Live data from Hacker News

XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

plus.google.com

271–280 of 298 posts

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#271

i'd love to know what makes "Radall" the expert on what "Many women grow up with"

Incidentally a few women expressed similar opinions a few years ago on two other forums I visited.

Really, if he used "some women" would you have any objection?

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#272
Google have taken Randall's feedback into consideration and have added the feature to hide one's gender on Google+ profiles.

Women using the service are reporting that their low-level wariness and sense of vulnerability has lessened somewhat as a result.

"Hiding female identity from male view on the internet is very important and is likely to lead to real social change," a spokesperson from Google added.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#273

i'd love to know what makes "Radall" the expert on what "Many women grow up with"

Incidentally a few women expressed similar opinions a few years ago on two other forums I visited.

Really, if he used "some women" (edit: or many women I know) would you have any objection?

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good way of avoiding this problem is to get rid of pronouns altogether. Case in point (drumroll): Facebook's interface! You can count on one hand how many times they use pronouns, and those could be actually be removed as well.

In English, yes, but in other languages this isn't always possible.

In romance languages, it doesn't even necessarily require pronouns. The English sentence "Sam is tall." cannot be translated into Spanish without knowing whether Sam is male or female.

Interestingly, Google Translate assumes (in this case) that Sam is male, while Microsoft Translate assumes (in this case) that Sam is female.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#275
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, you too. That is not what sexual objectification means, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification Specifically, sexual objectification is when you see someone as nothing other than a sexual object - they have no other characteristics in your eyes. Now, knowing that, I would like you to explain to me how making the judgement that someone is not attractive is in any way shape or form sexual obje…

Well, assuming that you're referring to objective qualities (fat, bald) and tying that to attractiveness in an non-platonic sense, I think it's a simple deduction that that is sexual objectification. I would say that the second paragraph of that article agrees with me. I'm interested in understanding how you're reading this that doesn't lead to that conclusion. Though it seems that you think I'm a random person on th…

The "you too" was just me reacting to the fact that I often see posts from men that don't seem to argue in good faith. As an example, elsewhere in this discussion a guy decided to correct my tone. He's been a member for over 100 days and this was his second post - nothing else has struck him as sufficiently important, but my post, oh yeah, my tone really needed to be corrected. That post was not in good faith - it wS someone objecting to the content of my posts, by attacking the tone. Your post struck me as more of the same, if that wasn't the case, I apologise.

Anyway, your point is still wrong. Judging someone as not sexually attractive is pretty much the opposite of sexual objectification, it's a refusal to treat the person as a sexual object. I might be perfectly willing to have a relationship with fat bald guy as a cOlleague, or as a tennis partner, or as a friend - I'm not denying his humanity, I just don't want to sleep with him. Compare that with his action of rubbing himself against me, even after having made it abundantly clear to him that I wasn't interested. He doesn't care about me and my wishes, they are irrelevant to his goal. He finds me sexually attractive, and he wants to get laid, and too bad for me if I don't agree.

So no, refusing to see someone as a sexual object is sexual objectification in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#276
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except in ultra-rare occasions they do not happen in first world countries ...That sounds a lot like you're implying that rape and assault don't happen very often in first-world countries... which would be a statement quite divorced from reality. Care to clarify?

Compared with other hazards of life, they don't.

Perhaps not compared to, say, car accidents in the U.S., but that doesn't by any means imply that it's rare enough to not be a valid concern for potential victims.

From the wikipedia article cited above:

"Rape prevalence among women in the U.S. (the percentage of women who experienced rape at least once in their lifetime so far) is in the range of 15%-20%, with different studies agreeing with each other.

I'm personally not aware of any statistics that would justify calling rape an 'ultra-rare' occurrence in any part of the world; perhaps someone will enlighten me.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#277
Some data points:

1) I'm a 6'3" brown guy. I never get heckled when I walk down the street. I'm reasonably handsome, but in general, I don't have the sense that a lot of women are checking me out as I go about my daily business.

I was surprised to learn that my wife would get catcalls when she wasn't with me in our old somewhat sketchy neighbourhood. It never happened when she was with me, so I was like "WTF, people actually do that?"

2) At a previous job, I had a long walk to the coffee shop in suburbia. One time I was walking about 20 m behind a couple of women. I found one very attractive. I noticed that almost without exception, guys driving in oncoming traffic would crane their necks to look at her. I sometimes do this too, so I'm not suggesting that this is wrong per se, but it is very noticeable.

Imagine you're just stepping out to run some errands. Almost every guy you see checks you out. I'm not going to argue about whether this is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that many women's experiences are very different from men's. It's a weird vibe when you can't go anywhere without being obviously on display.

3) Tall people get paid more than short people. Many short people I know are very aggressive, as though they've become accustomed to defending their turf. I'm taller than almost everyone I meet, so when I'm in an elevator with someone taller, it feels wrong. Subconsciously I'm thinking about how I'd win a fight with them. You could argue that this is just weird and neurotic, but my wife says the same thing. She knows how to incapacitate a man, but again there's just this back-of-the-mind threat assessment that's overlaid on everyday situations.

4) Sexually, mechanically, it's less threatening to probe things with your appendage than to let something into an orifice. In a non-sexual context, you'd poke a lot of stuff that you wouldn't eat. In many cultures male-male anal sex isn't considered gay for the top. Only the bottom is gay. So there's probably something biological going on here.

So to all those arguing about probability of violent sexual assault, etc. You're missing the point. It's a completely different vibe, and you won't be able to speak intelligently about gender and social issues until you understand that.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#278

Some data points: 1) I'm a 6'3" brown guy. I never get heckled when I walk down the street. I'm reasonably handsome, but in general, I don't have the sense that a lot of women are checking me out as I go about my daily business. I was surprised to learn that my wife would get catcalls when she wasn't with me in our old somewhat sketchy neighbourhood. It never happened when she was with me, so I was like "WTF, people…

EDIT> I feel different when I'm in a good neighbourhood versus a bad one. In a bad neighbourhood, I'm on guard -- my spidey-sense is tingling.

Now imagine that for roughly half the population it feels that way even in good neighbourhoods. How does it feel to always be on guard?

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#279
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, assuming that you're referring to objective qualities (fat, bald) and tying that to attractiveness in an non-platonic sense, I think it's a simple deduction that that is sexual objectification. I would say that the second paragraph of that article agrees with me. I'm interested in understanding how you're reading this that doesn't lead to that conclusion. Though it seems that you think I'm a random person on th…

The "you too" was just me reacting to the fact that I often see posts from men that don't seem to argue in good faith. As an example, elsewhere in this discussion a guy decided to correct my tone. He's been a member for over 100 days and this was his second post - nothing else has struck him as sufficiently important, but my post, oh yeah, my tone really needed to be corrected. That post was not in good faith - it wS…

Ok, I see the way you're using sexual objectification now. I think people in this thread have been using it to describe both positive and negative reactions to people based on objective characteristics, not using desire as the important quality, but instead placing it on the objectification. Are you saying that reacting to someone as fat and bald as the primary characteristic of them is not objectification in the general sense? I think this is (or at least should be) what many men here are having an emotional reaction to. I'm not saying that this is logical or even necessarily valid in all cases, but there's a desire to have people of the opposite (or same) sex recognize one for qualities other than physical and have that be a basis for sexual attraction.

I think this sort of boils down to a misunderstanding between those who want to be seen as more than physical characteristics and the desire not to have unwanted physical interaction. I think those are both valid desires. The unpleasant experiences both "sides" have had make this discussion difficult. A failure to recognize you as a person with desires that aren't in accordance with someone else's projection onto you is clearly very bad. I don't think rejection is at this same level of very bad action, but it is still substantially hurtful to many men. You could just say "so what" to that and I'm not saying it to imply an obligation to accept. I'm just saying that it hurts to be rejected. Hopefully that makes some sense.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main issue is that it's the only field that's required to be public. That makes it seem out-of-place. You can tell a lot about someone's ancestry from their name as well, but it would be pretty weird if Randall's profile looked like this: Name: Randall Munroe Ancestry: Scottish[1] And that was it. Even though it's kind of obvious, it's encouraging people to think about it, and calling attention to any ste…

A good way of avoiding this problem is to get rid of pronouns altogether. Case in point (drumroll): Facebook's interface! You can count on one hand how many times they use pronouns, and those could be actually be removed as well.

Facebook abuses "their".
Post reply on HN