
> but I don't see at all how it supports the "almost never teasing" lead-in Agreed! Not sure where the theory I use is from but allow me to explain: Ring 0: 0-5 people. Your best friends. Can be family members, too. Max 5 people, likely less. Ring 1: Your other family, and friends. (These are not your Facebook friends.) Ring 2: Everyone else you know, or think you know. Your co-workers are probably in ring 2. You bar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and avoid getting into culture wars Complaining about identity politics is how white men practice identity politics. Your post here is a shot fired in a culture war. You can't do that and complain about culture wars. The phenomenon you're exploiting here is that the status quo is seen as the default state of the system. When women talk about bias, it's easy to say, "Why are women always talking about bias? Why are…
Complaining about identity politics is how white men practice identity politics That's either illogical or racist. It could only be logical if you have as an axiom that white men can't possibly have a legitimate reason to complain about identity politics, which is itself a racist axiom. Are you claiming that every non-white who practices identity politics is perfect and correct?
You are also mostly arguing with something I didn't say. I'm not saying all complaints about identity politics are illegitimate. Just that when white men are practicing identity politics, one tool they use is to complain about identity politics. Similarly, your last line is another misinterpretation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and avoid getting into culture wars Complaining about identity politics is how white men practice identity politics. Your post here is a shot fired in a culture war. You can't do that and complain about culture wars. The phenomenon you're exploiting here is that the status quo is seen as the default state of the system. When women talk about bias, it's easy to say, "Why are women always talking about bias? Why are…
> in the US we only hit parity in the number of medical and law degrees circa 2005; we won't see parity in the number of doctors and lawyers for decades more It is a flawed assumption that "parity in degrees" has any meaning as a measure of some vaguely-defined "equality" value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I think many of the dismissive reactions to these things have a similar basis. It can look like people excusing this behavior, but I think in many cases they've just never seen this behavior. If the worst you've seen at work is friendly teasing and maybe some racy language, it's easy to assume that's what happened and someone is overreacting. If you've seen someone truly corrosive, that assumption changes.…
I think it's sometimes important to get in a toxic person's/bully's face. It's a lot easier for a developer who knows she/he will not have a problem finding another job.