Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon • Hacker News Board

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#141

Post by gavanwoolery » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:25 AM UTC

mkaltenecker wrote: post #120

gavanwoolery wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometime's PC goes overboard. It is not a bad thing necessarily, unless abused. One example of PC going wrong is the word "retarded" - the PC crowd thought "mentally challenged" would be a better term, even though retarded just means you are a bit slow, mentally-challenged makes it seem like thinking is an arduous task.

No. You are not supposed to use retarded because that word has consistently been used to insult and denigrate disabled people. It's the same with gay. You are not supposed to use it as an insult. It doesn't matter whether the person you are insulting is gay or not.

My gay friends prefer "gay" or "queer" over homosexual. My black friends prefer "black" over African American. I could very well be wrong about the word retarded though. :)

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#142

Post by natrius » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:27 AM UTC

mkaltenecker wrote: post #121

mkramlich wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Deliberately insightful and helpful, I hope.

Grabbing someone's ass without their consent is inexcusable harassment. You do not do it. Ever. This is simple. Not hard.

Who are you implying disagrees with this?

EDIT: There's now a sibling comment that disagrees with this. Mea culpa.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#143

Post by Argorak » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:27 AM UTC

gavanwoolery wrote: post #103

token_female wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not believe this has got anything to do with sexism > That is our culture Has it ever occurred to you that "our culture" might be a bit sexist? > Men have to approach women, or they don't get laid 1. Approach doesn't have to mean sexual harassment 2. Women can like sex too. And women can approach men too. mind blowing, no? > He probably needed to do something like that and get away with it to be happy? What? W…

News flash: all men, deep down, view (attractive) women as a potential means to their sexual gratification. We cannot suppress it, short of, you know, lopping it off. We also happen to respect, admire, love, and look up to a good deal of women...but that would not make a very interesting article to talk about that stuff. EDIT: for those who don't understand what I am saying, let me clarify: Take special note of my wo…

I see attractive woman as attractive women, as much as I see attractive men as attractive men. In an acknowledging kind of way.

Even if I find a women interesting, I would never think of touching them in any means, even if I am drunk. I am not sure what your problem is, but most men I know are perfectly capable of suppressing any urges in that respect. But I feel like "being a nice, intelligent guy" becoming a lost art?

So, please explain, who are those "all men" you are talking about?

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#144

Post by mkramlich » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:27 AM UTC

mkaltenecker wrote: post #120

gavanwoolery wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometime's PC goes overboard. It is not a bad thing necessarily, unless abused. One example of PC going wrong is the word "retarded" - the PC crowd thought "mentally challenged" would be a better term, even though retarded just means you are a bit slow, mentally-challenged makes it seem like thinking is an arduous task.

No. You are not supposed to use retarded because that word has consistently been used to insult and denigrate disabled people. It's the same with gay. You are not supposed to use it as an insult. It doesn't matter whether the person you are insulting is gay or not.

> It's the same with gay. You are not supposed to use it as an insult.

When you say "not supposed to" I'm curious by whose authority are you claiming that? For sake of argument, let's say there are some people out there who view homosexuality as an undesirable or defective or merely an "icky" thing. For example, they may not feel a gay man is evil or making a lifestyle choice, necessarily, but they may find it disasteful or uncomfortable, and they may not think it's psychologically healthy for two gay men to raise a child. Yet the "gay is 100% OK" crowd tends to demonize a person if they don't think exactly the same as they do. But if they do feel it's a negative thing, or something they feel is gross, why can't they use it as an insult? Just as they would use the insult of fat, stupid, ignorant, etc. By whose authority are certain insults not "allowed"? Is there some holy document which declares precisely and completely objectively which words you can and cannot say, or which thoughts you can and cannot express? And not I'm not talking about legal documents, those are clearly made up by humans, and vary by culture, time, fashion, etc.

It's this kind of nuance which is at the heart of why so many people don't agree with so-called Political Correctness. It's seen as an almost facist or Big Brother kind of thing where one group of people make these pronouncements about what some other group of people are and are not allowed to say, or think. There are shades of grey involved, clearly, where some cases are "black", and some "white-ish" but a whole lot of gray. But people on the P.C. bandwagon -- which also seem to correlate highly to US college students, professors and academics, especially non-STEM -- get on this moral high horse about what sounds like a very narrow and very strict definition about what's Right and what's Wrong to say or think. Which itself, to me, seems ludicrous at best, and unethical and oppressive at worse. A kind of close-minded authoritarianism about supposedly being open-minded and free. (BOGGLE)

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#145

Post by jessedhillon » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:27 AM UTC

gavanwoolery wrote: post #111

derleth wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"PC" just means "Being polite to everyone "

Sometime's PC goes overboard. It is not a bad thing necessarily, unless abused. One example of PC going wrong is the word "retarded" - the PC crowd thought "mentally challenged" would be a better term, even though retarded just means you are a bit slow, mentally-challenged makes it seem like thinking is an arduous task.

Maybe you will get this:

Suppose anytime someone was a jerk in public, took up an extreme and unsubstantiated view, and held closely to it despite multiple appeals to show him the obvious errors in his reasoning -- suppose we call that "Doing a Gavan" or "Woolerying" (although the latter would be unfair to your parents and family.)

Now, if this became really popular, then people who you would never in your life meet would start using it. You'd turn on the TV and people would be like "Oy! Check this Gavan out," and "Looks like he's pulling a Gavan wink". That would be quite annoying, to say the least. And this is in a case where you arguably did something to deserve it!

Now consider that you were born a certain way, and people use that word which describes you and your condition, as a pejorative. How would you feel living in a world where, by the mere fact of your birth, you and people like you are the object of jokes and insults.

I would not consider it going overboard to say that we as a society should make an effort to prevent this from happening.

(Also, it's strange that you don't oppose PC language on the basis that it attempts to alter a natural behavior. Natural behaviors are natural and nothing can be done about them, right?)

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#146

Post by jessedhillon » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:29 AM UTC

readme wrote: post #138

I tend to believe that women initiate encounters with men with unconscious non-verbal signals. A man who is able to read these signals will have a good success rate in meeting new women. A man who cannot will be pegged as a "creeper". I think it's not only true in real life, but on dating sites as well. Women receive so many messages from men that you are probably just going to get buried in all the noise if you send…

Sir -- Well done.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#147

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:29 AM UTC

readme wrote: post #138

I tend to believe that women initiate encounters with men with unconscious non-verbal signals. A man who is able to read these signals will have a good success rate in meeting new women. A man who cannot will be pegged as a "creeper". I think it's not only true in real life, but on dating sites as well. Women receive so many messages from men that you are probably just going to get buried in all the noise if you send…

[deleted]

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#148

Post by natrius » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:37 AM UTC

token_female wrote: post #46

gavanwoolery wrote: post #30

Maybe the title is link bait, but I don't think this is "sexism" by definition. Sexism: "Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." A bunch of males were hitting on the author, crassly or awkwardly, but they were not denying the author equal rights. If a female asked a male to show their privates, no one would call it "sexism"; it might be rude, uncalled for, or strange…

Without fail, the top comment on every HN link related to sexism in the field is "that's not sexism!". What is it going to take to convince you that sexism in the tech community is real and is a big part of why there are so few women? How many women have to tell you about their experiences being sexually harassed at tech conferences before you realize that it is a problem? HN/Reddit's responses to this kind of articl…

This thread is an argument about semantics. No one is disagreeing with the notion that "[gender-related, uncomfortable situations like those presented in the article] in the tech community is real and is a big part of why there are so few women." People are disagreeing that "sexism" is the right term to use. I don't see why this would be bothersome. The argument has few practical implications, but people like to argue.

Has someone said that the author's experiences are acceptable?

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#149

Post by gavanwoolery » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:38 AM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #124

gavanwoolery wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, way to put a bunch of words in my mouth. Actually, what I am saying is that nature is not always nice or civilized. When you get a bunch of drunk males into a room, their super ego goes down and they will begin to behave (almost literally) like animals. Is it right or wrong? I don't know, but it is not sexism. Is it to be expected? Yes. How do I know it is to be expected? Because you can easily replicate the sit…

I didn't put any words in your mouth, these are the extensions of your reasoning -- you simply haven't considered the full weight of your positions and so these conclusions are a surprise to you. Let's give you the benefit (a huge one) of the doubt here, I'll consider fully and without prejudice everything you're saying: The statement you make is essentially that all behavior has an explanation behind it, no matter h…

"The statement you make is essentially that all behavior has an explanation behind it, no matter how distasteful or uncivilized. Fine, agreed. First, what is the value in pointing out this obvious conclusion?"

No more value than the author of the article provides by pointing out she got hit on / harassed in a crowded bar full of males.

"You then continue to say that because behavior has an explanation, that behavior cannot be sexism."

I do not believe I ever said that, point it out to me if I am wrong. What I did say is that sexism is a different thing from say, sexual harassment, misogyny, sexuality, sex-drives, or anything else with the word sex in it. Like I pointed out before, my original gripe is that "sexism" is used incorrectly here. Call it sexual harassment, then we are good.

On the topic of complaining about sexual harassment - yes go forth and complain, or don't. I really don't care, but either way the words will be lost in the wind. The only thing you could do to prevent this behavior is make stricter laws about sexual harassment, and do we really want that? Should we start arresting people when they hit on others, unwarranted, in a bar, where single people go to find mates?

As for everything else, I'm not going to waste a bunch of time typing out answers because you seem to have derived many conclusions, some of which are true, but most have nothing to do with my actual arguments (they are related to the topic of sexism, so bonus points there). I say this with all due respect, and no sarcasm: this will help you construct better arguments and avoid fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#150

Post by boboblong » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 9:42 AM UTC

readme wrote: post #138

I tend to believe that women initiate encounters with men with unconscious non-verbal signals. A man who is able to read these signals will have a good success rate in meeting new women. A man who cannot will be pegged as a "creeper". I think it's not only true in real life, but on dating sites as well. Women receive so many messages from men that you are probably just going to get buried in all the noise if you send…

"Did you open by sexually assaulting this woman, such as by unwanted touching?"

Touching someone on the shoulder is not sexual assault. Let's try to keep things in perspective, please--if simply touching a member of a particular group warrants jail time, that group is an overclass.