I support the ability to hide sex as an option, clearly on the grounds that more options are better. But the logic presented here to support it is really wrong. It's the same logic by which women hid themselves in burqas, long dresses, and the shadows of their men for centuries. If anything, having sex open might encourage everyone to be more aware of the issues that arise and fix them.
XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public
141–150 of 298 posts
Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Randall Munroe is unfortunately often a professional white knight. Really bizarre how he understands that people differ in programming ability, but cannot countenance the possibility that there is not a completely uniform distribution of ability across all conceivable human subgroups.
I don't understand this statement at all. Are you saying that he's ignoring the fact that women have different abilities to defend themselves from attackers?
I'm saying that it gives a sense of vertigo when an otherwise rational man propounds such laughably conventional PC views as if they were bold insights.
The assumption of biological egalitarianism underpins the idea that all inequalities of outcome are due to the malice of straight white middle-class males.
Yet it is not straight, white, middle-class males who are actually committing most of the rapes in America.
Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am kind of surprised that you think the best way to amend a problem is to avoid it. How about asking Google to implement an anti-stalker program and to actively ban/restrict those who engage in such behaviour?
They should do that too, but surely preventing a problem is better than looking to address it after the damage has been done?
It's "preventing a problem", but it's also advising women that they should not participate in the social network unless they disguise themselves as men. What if higher public participation of women made stalkers go away actually?
Totally anecdotal evidence: I used to have a discussions app on bebo (a social network with lots and lots of teenagers). I was surprised to see how vigilant the teens were to keep away any adults that might potentially be pedophiles. In fact they got a few accounts banned because of their reports, and generally they were spreading the word of caution to their peers very effectively.
Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this statement at all. Are you saying that he's ignoring the fact that women have different abilities to defend themselves from attackers?
I'm saying that it gives a sense of vertigo when an otherwise rational man propounds such laughably conventional PC views as if they were bold insights. The assumption of biological egalitarianism underpins the idea that all inequalities of outcome are due to the malice of straight white middle-class males. Yet it is not straight, white, middle-class males who are actually committing most of the rapes in America.
Sorry, I think I was unclear in my question.
"cannot countenance the possibility that there is not a completely uniform distribution of ability across all conceivable human subgroups."
What ability are you talking about? (This is not disagreement btw, this is truly for clarification).
"The assumption of biological egalitarianism underpins the idea that all inequalities of outcome are due to the malice of straight white middle-class males.
Yet it is not straight, white, middle-class males who are actually committing most of the rapes in America."
Insofar as this particular argument goes, it doesn't matter if the males are white or middle-class. It is, however, straight men who commit most of the rapes as well as other sexual abuses and sexual harassment in America.
Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public
#145I've always found Munroe's position on gender equality weird - despite what he says, he 'others' women in his main work. Female stick figures have long hair, even if the strip has nothing to do with gender. Male stick figures have no such indication. That is: 'male' is 'default'.
I fail to see how the males aren't just the female stick figure with short hair. Your viewpoint is at fault here, not the comics. I see what you mean in a way - that the male stick figures don't have long hair. Again, though, this is only your viewpoint - very rarely is the stick figure's gender actually mentioned in the text of the comic or otherwise. Besides, not all females have long hair, many of the not-overtly-…
Well, a couple of things here. Firstly, when the gender of a character is revealed, it's in line with what I've said. There are no long-haired males or hairless females.
Secondly, long hair denoting femaleness is a cartoon trope and that's how it's used in xkcd (note my issue is not the trope itself here, but that it is used by someone who says they're passionate about equality). Using your argument, you could argue that the cartoon characters with long eyelashes and pink bows in their hair could be male, but of course in real terms that's never how they're seen.
Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public
#146I don't get this trend at all. Something is wrong with priorities and perceived risk vs. real risk. It's pretty difficult to assault someone physically over the internet ( http://bash.org/?4281 ). On the other hand, woman broadcasts her gender when in public. Will x years from now we all be walking in some kind of uniform enclosures as to protect from anyone knowing if one is male or female? Also, in some languages n…
It wasn't 'it'. It was hen, which comes from a mix of hon (her) and han (him), often used in litterature and online to avoid assumption about gender online. It has a very different meaning from it, since it obviously refers to a person of either gender. :)
I'd say that it's all ABOUT cherishing the differences.
Whether people like to or not, they force a whole bunch of assumptions and expectations on children about gender, and I don't think it's much of a stretch to think or notice that they pick up on it.
These people just try to decide and control what notions and expectations about gender and identity they give.
As an example, they had the 'boy' toys with the 'girls' toys to try and remove the notion that such things existed, to avoid that those children both don't have normal gender-identities but who wants to follow the expectations of adults and authorities would feel comfortable, and ideally not even think of feeling uncomfortable, with their choices or preferences.
They didn't force the children to play with all the toys if they didn't want to, they just tried to remove barriers created by society to allow them to be different or themselves, if that ended up being a stereotypical pink-princesses loving girl, or a boy who loves soldiers and trucks: that's perfectly fine.
But not EVERY child are these. I at least believe we should try to let those who aren't be what they are, just as we should allow those who are to be what they are.
[edit] added a smiley so it would come off as less aggressive. [/edit]
Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing! No, I would have a problem with it from anyone if the attention was unwanted. It is the 'unwanted' aspect of things which is important. A woman in a bar is not necessarily looking for any action - she may already be in a committed relationship, she may have just had a hard week at work and is unwinding with some friends, she might be a lesbian, or whatever. For your information I have also…
> I am always conscious that I am being objectified sexually ...fat, bald guy Again, lack of introspection. You complain about being objectified sexually while dissing fat, bald (and no doubt short) guys. Of course men are going to objectify women, just as you and other women objectify men. In other words you have nothing to complain about.
"introspection" You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Seriously. Well, either that or your reading comprehension could do with some work.
Also, you seem to suggest that I am sexually objectifying men if I don't find every single one of them attractive? Absurd.
Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public
#148I don't get this trend at all. Something is wrong with priorities and perceived risk vs. real risk. It's pretty difficult to assault someone physically over the internet ( http://bash.org/?4281 ). On the other hand, woman broadcasts her gender when in public. Will x years from now we all be walking in some kind of uniform enclosures as to protect from anyone knowing if one is male or female? Also, in some languages n…
It has nothing to do with assault over the internet and everything to do with the way others perceive you. I would love to imagine I live in a world where it doesn't matter what chromosomes and sex organs you were born with, and really, I have kind of found that in the Cocoa developer community. That is why I enjoy talking to those people. But just /join an IRC channel with a female nickname. Play online games and ta…
As an experiment, I spent nearly two years in a community of people my age (16-25, mostly 18-20) of all genders, advertising myself as a girl and communicating in a relatively gender-neutral way. I marked my gender as "Other" and only claimed to be a girl when queried directly, with the response "I'm a girl."
My experience was that girls seek the camaraderie of other girls online, and tend to be more aggressive about privately establishing lines of communication outside chat rooms, but otherwise there's very little difference in the way that people act towards people that they suspect to be girls online. Notably, there were just as many sexual or suggestive advances from women as there were from men.
The punchline, of course, is convincing people that "MostAwesomeDude" is a girl, but that's not exactly magic.
Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public
#149Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it correct to say that there are two genders , but not that there are two sexes ? Since gender is only a social construct, presumably the prevailing views of the society in question are what defines it?
Sex is physical. There are more than two sexes. Some examples are female, hermaphrodite, and male (among others). Gender is social. There are more than two genders. Some examples are masculinity, femininity, and androgyny (among others). Edit: (expanding upon the above) Sexuality is social. There are more than two sexualities. Some examples are heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality (among others). A person'…
I'd add a couple more things to condition your list:
* people are sometimes contextually gendered or contextually express specific sexuality (I know people who might describe themselves - and present that way too - as TV in some situations, but not others. I might imagine certain contextuality in sex is possible also, but with rather more logistical difficulty
* people sometimes change over time, and while they may choose to simply identify as their current (or desired goal situation) sex/gender/sexuality/... some people are happy to identify some or all aspects of their history, such as visible trans people
It's a pretty diverse world out there if you pay attention, even in somewhat conservative communities, so take care out there.
Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. You don't seem to be introspective enough to realize that your problem is thus not with "men", but with unattractive men. Pretty obligatory link: http://www.dailyhaha.com/_vids/sexual_harassment.htm It's not unwelcome if Tom Brady does it. So computer scientists get it in the neck twice, as they are enriched for unattractive men AND blamed for excluding women.
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing! No, I would have a problem with it from anyone if the attention was unwanted. It is the 'unwanted' aspect of things which is important. A woman in a bar is not necessarily looking for any action - she may already be in a committed relationship, she may have just had a hard week at work and is unwinding with some friends, she might be a lesbian, or whatever. For your information I have also…
>No, I would have a problem with it from anyone if the attention was unwanted. It is the 'unwanted' aspect of things which is important.
Disagree. It should be the 'being objectified' aspect of things which is most important as that's the topic we're dealing with. Even if your dream man approaches you and you want the attention, it shouldn't matter - objectifying women is still objectifying women whether it's from someone you're into or the fat, bald guy.