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

Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

singlevoice.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 225 posts

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#181

Post by anthonyb »

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…

You missed one though:

  
              |
             YES
              |

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#182

Post by pbhjpbhj »

polemic wrote: post #54
mistermann wrote: post #18

Prediction: The sexism in IT problem will never end. Here's my hypothesis: 1. Women and men are different. We see this played out all around us, all the time, both sides happily make and laugh at jokes about it, and no one has a problem acknowledging this fact during discussion of other topics, but when certain subjects are being discussed, these very same people will assure you, with total sincerity, that there is n…

1. Men and women being different does not make sexism ok. Flippant comments like that are unhelpful (at best) and downright malicious (at worst). 2. Exceptionalism ( 'it is distinctly different from other "professional" fields' ) is a "code smell" that you're way off base. Civil engineering, for example, is a male dominated profession that has made huge strides in both standards, ethical behaviour, inclusiveness and…

>Men and women being different does not make sexism ok. //

So treating different things as different is wrong?

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#183

Post by Jach »

anthonyb wrote: post #174
Jach wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/

Oh, a lesswrong pedant. No, it's disproving his statement. You only need one counter example for that.

More like an Overcoming Bias hipster, the post I linked however is one of the excellent-content posts from post-migration. (Even the comments are interesting, I especially liked those by lindagert trying to describe what it's like not having the ability to mentally visualize anything.)

But fair enough point about your reply being a counter-example, I stand corrected. I interpreted your reply as more akin to "your observation about general human behavior has absolutely no merit because not every human follows the same pattern, just look at me", rather than a formal logical counter-argument to an informal assertion made outside of a proof that not only personifies nature without the usual caveats but also to which a more charitable interpretation of being a comment in a discussion (not an attempt at a proof) would not apply the universal quantifier reserved for formal arguments. I guess I should have interpreted your reply more charitably as well, but in the other direction with respect to being an attempt at a proof.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#184

Post by pbhjpbhj »

AYBABTME wrote: post #32

I really don't understand how men, and women, can sometime come to the conclusion that grabbing this gal/dude's ass is a good idea. Like, how does one come up with the mental process of doing this? Is it something like: 1. Homo erectus identified other gender specimen. 2. Homo erectus will walk to specimen and grab specimen ass. 3. Logicaly, Homo erectus is expecting wild sexual intercourse as a result. 4. Homo erect…

The thing is that unattractive men observe attractive and/or rich men doing these things and so get an idea that they can do them too.

The difference between being arrested or getting laid can be the difference between being John Doe or Bradd Pitt.

Can they not resist? Testosterone is one hell of a drug.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#185

Post by Djehngo »

token_female wrote: post #74
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…

I fucking hate how openly misogynistic HN is. I don't even want to bother sifting through this shit anymore. s/women/black people/g s/attending/going to elite, white-only colleges/g

It's worth noting that the original article has been upvoted to the front page. Also most of the comments in this thread that portray a blatantly sexist/ignorant attitude have elicited downvotes and replies espousing a saner position.

I would like to think this indicates that the tech/IT community is maturing and finally calling out these issues and the individuals who cause/prolong them.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#186

Post by anthonyb »

Jach wrote: post #183
anthonyb wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, a lesswrong pedant. No, it's disproving his statement. You only need one counter example for that.

More like an Overcoming Bias hipster, the post I linked however is one of the excellent-content posts from post-migration. (Even the comments are interesting, I especially liked those by lindagert trying to describe what it's like not having the ability to mentally visualize anything.) But fair enough point about your reply being a counter-example, I stand corrected. I interpreted your reply as more akin to "your obs…

> I interpreted your reply as more akin to..

That was my reply exactly, except I would've used fewer big words ;) I guess conversation and arguments like this still follow the same rules as formal logic - they're just applied in a fuzzier way.

I generally tend to avoid the less wrong set. While there is some good stuff on there, the bulk of it to me seems to be overwhelmingly arrogant and self-absorbed, which doesn't seem to strike me as likely to pick up any new biases, just regurgitate old ones.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#187

Post by GiraffeNecktie »

boboblong wrote: post #168
DanBC wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 per…

Relax. It's just hyperbole.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#188

Post by Argorak »

gavanwoolery wrote: post #167
Argorak wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If your comment is about subconsciousness, its basically worthless for this discussion. We're talking about men that just grab a piece of women ass[1] or ask for a all-girl pillow fight - thats pretty conscious, even at a certain level of alcohol.

[1]: At least, thats how I imagine they would put it.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#189

Post by drostie »

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…

> "The foremost cause of sexism is the fact that many males (consciously or subconsciously) perceive women as mentally and physically weaker"

If this is true, it is not a proximal cause and amounts to armchair psychology. Like I said, sexism today is generally institutional rather than individual. Since you may or may not be familiar with what that means, I will clarify: social institutions are the things in society which you as a member take for granted as aspects of social order, of norms of behaviour, of the sorts of social relationships which you may form with other people. (I like to think of them as: memes which organize societies.)

So for example, you are maybe technically correct that sexual harassment is not one and the same as sexism: however, a workplace that allows sexual harassment is a sexist institution, and to complain about widespread sexual harassment is to complain about sexism as a whole.

Like I said in the post you are replying to, you are trying to view sexism as an individual's act. But if you look at the way that sexual prejudice and sexual discrimination actually emerge you'll see that it happens because women and men have different role models, different social organizations, different education models, different standards of behaviour, and different norms about what sort of conduct is excusable or inexcusable towards us.

Let us return back to the case at hand: a woman has to fend off many requests for sexual favors and many absurd abuses (like licking her tattoo -- do you really think that this person also licks men's tattoos?) simply by virtue of being a lady at this conference. You may object that the individual requests are not sexism per se, they do not promise any special treatment to a woman if she accepts or any inconvenience to a woman if she declines. What you're missing is that taken as a whole the atmosphere generated by these requests does amount to a special treatment and an inconvenience, and therefore as a whole this is sexism.

In this respect you have been missing the forest for the trees.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#190

Post by mkaltenecker »

gavanwoolery wrote: post #141
mkaltenecker wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

You did not understand me. Using “gay” as a positive term isn’t a problem. “He came out first as a gay footballer” is a perfectly alright sentence. Using ”gay” (or “retarded”) as an insult is where the problem lies (with “retarded” the additional problem is that no one uses it as a positive term – and since it’s so overwhelmingly used negatively, using it neutrally isn’t really possible).

When someone tells you he likes My Little Pony and you respond with “Man, you are so gay!” then that’s a problem. You are using “gay” as in insult, as if being gay were a bad thing. That’s the reasoning behind why many people think using “gay” in that manner is a bad idea. That works analogously for “retarded”.

That’s not to say you can’t express, say, disgust at someone liking My Little Pony. “Man, your taste fucking sucks!” is a perfectly alright response no one will have a problem with (beyond disagreeing whether My Little Pony is good or bad).

Again, I don’t want to ban people from using “gay” or “retarded” as insults. But when they do I will call them out and explain my reasoning.

Post reply on HN