51–60 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it is NOT about being offensive, it's about creating an environment welcoming for all.
So basically an environment where everyone must self-censor himself and avoid all jokes, fun and adult talk except maybe the most childish kind of fun (say, nerf guns).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it is NOT about being offensive, it's about creating an environment welcoming for all.
Apparently it is not welcoming to the culture of nerdy developers that like big boobs. Which since most programmers are men, it sounds like you're letting the slowest sickest lamb in the herd get us all eaten by the lions of fun hating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I obviously understand how you formed your analogy, I just don't see how it's actually analogous. Software development is a male-dominated field, and the objectification of body parts is much more prevalent with women's breasts than with male genitalia. If we lived in a world where males felt uncomfortable working in software development environments due to repeated sexual harassment by their predominantly f…
That's fair. However, I don't understand what "objectification of body parts is". Men are attracted to big breasts, small waists and large hips, women are attracted to broad shoulders and big arms (or so I am led to believe). Body parts are objects. I don't expect my broad shoulders to be able to hold a reasoned debate for long. What do you mean by objectification? If the fact that someone is attracted to "big boobs"…
I don't think this isn't even a matter of stating attraction to "big boobs." This is merely saying "big boobs" for laughs. It's the kind of stuff young children do (see also: the penis game), so I'm not sure why anyone's rushing to defend this sort of behavior.
Let me ask you this, though. Suppose you work as a developer (as you likely do), and you're tasked with welcoming a new female developer to the team and bringing her up to speed on the system she'll be working on. While opening up the source code and explaining one particularly peculiar section, you come across this constant:
BIGBOOBS = 0xB16B00B5;
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fair. However, I don't understand what "objectification of body parts is". Men are attracted to big breasts, small waists and large hips, women are attracted to broad shoulders and big arms (or so I am led to believe). Body parts are objects. I don't expect my broad shoulders to be able to hold a reasoned debate for long. What do you mean by objectification? If the fact that someone is attracted to "big boobs"…
"Objectification of body parts" was poor phrasing on my part. The issue is the sexual objectification of women, in this case reducing them to their component body parts (e.g., "big boobs"). A woman is more than a set of breasts—she's a human—yet you often see well endowed women used in advertising as nothing more than highly sexualized decoration with a disproportionate focus on their breasts (or other parts). This i…
That is because the advertisers want to show something that will immediately capture the attention of their target audience. You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (or even specifically) men.
A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad. I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all. It's human nature to be attracted to the opposite sex, and the most available factor is external appearance.
> This is merely saying "big boobs" for laughs. It's the kind of stuff young children do (see also: the penis game), so I'm not sure why anyone's rushing to defend this sort of behavior.
I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an issue".
I am equally (un)comfortable showing this to a female developer as I am to a male developer. I find it childish and might be a bit embarrassed, not because of the gender of the new hire, but because it's a childish and unprofessional thing to have in code.
I am not sure how comfortable the female developer would be, I assume she'd laugh it off, but that's projecting my own feelings onto hers. If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically.
The mere fact that so many software developers don't see the big issue here is exactly the big issue.
The big issue I see is a bunch of men, most of whom have probably never actually worked with a woman in a STEM field, think they are experts on what such women would find offensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I encode my numbers in base 21, therefore I can use 0xB1GD1CK as a value. Anyone care to write an article about how sexist I am and shame my employer into a public apology? Sarcasm aside, we ARE facing an issue in the tech world. People that objectify women, discriminate against them or even so little as treat them differently in the workplace should be shamed. However, this crossed the line (imo). Statistics suggest…
I'm definitely aware of people making women's lives harder, and some women say that even small things like these can wear you out eventually, but I don't know. I mean, surely, if you reverse the sexes and this is okay, it should be okay as-is, too. The enviroment that makes women not want to be in tech would also not be okay if the roles were reversed, but this isn't an instance of that, as far as I can tell.
"Death by a thousand cuts", and yes, it's very real, and yes, this (and the resulting discussion around it, even moreso) is very much a "cut".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's vaguely sexist, but primarily it's just really immature and smacks of the boys club mentality.
"Big Boobs" is not a boys club. Women are welcome. And many woman are into big boobs (either their own or those of others). What is sexist is to grip a notion that only men are capable of being immature or into big boobs. Not to mention that thinking women can't be into big boobs kind of sounds homophobic. Hey look... two can play the lets overreact and haphazardly toss around labels game. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Objectification of body parts" was poor phrasing on my part. The issue is the sexual objectification of women, in this case reducing them to their component body parts (e.g., "big boobs"). A woman is more than a set of breasts—she's a human—yet you often see well endowed women used in advertising as nothing more than highly sexualized decoration with a disproportionate focus on their breasts (or other parts). This i…
> yet you often see well endowed women used in advertising as nothing more than highly sexualized decoration with a disproportionate focus on their breasts (or other parts) That is because the advertisers want to show something that will immediately capture the attention of their target audience. You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (…
That's simply not true. See http://www.genderads.com/page5/sexobject/sexobject.html for plenty of counter-examples.
> A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad.
Right, of course not. As I mentioned earlier, advertising is not the only medium in which this sort of objectification is prevalent.
> I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all.
Again, I don't think you can simply swap genders and call it a fair analogy. Additionally, at least in my experience, the number of advertisements, music videos, etc. that use the sex appeal of female body parts for commercial purposes far outweighs the number of equivalent things using tan, muscular, and similarly exposed men for commercial purposes.
> I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an issue".
When confronted with criticism, arguing that the subject at hand is not a big deal is defense, is it not? I'm not saying anyone's promoting more use of 0xB16B00B5 in code, but there seem to be several commenters in here saying it's fine.
> If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically.
It's actually not moot. I was interested in how you thought a woman might react—a question only you can answer. The actual reactions of women would vary quite widely from one to the next, of course. I'm sure some would laugh it off; I'm sure some would be offended. Personally, I'd be afraid that more women than men would be uncomfortable in this situation, and I don't like the idea of a development culture that makes women feel less comfortable or welcome than men. That's why I personally find it offensive. If you think women would be just as comfortable with this as men, then I would understand why you would not find it offensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yet you often see well endowed women used in advertising as nothing more than highly sexualized decoration with a disproportionate focus on their breasts (or other parts) That is because the advertisers want to show something that will immediately capture the attention of their target audience. You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (…
> You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (or even specifically) men. That's simply not true. See http://www.genderads.com/page5/sexobject/sexobject.html for plenty of counter-examples. > A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad. Right, of course not. As I mentioned earlier, adv…
Hmm, the page of counterexamples you listed seems to be about making women feel "sexy" (it's on the ad for many of them), so it makes sense they would show "sexy" women, just like selling clothes and other items that would make men feel masculine would show buff men.
> As I mentioned earlier, advertising is not the only medium in which this sort of objectification is prevalent.
Hmm, which other media is it prevalent in that could display other qualities of a woman for the same purpose instead?
> Again, I don't think you can simply swap genders and call it a fair analogy.
I will concede that.
> When confronted with criticism, arguing that the subject at hand is not a big deal is defense, is it not?
I am not sure about this. "It's right and you shouldn't be offended" isn't the same as "it's wrong for different reasons and isn't a big deal anyway".
> It's actually not moot. I was interested in how you thought a woman might react—a question only you can answer.
Ah, okay. I answered that above, then.
> That's why I personally find it offensive. If you think women would be just as comfortable with this as men, then I would understand why you would not find it offensive.
I think this is the crux of the issue. I think women wouldn't have a problem with it, so that's why I don't have a problem with it. Maybe it's societal, though, as we can't assume the US technology sector culture is universal and the same as in other countries (I live in Greece).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Big Boobs" is not a boys club. Women are welcome. And many woman are into big boobs (either their own or those of others). What is sexist is to grip a notion that only men are capable of being immature or into big boobs. Not to mention that thinking women can't be into big boobs kind of sounds homophobic. Hey look... two can play the lets overreact and haphazardly toss around labels game. :)
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether or not I like big boobs, or whether or not I like childish humor. If I'm interacting with people in a professional or collaborative context, and I employ childish humor, it's totally reasonable for people to consider me unprofessional / a person with poor boundaries, and to find me difficult to work with. And so they probably aren't going to work with me. Th…