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

Speaking up

sazzy.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 342 posts

Re: Speaking up

#221

Post by steveklabnik »

detst wrote: post #124
timsally wrote: post #90

Whenever an instance of blatant sexism comes up, an attempt is invariably made to rationalize away the fact that a sexist act has actually occurred. We have had two such attempts made here so far and I expect more. One commentator is attempting to advance the baseless theory that the bully did not care about the sex of his victim. This particular individual even goes so far to say that "the biggest problem" is the al…

How do you know the motivation of this person? Every time one of these stories come up, someone tries to call other people out for rationalizing. It's not rationalizing, it's calling it as they see it: someone being an asshole. If you want blatant sexism, FTA: "no offence, I just don’t relate to girls speaking about the industry at all, I learn better from guys". That's sexism. It's not denial if you don't know the m…

> How do you know the motivation of this person?

It's irrelevant. If you do sexist things, you are a sexist. Maybe you don't know you're a sexist, but you are.

Re: Speaking up

#222

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

Tichy wrote: post #215
EliRivers wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"is it established that porn is sexist?" It is, yes. The vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of porn panders to a specifically, typically male fantasy (and bravado) of sexual interaction.

That seems to imply that male fantasies would be predominantly about humiliating women?

At least for a lot of the males who spend money on pornography.

Re: Speaking up

#223

Post by thaumaturgy »

itsybitsycoder wrote: post #213
thaumaturgy wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "we" as a community can or should outright reject people who behave badly. We can only reject (or try to change) their behavior. Let's not forget that 8+ hours a day in front of a little glowing box nearly requires a specific personality type. If people who are bad at dealing with other people are blocked from software development, the field would suffer (a lot). > ...a 22yo guy persistently pursuing a…

Romcoms are fiction. There are loads of "romantic" movies where, if acted out IRL, the hero would be rightly arrested on felony charges. They're not meant to be taken as instructional.

Yeah, I know that. And yet, people love them anyway. Again: "sweet" vs. "creepy" is all down to reading the situation.

Re: Speaking up

#224

Post by FireBeyond »

mwetzler wrote: post #179
Tichy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest I don't understand what this has to do with sexism. I would think this is actually a crime (stalking?) committed by some deranged individual, whose real motivations we don't know anything about. Even if they were "hatred of women" or whatever, I fail to see what the lesson to be learned from that should be? Is the implied assumption that the deed was encouraged by rampant sexism in the industry? In the l…

Sexism definition: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. This was clearly sexism since it was demeaning to the woman and her gender was used as a part of that (e.g. the fact that pictures of naked women were used in the attack). If the same happened to a man, we would probably call it harassment, not sexism, since men at large are not discriminated against based on…

"since men at large are not discriminated against based on their gender"

Some examples at random: percentage of males in teaching professions, and/or daycare?

Breast cancer funding and research versus prostate cancer funding and research, despite the relative frequency of each? Hint - 1:6 men will get prostate cancer, 1:8 women will get breast cancer. But the National Cancer Institute allows for $1,318 worth of research into prostate cancer per new case, and $2,596 for breast cancer (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does...)

Just some thoughts...

Re: Speaking up

#225

Post by Tichy »

throwaway54-762 wrote: post #214
Tichy wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question was if a similar scenario could have played out for a man. I don't know what your answer has to do with anything. I am as sorry for women who have been raped as the next guy. Wish I could help prevent such things happening. I actually started researching that a bit. I grant that I am not yet convinced of the 1 in 4 statistics (see http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html for example), but in any c…

"Could have" is reaching out into the hypotheticals… as other commenters have said, "let's focus on what has happened." I'm not trying to mob on you, but this branch of hypothetical thinking is always brought up in response to this kind of story, usually by men. It is problematic because it distracts attention from the main issue: systematic harassment of women in our community. Bringing up this hypothetical is a dis…

I'm sorry, but it was actually you who brought up the "derailment tactic": you asked specifically if it seems conceivable that a significant number of men are being harassed. And earlier the question was "would such a scenario be imaginable for a man" and your answer was "but 1 in 4 women are being raped".

I assume you are not aware of it, but it seems very twisted to ask for some aspect and then condemn the mentioning of said aspect.

Also how is the story here relevant to systemic harassment of women by "our" community - how common is it that a women in the community gets flooded with fake nude photographs, and how is that the communities doing (except for providing an online forum)?

With respect to the 1 in 4 figure, surely you are aware that most rapes occur in relationships (relatives, spouses, acquaintances)?

Also I only researched that figure of violence against men yesterday, but for Germany. In the German police crime statistics severe violence against men is much more frequent than severe violence and rape against women. So there is at least one data point.

Re: Speaking up

#226

Post by JoeAltmaier »

steveklabnik wrote: post #221
detst wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know the motivation of this person? Every time one of these stories come up, someone tries to call other people out for rationalizing. It's not rationalizing, it's calling it as they see it: someone being an asshole. If you want blatant sexism, FTA: "no offence, I just don’t relate to girls speaking about the industry at all, I learn better from guys". That's sexism. It's not denial if you don't know the m…

> How do you know the motivation of this person? It's irrelevant. If you do sexist things, you are a sexist. Maybe you don't know you're a sexist, but you are.

No, the act is sexist. Your intent surely matters in how you're pigeonholed, no?

Re: Speaking up

#227

Post by overgryphon »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #205
overgryphon wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The software development community attracts socially awkward people by accepting them- and consequently accepting behaviors that are not seen as acceptable in most parts of society. For example, most of the software development community would see a 22yo guy persistently pursuing a girl who clearly isn't interested as innocent, awkward, and empathize with the guy's rejection (or lack there of, since he probably doesn…

I don't think "we" as a community can or should outright reject people who behave badly. We can only reject (or try to change) their behavior. Let's not forget that 8+ hours a day in front of a little glowing box nearly requires a specific personality type. If people who are bad at dealing with other people are blocked from software development, the field would suffer (a lot). > ...a 22yo guy persistently pursuing a…

The excuse that this person's stalking behavior would be sweet if she were interested is blaming her discomfort/fear on her because she isn't interested, when in reality no "sweet" guy would act in such a way without clear signs of interest.

The online hacker/development community's continuous excuses and empathy for members of their own community who behave inappropriately towards women makes this a field where prominent women are expected to be harassed on a regular basis.

It isn't even a matter of rejecting the person for bad behavior. You didn't even reject the behavior, you justified it.

Re: Speaking up

#228

Post by Mz »

Tichy wrote: post #170
zamryok wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, it seems clear that the way she was attacked was specifically designed to exploit at least the following : - the fact that she is a woman adressing a predominantly male audience (the fake porno) - the ambient objectification of women in society How can that not count as sexist?

Excuse my ignorance, just wondering: is it established that porn is sexist? Are they demeaning to the male actors in porn, too? Or is the underlying value that it is demeaning for a woman to have sex? It seems to me a universal judgement isn't easy to come by?

Most porn so strongly caters to male fantasy that some women turn to gay (male on male) porn and yaoi (a form of male on male gay erotic writing) to meet some of their needs. Porn intended for women is a budding industry. It has to be written and filmed differently. I have seen an interview with a woman director who talked about some of those differences. Most porn is strongly rooted in objectifying women in a way which denies their humanity -- in other words, denies that they have any needs of their own or are anything other than a vehicle for male satisfaction. It is a pretty demeaning stance.

Regardless, I doubt the fake porno was in any way intended respectfully. Sexuality is extremely personal and private. Attacking someone that way is generally a very ugly thing to do. Sexual assault is often included as a part of torture because you can cause enormous physical pain and long term psychological damage without leaving a mark on them.

Re: Speaking up

#229

Post by steveklabnik »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #226
steveklabnik wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you know the motivation of this person? It's irrelevant. If you do sexist things, you are a sexist. Maybe you don't know you're a sexist, but you are.

No, the act is sexist. Your intent surely matters in how you're pigeonholed, no?

Intent is not magic. The hurt caused is not just mended because you didn't mean it.

Maybe this is a better way of putting it: Person A and Person B exist. One of the two means to be sexist, and one does not. They both go around and do the exact same things.

What is the difference between A and B, as far as women or our community are concerned? There effectively isn't any. Now, maybe Person not-sexist is more likely to come to understand how their actions are harming people, and be reformed, but before that point, their intent doesn't mean a damn: they're still hurting others.

Re: Speaking up

#230

Post by Tichy »

EliRivers wrote: post #220
Tichy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to imply that male fantasies would be predominantly about humiliating women?

No, it does not. The following makes no claims about male fantasy or porn; it is merely a means of explaining that you have made an incorrect inference. Imagine if you will that, hypothetically, 10% of male fantasy is about humiliating women. Imagine also, hypothetically, that all porn is based on that 10%. In this way, you can see that it is possible for all porn to be about humiliating women, but that does not impl…

That would seem like a way to escape the conclusion, but wouldn't it make most sense to talk about the porn that is consumed by most men? I'd assume at least 95% of men consume porn (random guess), so my conclusion would still be valid.
Post reply on HN