"Lighten up" • Hacker News Board

Re: "Lighten up"

#551

Post by mitchellhislop » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 5:31 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #506

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…

is this kind of response sexist and demeaning Yes Why do women wear low-cut dresses if not to attract male attention (in the majority of cases)? Because they think it looks good or is comfortable or is fashionable or they didn't have anything clean or their sister bought it for them and they are seeing them for lunch. Have you heard of the Bechdel Test[1]? It's a simple way of seeing gender bias in a movie: It has to…

Bad example: we buy them for the thrill of driving fast. The #1 thing on my list when I was car shopping was how it felt on twisty roads and freeway entrance ramps - and I got a new Focus, not a 458.

Shirts don't cause adrenaline responses like that by wearing them.

Re: "Lighten up"

#552

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 5:36 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #14

[deleted] wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

The point is not the one moron who does it; the point is having herself to escalate the issue to HR. She's the victim, but she has to play the role of the "problem". Try to think about what you'd do if you were in the room with a team member who made a comment like that. I know what I'd do, and I don't think it is an industry norm yet. We need to get there. If it helps you to see it: think about what you'd do if a te…

[deleted]

Re: "Lighten up"

#553

Post by MPSimmons » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 5:38 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…

> Here is a picture of....

Alright, look...those are pictures of people who are topless and are taken in non-sexual environments. Biologically speaking, there is nothing more sexual about those photographs than photographs of the same people wearing shirts.

Physiologically speaking, though, there is a difference. For most of us, chemicals in our brain respond instantaneously to those pictures, virtually shouting, "this is a naked woman". And its not just a male response, either (http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A3=ind9710B&L=AEJMC&E...). Nudity sells, and not because naked people look different. It's because our brains are tuned into paying attention to them, both by nature and by nurture.

The point of what I'm saying is that anyone wearing things that make you look good will ALSO make those who would otherwise be attracted to you pay more attention. It's not a choice, it is literally hard wired into our brains. Our brains respond chemically (http://jn.physiology.org/content/98/3/1374.abstract) to the pleasant, attractive things that we see. You have to understand that although you wear your jeans for yourself, anyone who is chemically predispositioned to do so will ALSO have their brains respond chemically.

This is no excuse for anyone who acts improperly in response to something that they see. We're all fully capable of controlling ourselves. Some of us have more practice in it than others, but society couldn't function if we couldn't control these reactions. The chemical response doesn't go away, though, it's just mitigated by other chemical responses.

We can (and most of us do) control our responses, but it doesn't get us anywhere to pretend that it doesn't happen. .

Re: "Lighten up"

#554

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 5:39 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #529

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

For the most part, yes. Gender generalizations more or less define the concept "sexist". And his "boy's game" "girl's game" thing is a good example of that.

[deleted]

Re: "Lighten up"

#555

Post by bshankle3 » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 5:40 AM UTC

My wife is a programmer. I hear you!

Re: "Lighten up"

#556

Post by philwelch » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 5:42 AM UTC

mtrimpe wrote: post #490

philwelch wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for your very well thought out reply. To a certain degree what you are saying is very much true. What you are forgetting however is that if you go further back in time men were hunters and women were gatherers. Women stayed around the camp and were free to chat and men went off to hunt and had to be silent. I'm trying to make the point that part of this is probably genetically/hormonally engrained into the fem…

Nah, I'd have to see some serious cross-cultural research to believe that the "girl's game" is a universal, as would anyone who's had a whiff of anthropology at any point in their education.

Also, speaking as a bisexual myself, I'm kind of offended by your characterization of bisexuals, unless by "bisexual" you mean "intersexed" or "transgender" or something, which in itself is actually just as offensive. Being queer doesn't mean engaging in stereotypical, effeminate behaviors like the ones you're describing.

Re: "Lighten up"

#557

Post by supercanuck » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 5:42 AM UTC

stephengillie wrote: post #480

yelsgib wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lighten up

Re: "Lighten up"

#558

Post by chanon » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 5:44 AM UTC

blatherard wrote: post #507

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…

I'd be inclined to give the author the benefit of the doubt, and take serious the problem she's chosen to flag. She's saying that the attitude of "lighten up" is a problem in and of itself. To say that the "meat of the problem" is something else is really kind of like saying "lighten up."

This. Why must we re-analyze her problem and say it is something else when she has already clearly stated what it is and how she feels.

Seeing the grandparent as the top voted comment is like HN saying 'hey, we know better, your problem is actually this'.

Which isn't much different from saying 'lighten up' - both amount to dismissing her feelings.

Re: "Lighten up"

#559

Post by Rinsaikeru » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 6:00 AM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #158

richardk wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Start wearing sweaters, even though my breasts feel like they're boiling in there (yup, that's one reason women like low tops, guys)?"

Mens' clothes are completely different from womens', though, particularly in what constitutes "sexually attractive" clothing (which the term "low-cut dress" seems to imply). Do women have a higher body temperature that they have to wear less clothing to account for?

Breasts, we are accounting for having two lumps of flesh directly on our rib cage. They get sweaty and they need to breathe sometimes--particularly because they require extra layers of clothing (ie. a bra and sometimes a camisole on top for instance).

Re: "Lighten up"

#560

Post by MPSimmons » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 6:09 AM UTC

estel wrote: post #328

loganfrederick wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people in most modern societies would agree a line should be drawn somewhere. If she wore a bikini to work, is it really fair to expect every guy to not say something? Now, that "something" should be closer to "you should change your outfit" than "I'd hit that", but still, the responsibility for the dress and generally accepted code of conduct falls on the woman in that case. I don't see this stance as s…

But isn't saying "You're not dressed in line with our code for dress and appearance" the complaint here? I thought that with respect to low-cut/suggestive tops, the problem was never that they weren't professional clothing (with respect to the workplace in question) - which of course is an entirely independent and asexual issue - but that some people made inappropriate comments and thought it acceptable.

I think that a dress low-cut enough to be considered unprofessional is a sexual issue by default. Professional standards and decorum exist, in part, to prevent a sexualized environment.

How is it judged that a man's pants are too tight to be professional, or a woman's dress is too short, and what are the reasons? The reasons are sexual, and I might be wrong in this, but I would guess the line exists where people of either gender would begin commenting.