Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Lighten up"

therealkatie.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 829 posts

Re: "Lighten up"

#581

Post by einhverfr »

Reading through the article and the comments here it seems to me that there is a tremendous unresolved tension. There seems to be an idea that we just 'fix the sexism' and that's that. However, stepping back and asking harder questions makes me think the problems are fundamental to highly developed capitalist economies. Before you mod me down, at least read the rest of what I have to say.

Everything we do-- what we wear, how we walk, the way we talk, sends subtle social signals, and these impact all areas of life. Two fundamental (and increasingly entwined) areas of life are sexuality (without which our race dies out) and economic (without which, each of us dies individually). These are tremendously entertwined, with over half of Americans having dated co-workers (see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/02/10/the-state-...).

So it seems to me that, particularly single, women navigating the modern workplace are trying to navigate two fundamentally conflicting desires. The first is to be professional and not be open to the problem of being offered promotions for sexual favors, or retaliation for declining such offers, and the second is to find romance, companionship, love, etc. The fact that workplace romances are so common cannot be discounted in this area.

And so you have two key questions:

1) How do you define appropriate boundaries? This is a hellishly difficult problem in the context of the workplace.

2) If boundaries aren't bright but involve a lot of give and take, then doesn't that fundamentally mean that there will be a lot of behavior that will fall outside of that which is desirable?

I honestly don't see how you solve that problem.

On the gender role issue, I am a firm believer that one is generally better off making such tasks as taking notes or arranging potlucks things which are volunteer, and then if that fails, rotated, eliminating those who can't do it reasonably well.

But beyond that........ As long as so much of our social spheres surround work, and that's where a lot of opportunity for dating (both for men and women) lies, I just don't buy that you can wish away unwanted attention.

Re: "Lighten up"

#582

Post by natep »

einhverfr wrote: post #575
natep wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can't be what "lighten up" means because "lighten up" is a command, and your definition is not.

Woudl it be less offensive if instead of saying "lighten up" they said "it's no big deal. Why are you always so up tight anyway?" Certainly the latter is not a demand and is even a question, but I would argue that even barring that, it's far more of a problem.

Of course that's offensive. But you're still doing what knightenvy was not, and going beyond "I don't understand." It's perfectly fine to say you don't understand something. But from there, you should try to gain an understanding, and your quote (like the 2 previous definitions of "lighten up") don't do that. And yours adds victim blaming, which antiterra's doesn't really.

Re: "Lighten up"

#583

Post by gurkendoktor »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #168
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…

It seems to me that this is where the men on the team can help: As a man, I'd volunteer to take notes. Of course, this may not be tempting, because you may be on the kind of team where you just know that, if you volunteer to do some thankless task, you'll be stuck with it forever. And that is an entirely different kind of problem. But it's a problem that should not be covered up by deploying sexism.

> Of course, this may not be tempting, because you may be on the kind of team where you just know that, if you volunteer to do some thankless task, you'll be stuck with it forever.

That is only the second thing that came to my mind.

The other "danger" is being the only guy to act like that, then looking like a desperate "white knight" to the brogrammer crowd. Which sucks, because these exist and can be terribly creepy, and that gets you onto the women's side of the sexism.

Not that it is a valid reason, of course.

Re: "Lighten up"

#584

Post by oodalolly »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #131
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…

"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…

I've never understood this question. "Why do women wear low-cut dresses if not to attract male attention?"

Women wear low cut dresses because they feel good in them, because they feel they look good in them. Showing off your breasts, if you consider them an attractive part of you, is like showing off your face, or arms, or legs. This question is like asking, "Why do women brush their hair, if not to attract male attention?" Feeling good gives you confidence, and that confidence occurs internally, not because a man can give you external validation of sexual appeal. (My cleavage may turn you on, but it doesn't turn me on, or make me feel sexual just because it's there.)

Women rarely get dressed with men in mind, and it's fascinating to me that men think otherwise.

And similarly, feeling good about oneself is not equivalent to feeling sexually attractive. And having someone point out my sexuality all day long, when it's not even on my mind, is extremely uncomfortable, invasive, and (for lack of a less cliched term, apologies in advance) objectifying.

Re: "Lighten up"

#585

Post by lclarkmichalek »

LesZedCB wrote: post #471
drostie wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If no one in the context of the discussion finds it offensive, I would say it is fine to say it. If the original meaning of a word has become archaic, then I cannot see a rational reason why one cannot say it. If someone becomes offended by usage of the word, then maybe your position should be re-evaluated, but most insults have their history in bigotry, and trying to cleanse yourself that way is not productive. The word "git" comes from the word "beget", insinuating that they are a forgotten offspring: a bastard. Some people would be offended by being called a bastard, because of it's meaning of being born out of wedlock. But I cannot see anyone being offended by being called a git for it's original meaning. The term no longer means what it does, and censuring it as such does not make sense to me. The same might apply to "I owned you", though I don't know the term so well, so I can't really comment.

Re: "Lighten up"

#586

Post by chunkybacon »

msbarnett wrote: post #486
chunkybacon wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Racism and sexism are, respectively, stereotyping someone based on their perceived race or sex. Yes, even positive stereotyping ("pracism") like "black people dance better", "asians are great at math", or "girls are better note-takes". The negative effects of this form of racism & sexism are fairly well documented.

Maybe the downmodders are right in a "by the books" sense, but try to accuse someone of sexism when they say "men don't make good homekeepers" and see how far you get. Practically speaking, it doesn't work. Also I'll add that this weird feature seems only to exist for white people in Western countries.

Re: "Lighten up"

#587

Post by kitsune_ »

philwelch wrote: post #319
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…

As if male businessmen and politicians were not skilled at the game of intrigue and gossip. Give me a break.

Re: "Lighten up"

#588

Post by natep »

rokhayakebe wrote: post #201

To every person going through a similar situation, I apologize on behalf of Men, and I guarantee you not all of us are like such.

If only it were possible to apologize for someone else. However, that is not the case, as you are not the ultimate cause of their actions (their own brains are), so you can only apologize for what you do.

Re: "Lighten up"

#589

Post by natep »

desireco42 wrote: post #334
hythloday wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to play the HN etiquette bot, but you're being downvoted because you basically replied to a post saying, "don't dismiss my concerns when you don't share them" by dismissing her concerns because you don't share them.

No, I said that as consultant who was in a number of companies, I didn't see behavior she describes. It is not the rule, but exception and not characteristic for IT, which is pretty much what she is implying. And you are being a jerk :) for downvoting, thank you very much.

Exactly. You don't share her concerns (or experiences). Your nonrandom sample of companies has yielded different results than her nonrandom sample. How about that. Have a cookie.

Re: "Lighten up"

#590

Post by einhverfr »

natep wrote: post #582
einhverfr wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woudl it be less offensive if instead of saying "lighten up" they said "it's no big deal. Why are you always so up tight anyway?" Certainly the latter is not a demand and is even a question, but I would argue that even barring that, it's far more of a problem.

Of course that's offensive. But you're still doing what knightenvy was not, and going beyond "I don't understand." It's perfectly fine to say you don't understand something. But from there, you should try to gain an understanding, and your quote (like the 2 previous definitions of "lighten up") don't do that. And yours adds victim blaming, which antiterra's doesn't really.

But the point is that both of these are really ways of just shutting down conversation, right? "Lighten up" isn't a demand. It's just a way of cutting off the conversation through a retort.
Post reply on HN