Nerds and Male Privilege • Hacker News Board

Re: Nerds and Male Privilege

#191

Post by jdp23 » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 7:55 PM UTC

Locke1689 wrote: post #147

sciurus wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the author has a good point, although it's tricky to make: You can spend all day making excuses for specific instances of sexism in comics and video games, or you can realize that your ability and need to do that is a sign of a problem.

You seem to be spending a lot of time making specific excuses to why you don't need to listen to an opposing argument. Perhaps you should realize that your inability to listen to logical arguments is a sign of a problem.

Or, perhaps you should realize that the "logical" arguments are not actually logical and have been repeatedly refuted.

Re: Nerds and Male Privilege

#192

Post by wallflower » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 7:55 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #176

jcnnghm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be trivial to create a female privilege checklist? For example, while women may be asked to smile by random people (44), they are murdered by random people far less often than men, representing only 21% of victims. Or, while females spend more time grooming than men (27), they are much less likely to have their genitals mutilated as infants by mothers who do not like the way they look. There can be some t…

> Wouldn't it be trivial to create a female privilege checklist? Yes: http://www.the-niceguy.com/articles/Checklist.html http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2008/06/08/female-privil... http://mensresistance.wordpress.com/female-privilege-checkli... (Note: I don't necessarily agree with or endorse everything on every one of these lists, but the point is very much made.)

Wow, read these lists.

It appears that I really never think about gender bias.

Re: Nerds and Male Privilege

#193

Post by burgerbrain » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 8:16 PM UTC

skore wrote: post #143

burgerbrain wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument." No. You must be misunderstanding my initial argument if you think that it does. You are definitely missing my point if you don't think that I understand that about jeans...

Your initial argument was about having your sexuality judged if you are a man wearing a dress, but not if you're a woman wearing pants. You must concede that my point - that dresses being so specifically female (let's face facts - a man just cannot fill that cleavage without surgical help) makes it possible to even wear them as a comedic statement or an underlining of manliness - at least greatly reduces your point.…

One word: Skirt.

Apologies for the imprecise terminology.

Re: Nerds and Male Privilege

#194

Post by burgerbrain » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 8:27 PM UTC

cg wrote: post #190

burgerbrain wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I mean regular old jeans. Women seem to be able to "get away" with wearing "female" clothing, as well as "male" clothing without any questions asked. At least in the circles I am in^. The opposite is certainly not the case. I was not attempting to be funny at all. ^And anybody wearing a "suit"-anything is just a stiff. The people I consider my peers don't do that either at work or casually.

It took many decades and two wars for women to be able to "get away with" wearing pants. They were adopted for practical reasons as women entered the workforce (skirts are more likely to get caught in factory machinery), and abandoned again when women exited the workforce post-war. Until the women's movement, pants on women were only tolerated when they were considered necessary.

I am very aware. This is exactly why I picked pants for my example.

Re: Nerds and Male Privilege

#195

Post by burgerbrain » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 8:30 PM UTC

wazoox wrote: post #154

burgerbrain wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or this one "25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability." Compare: A woman wearing pants. A man wearing a dress. One person is going to have their sexuality judged. And it's not going to be the woman.

Actually misrepresenting reality. Do you consider William Wallace as a wimp because he wore skirts ?

He wore a kilt, which is actually an interesting addition to my point. Despite the strong masculinity of a kilt, they do not appear to be very popular in modern society. I would suggest without evidence that this is in no small part due to a potential association with "feminine" skirts.

Re: Nerds and Male Privilege

#196

Post by makomk » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 8:30 PM UTC

zasz wrote: post #172

makomk wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, stuff like the causes of the salary gap, stereotype threat, and being expected to give up contact with your kids to be the one raising money to bring them up affect most adult men for most of their lives. (There's support out there for heterosexual men giving up their careers to raise kids but only so long as this decision is made by the kids' mother based on what benefits her personally.) The wage…

Sure, it's sad men don't get to spend as much time with the kids, but the point is, they can have their career, and have at least some time with their children. Women very often just don't have that choice, and are forced to take just the kids. That sounds worse to me. ( http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18616558/ns/today-books/t/why-... ) Also, women are actively punished for asking for more money, or being aggressive:…

"From the AMAs I've seen on Reddit, trash collection is not dangerous--just a low-status job, albeit a high-paying one with short hours."

A quick Google turns up information like this: http://earth911.com/news/2011/08/26/dangerous-jobs-garbage-c...

It involves working amongst traffic on a regular basis and operating dangerous machinery with very little in the way of safeguards, so the danger level shouldn't be terribly surprising.

Re: Nerds and Male Privilege

#197

Post by skore » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 8:49 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #193

skore wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your initial argument was about having your sexuality judged if you are a man wearing a dress, but not if you're a woman wearing pants. You must concede that my point - that dresses being so specifically female (let's face facts - a man just cannot fill that cleavage without surgical help) makes it possible to even wear them as a comedic statement or an underlining of manliness - at least greatly reduces your point.…

One word: Skirt. Apologies for the imprecise terminology.

Great, yes, that only changes the entire argument (exception to the rule here being kilts). Thanks for getting me 5 fresh downvotes ;-)

(Also, guys: Continuing to downvote me? Come on!)

[seems like we have reached the maximum depth here, so as a reply to the below:

Nope, sorry. The item of clothing in question makes all the difference here. A dress is a very particular choice of word.

And what kind of arguing is that you are suggesting, where I try to make your point for you in my own head? Sorry, I have no problem discussing whether men in skirts have their sexuality judged, but I'm not willing to discuss how I should have discussed that instead of discussing your actual wording - which was very different.

I mean come on - you made a bad choice of words, own up to it.]

Re: Nerds and Male Privilege

#198

Post by cg » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 8:55 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #194

cg wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took many decades and two wars for women to be able to "get away with" wearing pants. They were adopted for practical reasons as women entered the workforce (skirts are more likely to get caught in factory machinery), and abandoned again when women exited the workforce post-war. Until the women's movement, pants on women were only tolerated when they were considered necessary.

I am very aware. This is exactly why I picked pants for my example.

I don't understand how men wearing dresses works as a comparison to women wearing pants, as there hasn't been an equivalent attempt by men to adopt dresses as everyday attire.

Re: Nerds and Male Privilege

#199

Post by burgerbrain » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 8:59 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #170

jcnnghm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be trivial to create a female privilege checklist? For example, while women may be asked to smile by random people (44), they are murdered by random people far less often than men, representing only 21% of victims. Or, while females spend more time grooming than men (27), they are much less likely to have their genitals mutilated as infants by mothers who do not like the way they look. There can be some t…

Wouldn't it be trivial to create a female privilege checklist? Sure. And if you do that in the spirit of saying, "gosh, these are also nice problems to fix one day", that's great. But mostly people bring that argument up in the sense of "Gosh, your life is not 100% shitty, so I'm going to go back to pretending everything is fair now." This argument is so common that it appears on the "Derailing for Dummies" guide: ht…

I must say that that trivialization of male genital mutilation is particularly sickening. The author very clearly has no actual knowledge on the subject.

Re: Nerds and Male Privilege

#200

Post by burgerbrain » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 9:02 PM UTC

skore wrote: post #197

burgerbrain wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One word: Skirt. Apologies for the imprecise terminology.

Great, yes, that only changes the entire argument (exception to the rule here being kilts). Thanks for getting me 5 fresh downvotes ;-) (Also, guys: Continuing to downvote me? Come on!) [seems like we have reached the maximum depth here, so as a reply to the below: Nope, sorry. The item of clothing in question makes all the difference here. A dress is a very particular choice of word. And what kind of arguing is that…

If you were willing to honestly consider the point I was attempting to make, then alternatives to "dress" should have been clear.

Edit: I have owned up to that. I did not previously consider having cleavage to be an essential requirement for wearing a dress (and for the record, I think such an objection is absurd). However, my point above remains. Were you actually attempting to address the point I was clearly trying to make then a skirt would have been obvious. This discussion is not about individual articles of clothing but rather about gender specific clothing in general. You were narrowing your focus because you were not interested in having a real conversation.

You were being overly pedantic and could not see the forest for the trees. You have to own up to that.

Your downvotes and my upvotes should demonstrate to you that I was not expecting anything unreasonable from you. My point was clear to numerous other people.

Regardless, if you are willing to concede my point when I substitute 'dress' with 'skirt', then you have conceded my point entirely. The specifics of my illustrational example matter little. I think we are done here.