"Lighten up" • Hacker News Board

Re: "Lighten up"

#311

Post by briancurtin » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 11:26 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #180

Honest question: Why is it so bad when guys treat gals like they're just one of the guys? Guys give each other small disparaging jabs all the time, be it the workplace or a party between friends, it's what we do to fit in; it's how our social groups work and what keeps them together. I've never been female, so I don't know what it looks like from their perspective, but to me telling a lass to go back to the kitchen i…

> go back to the kitchen is on the same level as telling a guy he should stick to computers because he sure as hell sucks at talking to girls

Why is "go back to the kitchen" on the same level? My girlfriend can't cook and wants nothing to do with it, let alone the fact that the phrase has been a stereotype actively used to demean the gender for a very long time.

Ribbing someone by telling them to stick with something they're actually active in and good at is really on the same level as a gender-wide stereotype?

Re: "Lighten up"

#312

Post by InclinedPlane » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 11:26 PM UTC

daenz wrote: post #297

InclinedPlane wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why wasn't he able to save all the jews?" Because all of the other Germans who didn't agree with what was happening just accepted it and went along. Are we done here?

> Because all of the other Germans who didn't agree with what was happening just accepted it and went along. That's not why Schindler didn't save all the jews. The point was risk analysis. > Are we done here? Unless you want to inject yourself between my reply to another poster again, yes. Feel free to see yourself out.

Hey man, lighten up.

Re: "Lighten up"

#313

Post by mhartl » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 11:27 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #288

mhartl wrote: post #93

"Oop, Katie's got the low cut dress on today! I know where I'm sitting!" ... Go to HR and get stuck with his work when they move or can him? The thing is, we live in a legal environment where she probably could go to HR and get him moved or fired for saying this. And yet, some men are still sexist jerks to women in the workplace. This suggests that all the blog-posting and HN-comment-hand-wringing in the world won't…

No. A thousand times no. Guys make these comments either a) because they are irredeemable assholes, or b) they don't understand the harm they cause. If they are permanent jerks, firing them can and will help. For everybody else, then discussion is useful. There is no reason to accept this kind of bullshit, and I refuse to.

I think you misunderstand. Acceptance is the only rational response when you lack sufficient power to effect change. When crude behavior persists even in the face of a draconian legal environment, complaining about it or writing frustrated blog posts certainly won't fix it.

Your situation is slightly different. As a CTO, you have the power to prevent this behavior in your sphere of influence. But fixing the tech industry in general is beyond your reach.

You should also be aware that you face the other end of the cannon here. If a woman feels maltreated on your watch, you could be held liable even if you are not culpable. In a small startup, this could be enough to sink the ship. Perversely, this gives you an incentive not to hire women. Indeed, posts such as the OP also provide an incentive not to hire women. There's no defending boorish jerks, but beware of unintended consequences when you propose ways to punish them.

Re: "Lighten up"

#314

Post by mhartl » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 11:28 PM UTC

hythloday wrote: post #294

mhartl wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was clear from context, but I've added a clarifying clause. The point is that, if firing people for commenting on low-cut dresses doesn't work, complaining about it in a blog post certainly isn't going to do the trick. The problem is unfixable using the means at the disposal of the OP. In this case, although the outcome is lamentable, leaving the industry may be a rational response.

Firing people is clearly an extreme option; it might be worth asking kcunning if she felt that was an appropriate reaction (I'd guess not). Writing a blog post, on the other hand, has generated half a dozen people changing their minds about how much sexism they're prepared to put up with (ranging from "I am confronting my own active sexism and resolving to change it" to "I am more inclined to speak up to challenge ac…

I don't think they're lying. I think they're a drop in the ocean.

Re: "Lighten up"

#315

Post by javascriptlol » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 11:29 PM UTC

javascriptlol wrote: post #289

antiterra wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not talking about "life" in any sort of universal context. Whatever 'female privilege' you can try to conjure up in general is largely irrelevant to this very specific setting: a technology profession. Is it really unobtainable to not tend towards choosing the woman to be the head of the potluck or to take notes just because she's a woman? Is it really that unobtainable to not make jokes about PMS or breasts? W…

You are painting these things as universal. If there were some rule about women and potlucks I'd care. As it is, there is not. I have never even seen a potluck in the workplace! There are much bigger, structural problems to worry about right now. It's like we're on a boat with a hole in the bottom and every interest group is complaining that their feet are getting wetter than all the others. We wouldn't have this pro…

Don't downvote, respond. I am not abusing anyone here.

Re: "Lighten up"

#316

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 11:30 PM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #203

mtrimpe wrote: post #138

Being an ex-queer (bi ;) I've had to put up with my fair share of subtle jabs and general discomfort with my presence. After a long time I figured out that the only thing that worked for me was to be more dominant than 'them.' The thing is, women (and queers) are fucking powerful, they're just powerful in a different way. Ironically, but not unsurprisingly, women are taught not to use this power as it's 'inappropriat…

> men don't have a clue as to how group dynamics work Do you think that those thousands upon thousands of (male) political leaders who climbed to the very tops of their social hierarchies -- from Crassus to Clinton, over thousands of years -- got there by pure luck without understanding how group dynamics work? How to make and break alliances? How to inform on their competitors? Open competitiveness and overt dominan…

[deleted]

Re: "Lighten up"

#317

Post by jiggy2011 » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 11:30 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #194

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Katie's got the low cut dress on today! I know where I'm sitting!"...As I'm getting older, I see how sexist and demeaning this is. At the risk of revealing myself to be a chauvinistic jerk, is this kind of response sexist and demeaning, or just inappropriate for the workplace? Why do women wear low-cut dresses if not to attract male attention (in the majority of cases)? Would it be sexist and demeaning for me to not…

Public perception (as judged by art, which usually represents a slightly caricatured version of reality) seems to imply that your attractiveness and the appropriateness of your comments are inversely correlated. That is to say, if you tell a woman she looks good, it will be a compliment if she likes you, a sexist remark if she doesn't.

There's some truth in this, I have observed women who will happily let some strange guy basically feel them up in a club if he is good looking and call him "cheeky".

Whereas an ugly looking guy who makes eye contact or smiles at them is regarded as a creep or potential rapist.

In fact I remember reading somewhere that a persons physical attractiveness had a fairly significant affect on the likely verdict where they to be the defendant in a trial.

Re: "Lighten up"

#318

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 11:32 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #312

daenz wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because all of the other Germans who didn't agree with what was happening just accepted it and went along. That's not why Schindler didn't save all the jews. The point was risk analysis. > Are we done here? Unless you want to inject yourself between my reply to another poster again, yes. Feel free to see yourself out.

Hey man, lighten up.

[deleted]

Re: "Lighten up"

#319

Post by philwelch » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 11:33 PM UTC

mtrimpe wrote: post #138

Being an ex-queer (bi ;) I've had to put up with my fair share of subtle jabs and general discomfort with my presence. After a long time I figured out that the only thing that worked for me was to be more dominant than 'them.' The thing is, women (and queers) are fucking powerful, they're just powerful in a different way. Ironically, but not unsurprisingly, women are taught not to use this power as it's 'inappropriat…

To whatever extent the "girl's game" is such, it's largely because for centuries, female social hierarchies consisted of social groups of gossiping housewives and male social hierarchies consisted of business and politics--though the two certainly intersected when the wives of businessmen and politicians talked. (One notable intersection happened during the Andrew Jackson administration and ultimately led to the end of John Calhoun's vice presidency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petticoat_affair)

Analogously speaking--just because whites held social power over blacks by virtue of better education doesn't somehow mean education itself is an artifact of white supremacy, it means that lack of education is an artifact of oppression. Likewise, having to passive-aggressively gossip in the background isn't some kind of feminine power, it's an artifact of oppression against women preventing them from speaking and acting more openly. If women are going to be peers and equals to men in a professional workplace, they should act like it.

Re: "Lighten up"

#320

Post by yelsgib » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 11:33 PM UTC

j_baker wrote: post #291

yelsgib wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have great compassion for Jeffrey Dahmer. And do you realize that you just compared making an awkward joke to killing loads of people?

I made no such comparison. It's called Reductio ad absurdum: http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/ My point was that if we accept your argument, we must also accept the patently absurd (at least to me) argument that one must have compassion for Jeffrey Dahmer, and it doesn't sound as though you disagree.

Why is it abdurd to have compassion for jeffrey dahmer?