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

331–340 of 342 posts

Re: Speaking up

#331

Post by Confusion »

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.

That confuses 'why the attack works' with 'why the attack was chosen'.

If I wanted to harass a female, I would probably choose sexual shaming as a weapon, because it is obviously one of the most effective weapons available to me, because society is sexist. I would be morally reprehensible for choosing to harass someone, but my motivation for harassing her would not necessarily be sexist. Perhaps she ran over my cat, I believe she did it on purpose and want to punish her. The attack would work because our culture is rife with sexism. The attack was chosen because I'm angry with her for killing my cat: not because I'm sexist.

Re: Speaking up

#332

Post by dhimes »

wilkie wrote: post #260
FireBeyond wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 resea…

That's totally a valid point. I wish more men would speak out against this and, honestly, that it is not used to diminish the equally valid point of sexism in technology. But we have to understand that in those situations it is not oppression. And that is a key point. Men are not oppressed by society when they are discriminated, because by-and-large, men make more money, have more opportunity, stay within their indus…

And if a man's wife has the illegitimate child of another man, even while married to the first man, the first man is financially responsible for the child. Cuckolding blames the male victim.

Re: Speaking up

#333

Post by _Simon »

moe wrote: post #327
_Simon wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoking gun is " ...a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act. " I'm suggesting that these sort of attacks on men are extremely limited is enough evidence to suggest the perpetrator is likely to be sexist and/or a mysoginist, which is pretty much the definition of a smoking gun as illustrated.

Think about where the term literally stems from. A smoking gun may tell who did something and what he did. I have trouble imagining a gun (smoking or not) explain why he did it.

fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act...

The fact that I'm asserting is that men do not suffer these kinds of attacks suggest the individual was motivated by sexism. I can't say anymore other than to say that you are wrong. I don't think it means what you clearly think it means. Sorry, no snark intended.

Re: Speaking up

#334

Post by mwetzler »

dhimes wrote: post #315
mwetzler wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indeed tricky. I want to give developers a positive association with our company and with me as an individual. Being confrontational does the opposite.

You are wise. You may have more of an impact with a discreet riposte to the person at the time the incident happens. Not to embarrass him (the first time), but a simple "this sucks and here's why" kind of non-emotional response. It's the kind of thing you have to be prepared to deliver- maybe even rehearsed (we all have those situations in our lives that take us by such surprise that we're stunned for a while). It's…

I think you are right. This guy needs some advice. My best guess is that he thought he was flirting with me. It's called negging.

http://www.seductionscience.com/2010/negging-women/

Just threw up in my mouth a little.

Re: Speaking up

#335

Post by mwetzler »

nollidge wrote: post #316
rdl wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I guess people are more likely to either be "careful" or to adapt their behavior successfully if there's one woman on a 5 person team and one or more of the guys are in some way sexist or inappropriate, than if it's a casual interaction with someone at a coffeeshop or conference. I don't know how I feel about the "Beards of Experience" thing. I guess I'd be annoyed if it were a permanent branding of the site, bu…

I think you're making the mistake of critiquing the beards thing in isolation. The point is that it's a drop in a bucket. You can look at any individual marketing campaign and come up with perfectly valid reasons it's not really sexist, but in aggregate it's problematic. The key word in mwetzler's comment is "microaggressions". It's the small things which are probably defensible in isolation but when viewed together…

Exactly. That's why people are seen as being too sensitive when they complain about any one specific thing.

Re: Speaking up

#336

Post by dhimes »

mwetzler wrote: post #334
dhimes wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wise. You may have more of an impact with a discreet riposte to the person at the time the incident happens. Not to embarrass him (the first time), but a simple "this sucks and here's why" kind of non-emotional response. It's the kind of thing you have to be prepared to deliver- maybe even rehearsed (we all have those situations in our lives that take us by such surprise that we're stunned for a while). It's…

I think you are right. This guy needs some advice. My best guess is that he thought he was flirting with me. It's called negging. http://www.seductionscience.com/2010/negging-women/ Just threw up in my mouth a little.

Ha! Some of that page is pretty stupid, but in general it sounds like it's kind of put-down teasing (done with both sexes, actually). Only works as flirting if there's NO WAY it could actually be true, and both people know it. Almost always has to be someone who knows you well enough to tease in a way that they recognize.

Yeah, maybe someday he'll meet someone who cares enough to set him straight.

Re: Speaking up

#337

Post by Tichy »

wilkie wrote: post #285
Tichy wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men." I must say I have never noticed this, so I am not sure what to say. I can't really make sense of it either. My impression was sex exists to create babies, not to pleasure men. I don't say that to try to be funny, just to express that it seems a very long way from that to "female sexuality exits to pleasure men". Or do you mean the use of…

If you are truly interested in it... I'll just dump some things here. :) "Female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men" is a true statement in general media. So. [Most] Porn. Watch it. Who's orgasm is displayed? Who's orgasm is typically non-existent (to the point it is fetishized when it does occur?) Make a judgment. Why is this true? See my earlier post about "bisexual porn." Ok. Adv…

"How in the world does 'getting a woman' as a heterosexual man 'please women?'"

The thinking is "you get her because it pleases her to be with you." The idea behind a car is not "great, now I can chase down women and rape them" it is "hey, they will get so excited by the car that they'd like to hang out with me" And most importantly, status - whether being with a high status male pleases women I don't know, but it seems to be what they often desire (also media wants us to believe that).

"That's a problem to men because it reduces us to gullible sex drives, yet it is worse for women because it reduces them to objects of that drive... dismissing any quality that a woman can have as an individual."

I'm sorry but I don't understand you. So what is the quality men can have as an individual? That they can own cars and chocolate, whereas women can only own nice lipstick and high heels?

As I said before, I suspect it is much more likely that certain media (ads, porn,...) only focus on certain aspects of an individual. I honestly don't understand what is meant by "subject" and "object", unless you mean "active" and "passive"? I know what subject and object are in a sentence (grammar), but other than that, what does it even mean?

Also, another point: why do men obsess about penis length (or are supposed to). Even though allegedly size doesn't matter, it seems to me men thinks size matters and pleasing women is the ultimate status symbol.

Re: Speaking up

#338

Post by Tichy »

zamryok wrote: post #320
Tichy wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A huge discussion within feminist movements has taken place and continues to take place on the subject, and I cannot do it all justice in a short comment (keywords to research: Sex-positive feminism), but my understanding is that it is best to stick with the idea that women (or any human being really) should be able to choose what they do with their bodies and with their bodies' representations -- the question is the…

So the assumptions seems to be that most female porn actors are forced to be porn models (and what about playboy models?)? Because otherwise it seems to me they choose their bodies representation already.

There was a study about porn actresses recently (I think for California) and it turned out that they were not less happy than other women.

That people should be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies seems a pretty basic, true demand. I don't see how women are not allowed to choose, unless they are being raped (which is a crime)?

Re: Speaking up

#339

Post by Tichy »

Mz wrote: post #245
Tichy wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly don't want to diminish the attack that took place here. The question about porn was just a side subject.

Generally speaking, across the globe, female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men. A stronger rebuttal to remarks which objectify a woman sexually is not to be all in a huff but to turn it around and talk about men like they are sex objects. I am a woman. I have done that. It is such a powerful thing to do that if I am not extremely careful, rather than teaching men they should not ta…

Your other comment is "dead" on HN so I can not comment there. Also I don't have much time.

Just in brief: of course advertising frames it as "if you buy a fancy car, women will orgasm if they take the ride with you". Technically I guess you could say men buy their way into women's beds by providing for them, and displaying high status is their way of wooing (look, I will be able to pay you well if you sleep with me). That seems like a rather negative and one sided way to look at it, though. Because put in other words, what it means is "women wouldn't hang out with men if they didn't need the money".

If women choose men based on their net worth, how is that the fault of men?

As for orgasms, I feel that you lost your way a bit with sex. If you talk about whose job it is to make their sex partner orgasm, you've pretty much taken all the fun out of it. As you said, there is masturbation, so why bother - men can masturbate too, you know!

I can only guess people experience sex in lots of different ways, and you probably just have to find somebody compatible and discard the jerks. There are certainly people (the majority I would hope) who want sex to be pleasant for their partners.

Re: Speaking up

#340

Post by Tichy »

wilkie wrote: post #260
FireBeyond wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 resea…

That's totally a valid point. I wish more men would speak out against this and, honestly, that it is not used to diminish the equally valid point of sexism in technology. But we have to understand that in those situations it is not oppression. And that is a key point. Men are not oppressed by society when they are discriminated, because by-and-large, men make more money, have more opportunity, stay within their indus…

"Women currently get more college degrees in general today, yet the gender pay gap remains. That's evidence of systemic oppression."

That's just bad maths, sorry. First you have to look at what subjects men and women chose and what average pay is for careers in those subjects. Some people graduate in computer science, other people graduate in "do you want fries with that" liberal arts or whatever.

Post reply on HN