"Lighten up" • Hacker News Board

Re: "Lighten up"

#471

Post by LesZedCB » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:39 AM UTC

drostie wrote: post #348

javascriptlol wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sexual assault is no joke. But so what if someone gives you "unwanted attention"? We have become a culture of whiners and rationalisers. It would be like me, as a man, going on and on about how unfair it is that I'm expected to hide fear and put the safety of females before my own. Of course, we're well along the way to destroying that tradition. People ignore the myriad of subtle advantages to this "sexist" approach…

Well, the "so what" is everything: Unwanted Attention is Unwanted because it embraces some sort of threat or menace or unreasonable expectation or social tension or unease. To say that we should stop giving women this sort of unwanted attention is not whining or rationalizing, nor is it fanatical egalitarianism. It's just demanding a culture where we men know that it's dangerous to control, frightening to objectify,…

Today I learned: "I owned you at " is a slavery metaphor. It was always just something I said. Now I know, and therefore probably can't say it anymore...

Re: "Lighten up"

#472

Post by knightenvy » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:40 AM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #371

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? Of course I'm not sure . But when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Why do all the waitresses in Hooters wear low-cut tops? Is it for comfort? Is it because they couldn't afford the other 30% of the shirt? Or is it because that's proven to be very effective at gaining male attention? I wore them for me, not for anyone else. This makes no sense. In a post-apocolyptic world where you're the on…

> Why do all the waitresses in Hooters wear low-cut tops? Seriously, stop right there. Read what you just wrote. You're comparing a professional developer who chose to dress comfortably to women chosen for sex appeal by a restaurant which is only a step away from a strip club. There is something seriously wrong with the way you are approaching this issue. To answer your last question-- I'm a straight guy, and no, I w…

Companies often have specific dress code regarding clothing choices because of issues like this. So I believe his point is valid at least in a generalization point of view.

Re: "Lighten up"

#473

Post by burgerbrain » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:41 AM UTC

hythloday wrote: post #324

Tichy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a supplement to those posts, I would like a set of instructions about how to talk to women properly (and women with low cut dresses especially). I mean it seems possible that the "I know where I'm sitting" guy was simply crap at giving compliments, rather than a sexist jerk. Attraction between men and women exists, and it is even vital for the survival of the human race for the time being. So it has to be dealt wi…

I would like a set of instructions about how to talk to women properly Like you would talk to men. Simple.

No way in hell. HR would slaughter me.

Re: "Lighten up"

#474

Post by chunkybacon » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:44 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #221

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…

This is always where geeks run off the rails in discussions like this. We want to come up with rules for things: either this statement is "sexist" or it is not, and here is the objective reason for that decision. But it misses the point. Context matters. In a utopian environment where women felt equally respected, sure, a sideways/slightly-inappropriate comment would be fine. In some workplaces today that might even…

The rule is: some girls like it, some girls don't. You have to know what they will like before you open your mouth.

Re: "Lighten up"

#475

Post by drumdance » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:45 AM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #413

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing a professional developer who chose to dress comfortably to women chosen for sex appeal by a restaurant which is only a step away from a strip club. You're arguing a straw man. I didn't say anything remotely close to that; my point was just that wearing low-cut tops and dressing for sex appeal are usually correlated. I'm a straight guy, and no, I wouldn't find it sexually arousing if a co-worker came…

> You're arguing a straw man. I didn't say anything remotely close to that; my point was just that wearing low-cut tops and dressing for sex appeal are usually correlated. Oh, did I get that quote wrong? Let's play the tape: > Why do all the waitresses in Hooters wear low-cut tops? Huh. It sounds like you're saying there that, because women selected for their sex appeal by a restaurant which is only a step away from…

Pedantic. There is such a thing as sex appeal and dressing sexily. The entire fashion industry is built on it. I bet some of the people in those last pictures have been called "sexy" and liked it.

As a man I dress well because I want to be attractive. No, it doesn't mean women should feel free to whistle at me at work, but it's not outrageous to explore the boundaries and decision making process on this forum.

Re: "Lighten up"

#476

Post by knightenvy » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:45 AM UTC

drhayes9 wrote: post #399

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be a ludicrous way to approach it, but would we be having this same conversation if a lesbian had made the comment, or better yet, a gay man to another man? I think it's still obviously inappropriate sexual harassment but it doesn't feel immediately "sexist" to me in the same way. Sexism is about discrimination or prejudice based on gender, and I think we too quickly view anything inappropriate from one ge…

Good point; I think we would be having this conversation. We would not call it sexism, as that's reserved for unwanted attention between the sexes, usually male-to-female, but sometimes reversed... but it would still be just as wrong . I think we don't have more cases like that because LGTM people are in a minority, but that doesn't mean that an LGTM person can't make unwelcome advances upon another person; why would…

The definition on sexism has already been addressed, so I will leave that alone.

Do you not think there are grey areas? Areas where a comment might seem harmless but end up insulting someone?

To me the only way addressing this is to speak up when it happens. If you don't then the grey area remains grey and it is likely a behavior to be repeated.

Re: "Lighten up"

#477

Post by outworlder » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:45 AM UTC

sangfroid wrote: post #264

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #134

I applaud the author for sharing her feelings. I also note that she does not speak for all women. All we can do is share our own experiences. I've been through many of these discussions: sexism, racism, ageism, and so on. After receiving many a rhetorical punch in the nose, I have a simple rule: I don't do it, I don't approve of it being done, if I am in management I stop it. I also don't let people yank me around by…

I'm one of the women who don't share her feelings. Maybe it's the word sexism that I have a problem with. I'm not a programmer and I don't know the specific environment that she described, but I'm a female motorcyclist and I've worked in lots of kitchens and a couple in molecular biology labs. I know the behavior and I've dealt with it. Men behave in curious ways when there's a low female/male ratio, but in my experi…

And when the female/male ratio is too high, there are issues too, and not just at work. It can be uncomfortable/awkward for many.

I don't want to generalize, but in my country/city/region/circle of friends/etc, I've found that, for instance, girls tend to talk about their sexual experiences in every detail imaginable, down to comments about their partners. Any attempt to do something to that level of detail among guys would likely be met with a "Whoa dude! Too much information!"

And that's just an example. Not sure if you can relate. In any case, the point is that I think that there will be issues unless the environment is balanced or 100% of the same sex.

Re: "Lighten up"

#478

Post by mtrimpe » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:46 AM 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…

I'm not just talking about intrigue; I'm trying to describe a different model of the world which operates on a different kind of duality.

In that model intrigue is indeed the punishment, but care and support is the reward.

This might be constrained to just my experience in the gay community and my extrapolation to the female population might be incorrect.

All I know is that I eventually became strongly aware of a delicate and ever changing network of social ties every non-straight-male I knew was participating in and acutely aware of.

And yes, it's probably a very essential component of the skillset political leaders need to master to rise to the top. I'd argue however that it only becomes a necessity to master at the top, whereas for most queers I know it's present regardless of political ambitions.

Re: "Lighten up"

#479

Post by chunkybacon » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:47 AM UTC

throwawaymar2 wrote: post #428

drhayes9 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point; I think we would be having this conversation. We would not call it sexism, as that's reserved for unwanted attention between the sexes, usually male-to-female, but sometimes reversed... but it would still be just as wrong . I think we don't have more cases like that because LGTM people are in a minority, but that doesn't mean that an LGTM person can't make unwelcome advances upon another person; why would…

sexism, as that's reserved for unwanted attention between the sexes That's harassment. Sexism is believing or acting as though one sex is intrinsically better than the other, as racism is the same with race. Sexism is not directly related to sexuality in the "having sex" sense, any more than racism has to do with sprinting.

That's not what sexism or racism is. Racism is not statements like "black people dance better," it is only when a negative statement is made about a race in a perceived inferior statement (e.g. vis-a-vis white people).

Re: "Lighten up"

#480

Post by stephengillie » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:52 AM UTC

yelsgib wrote: post #246

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #140

As the woman, I've been the only person in the group asked to put together a pot luck (presumably, this work is beneath the males). I've been the only one asked to take notes in a meeting... even if I'm the one who's presenting (because my title really should be 'secretary who we let on the servers'). This, more than the jokes and comments, is the meat of the problem. Inappropriate jokes can be much more easily addre…

In my mind, an important point here is that NO ONE should be asked to put together a pot luck. Why does anyone think this kind of thing is appropriate in the workplace? It makes me want to vomit when workplace boss becomes social boss. If anyone ever told me to put together a pot luck my immediate response would be "go fuck yourself."

I'm not a professional chef, I'm a sysadmin. Cooking isn't part of my job description.

I don't want to be forced to eat food prepared by people who don't have food handlers' cards, and I don't want my coworkers to feel hurt because I don't want to eat what they cooked and left in their car.

Want to improve morale and do teambuilding? Get a cater, or go somewhere for lunch.