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

801–810 of 829 posts

Re: "Lighten up"

#801

Post by LesZedCB »

not-a-pc-whore wrote: post #752
wisty wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand the "as a man" part. That's further propagating the problem. ... > You see, you are still treating her differently, where ultimately, no one treats her differently. Actually, everyone is treating her differently. The problem isn't just that people see men and women differently. That's almost impossible to change in the short term. In the short term, all you can do is try to get people to treat ea…

in the long run, for the survival of the race, we'd better continue to treat them differently. Get over it already!! Women are different! All this pc stuff is drivel.

I agree. I think though that you have to be more clear. I believe when you say "for the survival of the race" what you mean is that woman want to be with men whom they respect. I feel like that is true. Certainly woman are also different. However, when it comes to being in the workplace, I think what the OP and most of the people here are trying to get at is using better judgement. We are not animals here. We treat woman with the same respect that we treat men, while simultaneously recognizing that we ought not act the same around them as we do around men, or maybe specifically of men we are friends with.

PC is drivel. agreed. being respectful: definitely not.

Re: "Lighten up"

#802

Post by agateform »

georgieporgie wrote: post #24

Well said. I'm seriously considering leaving the field of software because I'm tired of working with 25 - 35 year old manchildren.

Generalizing 25-35 males working in the industry as manchildren can be seen as misandry (hatred of man).

Misogyny does not justify misandry.

Re: "Lighten up"

#803

Post by hermannj314 »

georgieporgie wrote: post #719
ComputerGuru wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a man, I've handled this by being the one to turn it into an obvious sexist thing by making a joke aloud "yeah, Sarah, boss says it's your turn to take notes again because, you know, you're the only girl at the table :P. Ha ha ha ha." Everyone laughs, boss realizes what he's doing, Sarah is off the hook.

And I, in turn, would blurt out, "yeah, Sarah's a girl because she doesn't menstruate. Hahaha" and everyone would grow more uncomfortable. Edit: it's really sad that HN has such a devotion to using the word "girl" to describe women. It's flat-out demeaning, whether you want to admit it or not.

I found an article about racism in the antebellum South and the cultural norm of referring to an adult black man as a "boy".

I never really considered that calling a woman a 'girl' was a way to demean or lower them in status (I do use the word on occasion). I think the key difference is that I would never address a woman as a girl ("Come here, girl") but I may refer to someone as a girl if she in her 20's or younger ("Hey, that girl dropped her college id, can you give it to her?) Or I might say "Do you want to see if any of the girls in accounting want to go to lunch?"

Is this really the bar for modern-day sexism?

Re: "Lighten up"

#804

Post by hythloday »

burgerbrain wrote: post #755
hythloday wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my advice stands, though if you're actively working to undermine your male colleague's confidence in their ability you might consider changing that. But if you insist on treating male and female colleagues differently then you spend your entire day saying to women, "you don't belong here and you never will". If you're comfortable with that and your manager's comfortable with that, please give me the name of you…

"if you're actively working to undermine your male colleague's confidence in their ability" You don't have a solid grasp on male-to-male communication in the US workplace. Please keep in mind that perhaps your culture is different.

This reads to me like "you clearly don't have a solid grasp of how women live in Saudi--of course it's necessary for their dignity to prevent them to drive". Do you see it differently? I definitely don't see that hypothesizing about my inexperience of working in the US (where I worked for 3 months in 2006) answers my point.

Re: "Lighten up"

#805

Post by JonnieCache »

hermannj314 wrote: post #803
georgieporgie wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I, in turn, would blurt out, "yeah, Sarah's a girl because she doesn't menstruate. Hahaha" and everyone would grow more uncomfortable. Edit: it's really sad that HN has such a devotion to using the word "girl" to describe women. It's flat-out demeaning, whether you want to admit it or not.

I found an article about racism in the antebellum South and the cultural norm of referring to an adult black man as a "boy". I never really considered that calling a woman a 'girl' was a way to demean or lower them in status (I do use the word on occasion). I think the key difference is that I would never address a woman as a girl ("Come here, girl") but I may refer to someone as a girl if she in her 20's or younger…

In modern feminist circles they have apparently settled on "lady" as a dignified compromise between the infantilising "girl" and the sometimes undesirably serious "woman."

Re: "Lighten up"

#806

Post by octotoad »

Cushman wrote: post #371
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? Of course I'm not sure . But when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Why do all the waitresses in Hooters wear low-cut tops? Is it for comfort? Is it because they couldn't afford the other 30% of the shirt? Or is it because that's proven to be very effective at gaining male attention? I wore them for me, not for anyone else. This makes no sense. In a post-apocolyptic world where you're the on…

> Why do all the waitresses in Hooters wear low-cut tops? Seriously, stop right there. Read what you just wrote. 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. There is something seriously wrong with the way you are approaching this issue. To answer your last question-- I'm a straight guy, and no, I w…

Re: women being topless in public.

This has always sort of baffled me. That is, the fact that there has to be a specific law/rule allowing women to appear in public without some form of upper-body garment.

Obviously, regardless of gender, it's all about context. I wouldn't consider it appropriate for someone to get around without a shirt on while at work (I suppose there could be exceptions, eg. certain manual labour jobs where employees are comfortable shedding clothing in an effort to stay cool etc.).

But in a situation where its natural to take ones shirt off, such as swimming, I don't see why women shouldn't be allowed the same 'privilege' just because they may have visible deposits of fat and muscle on their chest.

I know there are all sorts of longstanding social preconceptions that a lot of people would hold on this sort of issue, but isn't that something most people would expect to change over time?

Re: "Lighten up"

#809

Post by ErrantX »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #791
ErrantX wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking about this, and to be honest that could equally be seen as sexist, and also backfire. Things like But you may be in a better strategic position than Amy to negotiate the necessary change could certainly be considered sexist if voiced. What you are suggesting is much the same as what I did do - simply missing out the overt portion. It has advantages; it probably saves people being put in awkward pos…

Things like But you may be in a better strategic position than Amy to negotiate the necessary change* could certainly be considered sexist if voiced.* Trying to teach manners through the Internet is like trying to teach bicycling by correspondence course. Yes, of course I wouldn't say that out loud, ever, except in a high-level meta-conversation about an imaginary office populated by imaginary people drinking imagina…

Heh :) I was playing devils advocate, mostly to highlight how even that thought process could be construed in the same way as my overt actions.

I agree, with the action you mention in the last paragraph - that is the action I should have taken.

What I was questioning was the thought process behind that action, and arguing it was little different to my own, could also be seen as sexist, and is only "OK" by virtue of being not-overt :)

Mostly I was thinking aloud.

Now, coffee break.

Re: "Lighten up"

#810

Post by ojbyrne »

georgieporgie wrote: post #719
ComputerGuru wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a man, I've handled this by being the one to turn it into an obvious sexist thing by making a joke aloud "yeah, Sarah, boss says it's your turn to take notes again because, you know, you're the only girl at the table :P. Ha ha ha ha." Everyone laughs, boss realizes what he's doing, Sarah is off the hook.

And I, in turn, would blurt out, "yeah, Sarah's a girl because she doesn't menstruate. Hahaha" and everyone would grow more uncomfortable. Edit: it's really sad that HN has such a devotion to using the word "girl" to describe women. It's flat-out demeaning, whether you want to admit it or not.

I've yet to hear my girlfriend (or any of her friends) use the word "man" or "men." Exclusively "boys" or "boy."
Post reply on HN