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

It's Different for Girls

heidiroizen.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 400 posts

Re: It's Different for Girls

#381

Post by Holbein »

"Men categorize women in one of four ways: Mothers. Virgins. Sluts. and Bitches. Of course none of the above is suitable for the modern business woman. But, you can create your own image by selecting pieces of each archetype suitable for you. For example, the sexual attractiveness of the slut. The wisdom of the mother. The integrity of the virgin. The independence of the bitch. This leaves men confused and unable to pigeonhole you. They are forced instead, to take you seriously."

From "Syrup" (2013), Amber Heard, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8jBcL0oAQ

Not saying this is the solution. You should get respected no matter what.

But... if everybody you meet is a shallow asshole, why not start manipulating them?

Re: It's Different for Girls

#382

Post by ShardPhoenix »

tptacek wrote: post #373
ShardPhoenix wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You explained why it's illegal, but I don't agree with the reasoning. I don't believe the government should be interfering in this kind of thing at all to begin with, but this is a particularly stupid example where something that is clearly highly relevant is somehow off limits due to political correctness.

My comment is right there for people to read, and your comments are as well, and it's plainly obvious that you're unable to actually respond to the substance of what I said.

What substance? What you posted didn't deserve anything beyond a simple, "that's not true", but it was transparently bullshit.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#383

Post by ShardPhoenix »

tptacek wrote: post #374
ShardPhoenix wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People like you make me REALLY angry. Same to you buddy. Guess we'll have to fight it out in the political arena like anything else people can't agree on. PS I didn't even say the things I believe that would really make you angry, like "pregnant women and women with young children probably shouldn't be working at all, and definitely not running a startup". PPS That's a hell of a lot of wild assumptions about what "p…

This was already fought in the "political arena", and your side lost, because your side is dumb. But you keep flying your freak flag proudly, anonymous retrograde goofball. We'll all just take turns pointing out how stupid your arguments are.

Ah, good old Whig history. Well, as we can see from the rise of the Right world-wide and of neo-Reaction among thoughtful people online (hey, I used to be liberal too, you know), you may not be on the 'winning' side forever. So try not to be such an arrogant douchebag now, lest you fall that much harder later.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#384

Post by ShardPhoenix »

wpietri wrote: post #369
ShardPhoenix wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should have asked.

No, they shouldn't have. Because a), the conversational presumption in business contexts is that people are not total idiots, and will have thought about blatantly obvious things, and b) it's a useless question: you're always going to get the "yes, I'm dedicated" answer. Oh, and c) it's rude, and being unnecessarily rude is not a good way to build a business relationship.

Those are tactical considerations and have nothing to do with the general liberal attempt to make the entire line of consideration verboten. Liberals would have it that we should pretend that such considerations don't even exist, which is transparently stupid.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#385

Post by modfodder »

meric wrote: post #302
JackC wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsurprisingly, this comes at a cost. Seriously, no. Don't do this. Don't do "being attractive to men unsurprising comes at the cost of sexual assault." Don't do "not having sex when you want to is as bad as being forced to have sex when you don't want to." Don't do "attractive young women are the only women worth having sex with." Don't go for the mathematical impossibility that women get to have more sex than men.…

You might be interested in this book, by a woman, about privileges women enjoy, that men are generally unaware of: http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the_manipulated...

She uses much the same logic that slaveowners used to defend slavery, so no I don't think he'd be interested in that book (published in 1973).

Re: It's Different for Girls

#386

Post by jaredmck »

rando289 wrote: post #216
enraged_camel wrote: post #117

I have an ex-coworker who is a really attractive girl, and she used to tell me lots of stories like this about places she had worked at previously. Vice presidents calling her to their room and offering her promotions if only she would give them weekly blowjobs, prospective customers turning away from million-dollar deals at the last minute after she refused to sleep with them, etc. The really sad thing about is that…

“Every time I see the word ‘Girl’ used in scenarios that are supposed to empower women, it really grates on me,” http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/01/30/girls-lad... It bothers me too. The article is otherwise great. google, define: girl "1. a female child. 2. a young or relatively young woman." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl : "A girl is any female human from birth through childhood and adolescence to…

I think the usage of girls here is likely intentional and is a very important and much better word choice than "women" IMO - it shows the power differential common in many of these situations.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#387

Post by wpietri »

mkempe wrote: post #372
wpietri wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which case, you'll need to write your point better. People can't react to what's in your head, just what's on the page. What I said is a pretty common response to your point, and often comes from people who have been through the wringer: not just the initial harassment, but also the enormous difficulty of speaking up. Read more on the topic and you'll see what I mean.

You're so smug and condescending, repeatedly ascribing thoughts, knowledge, or lack thereof -- without evidence. In Sweden women, and men, don't tolerate any of this kind of behaviour, and are certainly not taught to keep quiet. Since you position yourself as knowing everything and dispensing lessons, you surely already knew all about how women are treated and expect to be treated in different cultures. Or maybe you…

I'm responding to what you wrote. I of course don't know what you're thinking; I'm trying to convey the impression that your paragraphs left me with. An impression you asked for, by the way.

I'm not saying anybody should be taught to keep quiet. I'm saying that you judging other people's actions without knowing their situations (as in "Walking away silently is not the appropriate response.") does not demonstrate thought or empathy. There are legitimate reasons why victims of sexual harassment and assault choose silence, and I think it's important to respect those choices.

If we want to fix their silence, the solution isn't to moralize and say that they're doing it wrong. They already have enough to deal with. The solution is to change things so that the incentives around reporting are better.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#388

Post by meric »

modfodder wrote: post #385
meric wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be interested in this book, by a woman, about privileges women enjoy, that men are generally unaware of: http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the_manipulated...

She uses much the same logic that slaveowners used to defend slavery, so no I don't think he'd be interested in that book (published in 1973).

You read the headings but not the content - the slave there refers to the man, not the woman.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#389

Post by mafribe »

mercurial wrote: post #345
mafribe wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you in all seriousness saying that attractive women have it hard? You are suffering form a massive case of what modern social though terms "privilege blindness". (And, as an aside, probably have the hots for that girl als well.) Nobody on this plane is more privileged than attractive girls. They don't even have to work if they don't want to. In your delusion, you also conveniently ignore that (within certain limi…

Well, today, Paul, I'd like some of this "terrible reading comprehension" you have so prominently on the menu (I mean, reading both an article and a testimony about actual discrimination, and then saying it's a "lifestyle choice", it's either that or something so much beyond bad faith, it's positively Luciferan). Additionally, I'd like a healthy serving of victim blaming, because I too subscribe to the idea that any…

Your post doesn't contain an argument regarding my claim that beauty is to a substantial degree a life-style choice.

The style of your post is typical for white-knights who, in my considerable experience, reflexively hit-out against any man who doesn't defer to the feminist/misandric party-line that woman must not be held responsible, that women have only rights, no responsibilities. The great Africa-American philosopher and gender-researcher Christopher Julius has pithily summarised the underlying motivation for this disposition.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#390

Post by webmaven »

aaronem wrote: post #85
rosser wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your distaste for identity politics doesn't obviate other people's legitimate concerns about them.

That's probably the single thing about identity politics that crosses me the worst: there are actually legitimate points in there, but they're so deeply buried under assertions like "you can't say X around me because I'm Y" and "P's have mistreated Q's for so long that Q's deserve special treatment from P's in recompense", which may not be contested in any fashion but must be taken as axiomatic, that ordinary people…

I am not saying "you can't say that". I am saying that the context of who is speaking matters quite a bit. It may not seem 'fair' that when speaking on how hurtful a statement is to a particular group, whether you are actually a member of that particular group is highly relevant, but that perception of unfairness is itself an aspect of privilege.

Basically, if you make a joke about a group you aren't a member of, don't expect to be able to tell someone who is a member that it's 'just a joke', and that goes double if you're a member of the dominant group (whichever that happens to be in context).

Personally, I hit almost all of the privilege checkboxes with the (very mild) exception of religion/ethnicity. Guess what? If you aren't Jewish, and you tell me a Jewish joke, and I take offense (and I might even if it is a joke I have used myself), and I then call you out on it, 'lighten up' just isn't an appropriate response, regardless of the fact that you may not have privilege in some other area.

Post reply on HN