Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon • Hacker News Board

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#161

Post by swa14 » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:06 AM UTC

gavanwoolery wrote: post #80

drostie wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the Correct Response. I would only add one thing: Even if you don't agree that this sort of prejudice and stereotyping amounts to discrimination, the discussion still makes sense . Why? Because most discrimination -- whether racist or sexist -- really happens at the level of social institutions rather than at an individual level. (Like, if you think that you are not a racist because you personally don't see a…

The foremost cause of sexism is the fact that many males (consciously or subconsciously) perceive women as mentally and physically weaker (and indeed the average woman is physically weaker than the average male, that's just the way nature played the cards for the human species). Sex-drive is not really as much of a problem with regards to sexism. Sex-drive causes sexual harassment, which is not sexism. If a male were…

>If a male were to sexually harass a female, it would not be sexism because he is not giving males special preference over females

Well, seeing how he's not sexually harassing the males I'd say there's a noted difference in "special preference".

Anyway, I'd argue that sexism is almost inherent to any sexual harassment, as the male put himself in a position of power/dominance based on little more than gender difference and the perceived inequality/role expectations that go along with that.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#162

Post by davvid » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:07 AM UTC

masry wrote: post #71

More women complaining about how the world isn't tailored to their every want and need, and they get all the sympathy in the world in spite of how plain whiny they're being. On the other end of the spectrum, I invite you to read this article, written by a woman, on how funny male rape is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129385/Exhausted-ma... I don't know much about Defcon, but I get the idea that the person…

If you don't like that kind of fun, have you considered, um, not attending?

Lame.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#163

Post by DanBC » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:10 AM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #66

DanBC wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> stereotyping, [...] women, on the basis of sex." Licking a woman's shoulder, because she is a woman, is clearly a sexist act. It's also a criminal offence in several countries. I cannot believe that we still need to have this discussion. I have every sympathy for lonely, isolated, people; especially if they're on the ASD spectrum. I'd welcome any sensible effort to help those people develop some social skills or ge…

Licking a woman's shoulder, because she is a woman, is clearly a sexist act. No; it's sexual harassment and assault, but it's not sexist . Sexism would be if someone said "you're female, therefore you want to have your shoulder licked".

It is sexist because the assumption made is "you're female, and thus I can lick your shoulder and you will not mind, and if you do mind it's your own fault for being a woman in this place with lonely men".

Unless you're seriously trying to tell me that there are men walking around defcon licking the shoulders of other men as a clumsy come on.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#164

Post by DanBC » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:14 AM UTC

boboblong wrote: post #150

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.

Depends on the touch. No one has suggested this warrants jail time. People are saying, and quite reasonably I think, that you should keep your hands to yourself.

Shaking hands = fine.

Tapping shoulder or top outside of arm = less fine, but acceptable in a narrow range of situations.

Placing cupped hand on shoulder of a stranger, with squeezing or stroking, with "friendly banter" = really not okay.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#165

Post by natrius » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:18 AM UTC

mkramlich wrote: post #160

mkaltenecker wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Respectfully disagree. Unlike you have. Here's how I'll disagree. I hereby claim the following premise: that grabbing someone's ass is just grabbing someone's ass. At a minimum. Inherently. It may or may not be "harassment" depending on other particulars. And it is definitely not clearly inexcusable. Not always, not inherently. More specifically, grabbing someone's ass WITHOUT their explicit consent beforehand is NOT…

What you've said is valid, but is it useful? Probabalistically speaking, a random woman is going to disapprove of a random man grabbing her ass the vast majority of the time, which means it's usually inexcusable harassment. It shouldn't be done.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#166

Post by jessedhillon » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:25 AM UTC

gavanwoolery wrote: post #149

jessedhillon wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually, that is exactly your case. You place an appeal to nature next to claims of why the story is not an example of sexism. You supplied a nature-derived argument as a counter to my argument that the behavior fit your definition of sexism. You are arguing that naturally explained behavior is not sexist! And simultaneously you are denying the conclusions of that argument.

I don't mind telling you either, that a key part of your argument is actually bullshit. You're relying entirely on categorical statements about an entire class of people, substantiated with nothing more than intuition and a trip to Cancun!

It's amazing that, with an argument like this, you could be so smug as to suggest a reading of a list of fallacies. You should go into sales.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#167

Post by gavanwoolery » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:25 AM UTC

Argorak wrote: post #143

gavanwoolery wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

See edit above for clarification...

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#168

Post by boboblong » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:27 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #164

boboblong wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Depends on the touch. No one has suggested this warrants jail time. People are saying, and quite reasonably I think, that you should keep your hands to yourself. Shaking hands = fine. Tapping shoulder or top outside of arm = less fine, but acceptable in a narrow range of situations. Placing cupped hand on shoulder of a stranger, with squeezing or stroking, with "friendly banter" = really not okay.

"Placing cupped hand on shoulder of a stranger, with squeezing or stroking, with "friendly banter" = really not okay."

Nope, still not worth jail time. Move away from the person or grab their hand and remove it from your shoulder. I'm sorry, but you do not get to have people arrested for giving you an unwanted shoulder rub. If they persist, then yeah, they're assaulting (and harassing) you. Again, let's have some perspective.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#169

Post by gavanwoolery » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:29 AM UTC

token_female wrote: post #153

gavanwoolery wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, all straight men who are sexually healthy -- you know what I mean. If you are sexually healthy, I hate to break it to you, but the reason your mind loves, respects, and is otherwise polite to women is because nature has made sure that you will do whatever you can to procreate with the mates you see fit. Nature has designed your mind such that it experiences a higher order of sexual attraction, which is called…

[citation needed] I would love to see the study that demonstrates this, controlling for all societal factors.

Do you need a citation if I tell you the sky is blue? What would you argue love is based on? Magical unicorns?

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#170

Post by mkramlich » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:36 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #157

mkramlich wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sexual != sexist hitting on != harassment touching != assault (protip: it's just touching; bashing their fist into your face, for example, would be assault by a more common sense person's definition; but touching is just touching, regardless of what some arbitrary legal verbage says somewhere; a document could say "a horse is a squid" but if that horse doesn't look or act anything at all like a squid then a reasonabl…

> touching != assault Fair enough. It's battery. Still a crime in the US. (Also UK. Also probably many other places.) You've used the word "sexual" here. Using your word we see that some law would have been broken if this happened in England and Wales. You've tried to say say that a touch without permission is not assault. Protip: in England and Wales you don't need to make physical contact for it to be assault. But,…

Citing laws is always a weak tactic when trying to make an argument about whether a certain thing is right or wrong. All laws are just arbitrary strings of words on paper. If you seriously want to go deep on the ethics or appropriateness of any human phenomenon you really really don't want to fallback to citing laws. Because for every good/smart/reasonable law you can cite, we can find a dozen others which any reasonable person would say are unethical, ludicrous, ignorant or anachronistic. A bit like all the high and mighty language espoused by the US founders about how all men are created equal, about truth, justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc. Unless you were a woman, black, a slave, or not a land-owner. Or lived in Hawaii. Or Mexico. Or the Phillipines. Or were a Native American. A laborer in a union. A homosexual, etc. So the real question, I hope, that we should always be focused on is, not whether something is "merely" legal or illegal -- per some arbitrary jurisdiction's legal framework, at some arbitrary moment in time -- but rather on whether a reasonable, educated, experienced, intelligent, wise adult human would think about it, today, at this moment, giving objective criteria and similar goals, and with all relevant details and particulars taken into account, etc. If I'm arguing with somebody on the Internet about whether a horse is actually and truly a sea squid or not, you can't argue against me by saying, "This legal document here in France clearly says that a horse is a squid!". Because if that horse does not look or act in my eyes anything like a squid, and vice versa, then I'm going to be standing on much stronger ground when I say, "A horse is a horse, not a squid. They are nothing like each other. One runs around on the ground, has four legs, eats grass, etc. The other has tentacles, is squishy, swims around under the sea, and likes Justin Bieber music." And my case is stronger. The "b-b-b-but it says in this book here that a horse is a squid!" carries little weight, or rather, it should carry little weight when we're trying to have a deeper discussion, a more objective discussion. Whether thing A is more like B, or more like C.

Related: anal sex is a crime in many jurisdictions. Having sex outside of marriage is a crime -- unless you're a man -- in some jurisdictions. If a 17 year old and a 21 year old both have sex together, mutually consensually there are, I'm sure, some legal jurisdictions that claim that the 17 year old cannot give consent and therefore it was non-consensual, and therefore it was a kind of rape, and therefore that 21 year old will now have very bad legal and physical things happen to him/her, including a felony record, prison time, community ostracization, etc. Isn't that paradoxical and a travesty? "A horse is a squid." Unless in actual reality, it is not. Reality > laws.