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

OH HAI SEXISM

storify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 99 posts

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#41

Post by guard-of-terra »

brettbender wrote: post #26
guard-of-terra wrote: post #17

It wasn't offensive for girls featured in the video (or why did they?), yet it's immediately offensive for some random stranger on the net who then proceeds to command its removal. If something is gross here, this is. P.S. Objectification is a kind of strange word. Human body is an object. It's physical, materialistic. Now, if there would be objectification of human soul (or whatever other thin layer) that where we w…

When people talk about 'the objectification of women,' they're not talking about the dictionary definition of the word objectification. It's shorthand for sexual objectification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification

"Objectification is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person's personality or sentience." If you're a model, that's what you do for a living. I mean, they use their body to demonstrate clothing. Where could they get the space to display their personality and sentience here?

If it's okay for them it should also be okay for everyone else, don't see why not.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#42

Post by Pewpewarrows »

japhyr wrote: post #32
Pewpewarrows wrote: post #3

I really hope that everyone is as equally offended and quick to point out sexism for every advertisement, television show, and movie featuring a very fit, shirtless man doing a stereotypical "masculine" activity (construction work, heavy lifting, playing a sport, or fighting each other).

This is not a legitimate counter-argument. The use of women in advertising, and our social treatment of women in general, has negatively affected most women's ability to be treated professionally and respectfully. The use of fit, shirtless men in advertising does little to hold men back in general.

I never intended it to be a counter-argument. I was just pointing out how hypocritical it would be if you don't agree that half-naked men in advertising is as equally sexist and offensive.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#44

Post by Swizec »

bct wrote: post #40
Swizec wrote: post #27

I've watched the video ... if that is sexist, then what about this perfume commercial with a half naked Matthew M McConaughey? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL83sQG8fFA Or all those commercials with half naked men aimed at selling male underwear to women (so their man will look just as good). Is that sexism too? Why does nobody cry about that type of sexism? Guess what I'm asking, in general, why is sexism towards w…

The difference is the societal context. Women are judged by and valued for their appearance (to the exclusion of other attributes) to an extent that men are not.

Have you talked to women? They're even more concerned with what men look like than we are about them!

The things women talk about in regards to men would put even the manliest of construction workers whistling after every woman on the street to shame.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#46

Post by jgroome »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #17

It wasn't offensive for girls featured in the video (or why did they?), yet it's immediately offensive for some random stranger on the net who then proceeds to command its removal. If something is gross here, this is. P.S. Objectification is a kind of strange word. Human body is an object. It's physical, materialistic. Now, if there would be objectification of human soul (or whatever other thin layer) that where we w…

>It wasn't offensive for girls featured in the video (or why did they?), yet it's immediately offensive for some random stranger on the net who then proceeds to command its removal. If something is gross here, this is.

Got to say, I agree. The advert doesn't appeal to me in the slightest - the sexuality is so in-your-face and over-the-top. It's pandering and almost condescending:

Look, a geeky guy hugging a model in panties! Buy our shirt, it has a website logo on it. Look, here's some boobs, here's some leg, you're a man in your twenties who works in tech, so this is what you want, right? So just give us the money already.

The advert has turned me OFF the product it was selling by being too overt. But that's just me.

What I find objectionable about this saga is Kane's rather entitled "I find this offensive, so it must be removed" attitude. The advert itself is not, in my mind, sexist. The idea that women need some kind of guardian angel who stops models from being shown in promotional videos - that I find offensive.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#47

Post by dbuns »

mhurron wrote: post #6
untog wrote: post #2

I don't know if this is going to be an unpopular post, but I don't think this is such a clearcut case of sexism as the API Jam/"Lighten Up" stuff we've seen recently. I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA. But I think that everyone in this story went about things the wrong way. Shanley Kane had a legitimate complai…

>I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing Nope. They're paid for it, there is nothing illegal about it and I fail to see anything wrong with targeting perceived likes of a segment of the population to move product. In fact, I believe that's what advertising is. I see no difference between a woman in a bikini or a celebrity in an ad.

+1

As long as consumers choose to us services that monetize primarily on ads, (Facebook, Google, et. Al), I say game on. I may not personally agree on a style basis, but focusing on the morality of a business model seems like a way better time sync than trying to get everyone to capitulate to your opinions.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#48

Post by megamark16 »

japhyr wrote: post #22
mhurron wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing Nope. They're paid for it, there is nothing illegal about it and I fail to see anything wrong with targeting perceived likes of a segment of the population to move product. In fact, I believe that's what advertising is. I see no difference between a woman in a bikini or a celebrity in an ad.

There is a higher moral ground than just what is legal, and what people are willing to do for money.

Agreed, and a lot of it has to do with the context. If your're selling swimsuits, then you hire models, have a photo shoot, and sell swimsuits. But in the technology industry, where a lot of people are working very hard to encourage more women to get involved, there's no place for this type of objectification of women. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#49

Post by arien »

This is slowly getting out of hand. I would even dare to speak of censorship.

Who cares what a random girl in a video is doing? Was she forced to appear in there? Then what's the problem? It's not even "fucking gross", it's just a couple of people giggling around being silly!

I'm a girl and never felt objectified by bosses/colleagues in the tech world, nor suffered any kind of sexism. But maybe it's because I never cared for it. I did my job and was respected for it, just like everybody else. In this century YOU are responsible for the way you present yourself to others and that's how you will be judged. They will respect you (or not) because of what you do, how you do it, how professional you are, what you accomplish.... regardless of what you are.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#50

Post by bct »

Swizec wrote: post #44
bct wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is the societal context. Women are judged by and valued for their appearance (to the exclusion of other attributes) to an extent that men are not.

Have you talked to women? They're even more concerned with what men look like than we are about them! The things women talk about in regards to men would put even the manliest of construction workers whistling after every woman on the street to shame.

Please note my parenthetical.
Post reply on HN