Live data from Hacker News

OH HAI SEXISM

storify.com

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#81
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its taken a bit of meditation and conversation on the topic, but half-naked men in advertising isn't equally sexist or offensive.

Believe me, I see where you're coming from. My gut instinct (which I'm trying to tame) when I hear something about objectification is "I wouldn't mind someone objectifying me!" - but that instinct is wrong and here's why.

I (straight, white, american, upper middle class, male from suburban christian background) have a shit ton of privilege. Part of that as I understand it is that there are huge double standards in society at large for men vs women. There are things that I can do, which a woman doing would have incredible different reactions an consequences.

To be extreme, if I worked for a company and the rumor was that I had slept with every woman that worked there, it would likely be seen by the coworkers (and management potentially) as being a generally positive thing. James Bond, etc... The rumor of a woman doing the exact same and she's a slut. The consequences of being seen in a sexual light for a man aren't the same as they are for a woman. For men, its a sign of increasing power, and for women unfortunately its of decreasing power.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#82
post #49

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 c…

How do you dare speak in such a sensible and understanding manner? Why don't you talk about the times where you met a jerk at your workplace and he was a jerk, and you were offended, so now every workplace ought to be filled with men full of lust because they are geeks so they have poor social skills (funny, cliches about geeks in the office are OK !). Anyway this is, of course, a joke and some of the things I have found in previous threads.

But seriously thank you for saying what other women in the office where I have been working in the past have said: there is generally no problem. I don't know where the people I have read were working, but seriously, if it's that horrible, switch jobs.

And about the thing getting out of hand, this is the internet, people circle jerk problems ad nauseum, and Hacker News is not an exception.

Sexism is a subset of stupidity and a great deal of the latter is shown here.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#83
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…

> why is sexism towards women so horrible and sexism towards men is simply accepted as the way things are?

Feminists are opposed to sexism towards men. The reason you hear a lot more about sexism towards women is that men are the dominant of the two genders, so sexism against us [men] holds us back a lot less. This is particularly true in tech: how many men would you guess have ever left the tech field due to sexism compared to how many women?

Also, another point: it's appropriate to use appearance to sell products, when those products are related to appearance or attractiveness. If you're marketing a product that's going to make people look and feel sexier, it's totally fine to demonstrate that by showing sexy people using that product.

Geekli.st is not a product that's meant to enhance your appearance, it's meant to enhance your career. So the women is in her underwear, why?

And in fact, in the ad, only the woman's appearance is deemed important. The man is wearing a t-shirt and shorts, while the woman is in her underwear. That contrast to me is the most obvious reason why this is sexist. The man is essentially dressed like a hacker, and the woman is dressed like eye candy.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#84
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…

Also--it's an advertisement. Can't we promote egalitarianism without trying to criminalize male sexuality? Nobody would have complained if it was a male model doing the exact same commercial.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#85
post #21

Is it only the fact that they're scantily clad? Do women also find the fact that only women actors are used in cleaning commercials "fucking gross"?

> Do women also find the fact that only women actors are used in cleaning commercials "fucking gross"? I can't speak for women, but I do. I'm tired of men being portrayed in those commercials as buffoons who can't possibly manage household tasks, as well.

But whom else but white men can you portray as buffoons without getting lynched by, well, everyone ?

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#88
post #63
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your morality is not everyone's morality.

Are you saying this disqualifies his point because some people don't include equal treatment of women in their moral outlook? Or are you just stating a fact?

If the former, then you are wrong. If the latter, I'm not sure what you're trying to add to the conversation.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#89
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…

Being right is no excuse for being bone-headed. Shanley Kane may have been right to point out that the video was a tad sexist, but she was totally bone-headed in how she went about it. Moreover, though she is well within her right to request the video be reviewed and perhaps dealt with, demanding it be taken down because it's "fucking gross" is far more unacceptable, to me, than the contents of the video.

What's next? Should I ask Shanley Kane to take her tweet down because I find it offensively stupid?

The answer is obviously no.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#90
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 am all against Godaddy, but ... using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA

This is ridiculous - as is the argument in the original post. That an ad should be pulled because why the ads with a woman in her underwear dancing around to dupstep? is quite similar to the view that porn should be banned because it is toxic to marriages and relationships and a cause of misogyny and violence against women.

Both views represent a subjective, personal world view, presented by a person that goes around proclaiming superior morality of their values and trying to enforce it on others. Both have subjective value sets and act all outraged that not all people subscribe to these. One is the girl in the original post, the other Rick Santorum.

Post reply on HN