"Lighten up" • Hacker News Board

Re: "Lighten up"

#491

Post by sherlocked » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:04 AM 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 a world of difference between a compliment (such as "nice dress!" and "Katie's got the low cut dress on today! I know where I'm sitting!"

You could look like a literal Ryan Gosling clone and I'd still be offended if you told me the second statement at work.

Re: "Lighten up"

#492

Post by mtrimpe » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:06 AM UTC

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #485

astine wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In the workplace, open competitiveness and overt displays of hierarchical dominance (boy's game) are perfectly acceptable, but figuring out the motives of your enemy's friends, observing when he breaks them and subtly informing those friends about that in order to weaken his support base (girl's game) is considered 'nasty.'" It is nasty. It's called passive-aggressiveness and it undermines honest communication in th…

> The fact that you think this form of behavior is more natural to women than men is actually quite sexist. All gender generalizations are sexist? That doesn't make sense; there are generalizations that are true even if that population doesn't like those generalizations (ie: women are physically less capable than men) and in some situations it may be important to have them in mind. What could be sexist is to speak ou…

Thanks for the backup. People around here tend not to realize that sharing something like this leaves you feeling pretty darn vulnerable.

Re: "Lighten up"

#493

Post by knightenvy » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:10 AM UTC

rokhayakebe wrote: post #200

klausa wrote: post #87

You see, I have problem with posts like this. First I'm like - "Woah, I can't imagine someone would be so insensitive to make joke like this!" and get all fed up and upset. But then... then I freeze, because next example is something that I can imagine myself saying. "Oop, Katie's got the low cut dress on today! I know where I'm sitting!" I... I'm at loss of words. I was trained during my teenage years, that it's coo…

We've just had an identical (100%) feeling. I was telling myself "Come on, stop crying like a baby" until I read those words. I feel extremely sorry for her and anyone who has to go through this.

I feel as you do, though she did not help her situation but not doing anything about it.

Re: "Lighten up"

#494

Post by castillowl » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:12 AM UTC

Overly Sensitive.

Re: "Lighten up"

#495

Post by Cushman » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:15 AM UTC

drumdance wrote: post #475

Cushman wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is also such a thing as dressing well because it is comfortable, or makes one feel better about oneself, without the intention of attracting sexual attention, and the distinction between the two is not pedantic. It is at the core of the disagreement here.

Look at the original quote: "Oop, Katie's got the low cut dress on today! I know where I'm sitting!" A clear statement of sexual interest, which Katie clearly did not wish to receive.

The hypothesis we are being asked to entertain is that she probably was wearing the low-cut dress because she wanted to attract male attention, but that this comment was in some other way offensive. That is, she wanted this guy to think that, just not say it. Because women are touchy, or something. What an absurdly insulting proposal!

Is it really so hard to imagine that she might want to dress in a way which is gratifying to her, without intending to be the object of men's sexual fantasies?

Re: "Lighten up"

#496

Post by jarodym » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:16 AM UTC

"When asked, most men will gallantly express their admiration for women in general and profess a profuse love for their mates in particular. Despite these touching personal testimonials, society is rife with misogyny and patriarchy. A cursory glance at the current newspapers or television news reveals a global society in which the majority of men disdain women. While some cultures are more egalitarian than others, men's actions suggest that they believe firmly in their superiority over women.

-Leonard Schlain (Sex, Time, and Power)

Re: "Lighten up"

#497

Post by cellularmitosis » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:17 AM UTC

hzay wrote: post #431

I'm a woman, this happens to me (not very often but that might be because I've worked in this industry only for two years) and whenever it does, I just say something horribly cold. One day I had a pretty watch on, and a male coworker said "That's such a come-hither watch". He was one of the most intelligent people I'd met, and it was painful to hear that come from him. I made an exception and tried to tell him that o…

"That's such a come-hither watch".

Making objectifying comments in the workplace is wrong, no two ways about it. But because I don't have your context, this one jumped out at me as "could be interpreted in many ways". I'm curious if I can cajole a bit more context out of you? (because I've made my share of innocently-intended comments resulting in a situation going horribly awry, so I'm always looking to improve my appropriateness radar).

Specifically, do you think it was A) an innocent/clueless comment, B) a "testing the waters" comment as a prelude to hitting on you, or C) outright hitting on you?

A) Do you think he was just complimenting you on the watch? Particularly, I wonder because he made the comment about a thing, not about you. I.e., consider the difference between "that's a sexy skirt" and "you have a sexy ass". The later is clearly objectifying, but the former could be interpreted innocently or offensively, because its a comment about an object (although even the former is pretty risky -- you'd have to be very close friends with the person and be sure they'd understand your intent to feel safe making such a remark).

B) Or perhaps he was "testing the waters"? I've notice that being labelled a "creep" actually has more to do with whether your attraction is unrequited, than whether the action was objectively creepy, and a "testing the waters" approach is one way to try and avoid being the office creepster. Unless of course even testing the waters is creepster material (I hope not...).

C) or was he just flat-out being a slime ball?

Re: "Lighten up"

#498

Post by didip » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:19 AM UTC

When I managed my team, I bought gallons of beers for everyone. With my own money, and handing the beers myself to my peers (In this example I'm using beer-time as substitute for potluck).

Of course I did ask for reimbursement through the company and the company did approve, but that's not the point.

The act of doing potluck is supposed to raise morale. Whoever manager in charge should organize the potluck him/herself for maximum boost of morale. Telling others to do potluck is so lame. Telling someone else to take note is equally lame.

Re: "Lighten up"

#499

Post by sophacles » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:22 AM UTC

chunkybacon wrote: post #474

ajross wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh bullshit. If I'm hanging out with my boss at a barbegue and does something stupid and I say "you're such a dumbass", it's a fun jab. If my boss says incorrect or misinformed in front of customers, and I say the exact same thing, in the exact same tones with the exact same stupid grin, it could be a lost sale, and a reprimand. Context does matter, and it's not some whimsical flight of fancy by fickle and capricious women.

Re: "Lighten up"

#500

Post by msbarnett » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:22 AM UTC

cellularmitosis wrote: post #465

Strallus wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the problem can't be fixed. As long as techies remain predominately male, this problem will persist. And why are they predominately male? Either- A: Men, for some unknown reason, like programming better. B: The sexist environment drives women away. Whichever one it is, the problem will not resolve itself. For A, as long as men like it better, and there are more of them, women will be seen as outsiders. For B, a…

A or B? Consider this thought experiment: if it is the case that there is a ton of interest by women in programming, but that interest is frustrated by the "star wars" factor, that would imply that there's a huge pool of untapped female programming power. Why hasn't an enterprising business person realized this and created the next facebook-killer or google-killer by assembling a team of all-female ninjas? My first r…

> My first reaction to this experiment would be "Because they were frustrated before they had the chance to graduate with a CS degree".

Well, there's more to it than that. Female participation was fairly high in the 70s, dropped precipitously through the 80s, 90s, and early 00s, and is only now kinda-sorta-maybe starting to recover.

The hidden factor in there is the Personal Computer revolution. Prior to it, men and women entered college on roughly even footing w.r.t. computer exposure in their life-to-date. Once the personal computer took off, though, a big gender (and race) disparity cropped up.

Boys who had their very own computer to play with in their formative pre-college years received it, on average, around the age of 14 (IIRC, I'll try to hunt the exact stats down later).

Girls and minorities didn't receive a computer of their own to use until much later (19 as recently as the early 00s, which is, critically, after most people decide what to major in).

Intro CS classes turned into highly intimidating environments where the males had significant computer experience and may well have spent several years programming already; girls were at a significant disadvantage and enrolment fell off fast as they switched to majors where they weren't starting off at a several year disadvantage versus their peers.