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

'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: 'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

#71

Post by cliveowen »

sambeau wrote: post #48
cliveowen wrote: post #13

I'm tired of seeing everything linked to sexism in tech. Moreover, sexism isn't a female only problem: try (as a male) to get a job in a kindergartn or a nursery school.

Feminism is about the equality of opportunity and power . You cannot create a picture of equal sexism by demonstrating a low-power, low-economic status, low opportunity-of-career-advancement role (that has traditionally been a female-only occupation due in-part to traditional gender-specific roles around child-rearing) where men who choose to enter it are viewed with scepticism. Especially if that role includes close…

Do you realize that preventing someone from getting a job because "has traditionally been a female-only occupation due in-part to traditional gender-specific roles around child-rearing" and that "men who choose to enter it are viewed with scepticism" is the very definition of sexism?

Sexism isn't about the industry or about career advancement is about discrimination against a gender for a given category of jobs.

Re: 'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

#72

Post by pstack »

chris_wot wrote: post #36
jnardiello wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And i do totally agree with you on this. Both presentations were pointless, stupid, superficial and idiotic. Still, the point here is not about sexism, but about (as you mentioned) idiots being on stage presenting something they had to keep for themselves or for their local meetups.

It is about sexism. Tell me that this is not sexist? https://mobile.twitter.com/HateYouCards/status/3767351904348...

Sexism is the assertion that one sex is inferior to the other, usually because of or alongside assertion of stereotypes of that gender.

Misogyny is the hatred of women.

Neither word really has anything to do with being attracted to the sexuality of the other gender. Neither word really has anything to do with simply being unkind, mean, or insensitive. Unfortunately, we often seem to throw these labels on people (labels which stick and aren't too dissimilar from calling someone a racist or homophobe) when they're not really relevant. Having a poster of a sexualized woman or buying videogames with attractive women on the poster or laughing at a joke about the other gender or saying a particular person of the other gender is an idiot are -- while unkind and inconsiderate -- not generally matters of discrimination, superiority, or "hate".

Frankly, I feel we do a disservice to the value of these words in describing actual sexism and actual (but rare) misogyny by throwing them at everything under the sun that makes someone a little uncomfortable or is anything short of respectful. Of course, even suggesting that we should be more careful of our use of these words, I am now probably both of them.

Re: 'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

#73

Post by pstack »

chris_wot wrote: post #60
verroq wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it sexist to like tits?

No. I like them quite a bit. But it is sexist to make an app to encourage men to ogle random women's breasts and submit photos while doing so, to an audience of men and women.

No it isn't.

Presenting it was not an act of discrimination or hate. It was inconsiderate and possibly both crude and dumb.

Re: 'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

#74

Post by sp332 »

wsc981 wrote: post #61
chris_wot wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Titstare" was designed to allow men stare at women's breasts. In other words, for one reason only: objectification of women and their body parts. If you can't see that here, I'm not sure what else to say to you!

If there was a hypothetical "dickstare" app for woman (to objectify men and their body parts) I wouldn't make a big deal of it. Seems to me a lot of woman do objectify men. For example when I'm browsing the Dutch Viva forums, there are plenty of topics on so called "fuck buddies". Male friends that are not relationship material but good enough for sex. Some topics from the last few weeks are: * Traineeship Suriname[1…

But this is not a talk at a conference, and it is also not supposed to be a joke. It's not comparable at all.

Re: 'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

#75

Post by cliveowen »

ericb wrote: post #33
cliveowen wrote: post #13

I'm tired of seeing everything linked to sexism in tech. Moreover, sexism isn't a female only problem: try (as a male) to get a job in a kindergartn or a nursery school.

> try (as a male) to get a job in a kindergartner or a nursery school. Problems in other industries are no justification for ignoring our own--is this an argument you are seriously making? Really?

I do not justify sexism in the tech industry, I'm trying to resize and put into perspective the phenomenon. If you add up all the jobs that are the preserve of women (mostly retail, where face-to-face communication is needed) you can actually see that sexism in the tech industry, in the grand scheme of things, is a pretty small matter. If you think I'm being hyperbolic just take a look at job ads for common jobs like barista, sales rep., PR, call centers operator, etc.

Re: 'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

#76

Post by pstack »

chris_wot wrote: post #24
jnardiello wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me understand, anything sex-related which isn't expressed in scientific or moral terms has to burn in hell, right? Mainly because it is "objectifying" and insulting. Sometimes having a good laugh is a lot smarter than creating a political situation out of nothing. I think this is the case.

"Titstare" was designed to allow men stare at women's breasts. In other words, for one reason only: objectification of women and their body parts. If you can't see that here, I'm not sure what else to say to you!

Both genders objectify each other on a regular basis. There isn't even anything wrong with that (unless objectifying each other is the whole of your entire concept and interaction with the other gender).

The issue here is pretty clear cut. It wasn't appropriate for the setting in which it was presented. Nothing more. A stupid app, Cosmo magazine, pinup posters, physical attraction, and so on aren't really relevant and don't need to be inherently demonized.

Re: 'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

#77

Post by sp332 »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #59
chris_wot wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Titstare" was designed to allow men stare at women's breasts. In other words, for one reason only: objectification of women and their body parts. If you can't see that here, I'm not sure what else to say to you!

What if, let's just make this hypothetical for a second, woman want men to stare at their breasts? Would you still have an issue?

This hypothetical is not useful. You don't have to take it as an arbitrary "axiom" for the argument; you could empirically measure some of the women who are offended by this talk.

Re: 'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

#78

Post by chris_wot »

pstack wrote: post #73
chris_wot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I like them quite a bit. But it is sexist to make an app to encourage men to ogle random women's breasts and submit photos while doing so, to an audience of men and women.

No it isn't. Presenting it was not an act of discrimination or hate. It was inconsiderate and possibly both crude and dumb.

If its not sexist, then can you explain why it is inconsiderate?

Re: 'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

#79

Post by lifebeyondfife »

brodo wrote: post #64
lifebeyondfife wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to learn that what is considered (possibly socially) acceptable behaviour amongst your friends, is not necessarily acceptable in the workplace. If you want a definition of the workplace, it includes hacker meetups, youtube videos, presentations etc. where people of all social groups come together to discuss or create code. I have a very twisted sense of humour that many would find offensive. At work though I…

I don't want to spend 8 hours a day in a sterile humorless environment where everyone is scared to say something wrong on the off chance that someone might get offended. Moreover the old work/free time duality is dying. People work form home and do non-work stuff at work.

I totally understand this (and jnardiello and pstack's points too). As a counterpoint, I also know of at least one female dev who would think nothing of discussing an app like the one above and joining in the laughs.

I suppose the problem is, do we need to vet everyone for sharing the same humour and standards of acceptability as us? If we're joining the same football team or going to a comedy club and some beers, I wouldn't particularly enjoy hanging out with someone as dull/safe as I am at work. But is it ok to say to a woman, "We'd love to welcome you onboard so long as you don't mind the dick jokes constantly flying around the office."? (Whether explicitly or implicitly, I don't think it is ok).

If we really want to solve the clique-problem in tech, we need to either change the boundaries of acceptable humour and behaviour. No-one wants to spend 8 hours a day in a "sterile humorless environment". I know I had the most fun coding in my early 20s in an office where 90% of us were just out of university and male.

There are going to be more tradeoffs towards inclusiveness as we go forward. Even it reduces the fun sometimes, I think it's the right thing to do.

Re: 'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better

#80

Post by laichzeit0 »

sp332 wrote: post #77
laichzeit0 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if, let's just make this hypothetical for a second, woman want men to stare at their breasts? Would you still have an issue?

This hypothetical is not useful. You don't have to take it as an arbitrary "axiom" for the argument; you could empirically measure some of the women who are offended by this talk.

The reason why it's useful is because in your case (empirically measure) it becomes at best "relative". There may be cultures / societies where woman desire men to stare at their breasts. In this case his argument would mean naught.
Post reply on HN