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

OH HAI SEXISM

storify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#11

Post by b0sk »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #9
JS_startup wrote: post #6

Oh hey, a stupid slapfight on Twitter. Frankly, Shanley was really offensive in her approach and Christian's responses seem pretty measured. Not sure what the big deal is.

Christian's responses are measured, but they're a long way from being the correct response. The first big paragraph in the article is right. Christian had a perfect opportunity to turn this into a PR SUCCESS and instead decided to attack the method of criticism and attempt to shift the blame of the tasteless ad onto someone else. It's tacky and easy to see through. He could have ended the conversation there by offeri…

Yes. Multiple opportunities to take the high road.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#12

Post by MartinCron »

JS_startup wrote: post #6

Oh hey, a stupid slapfight on Twitter. Frankly, Shanley was really offensive in her approach and Christian's responses seem pretty measured. Not sure what the big deal is.

It's not really better to say a horrible thing in a nice way than to say virtuous thing an an aggressive way.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#13

Post by MartinCron »

rabble wrote: post #8

So the video in question got pulled offline, so now none of us who missed it can tell if it was sexist or not. Kind of ironic.

Because a woman dancing to dubstep music in her underwear to promote a technology brand may or may not be sexist?

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#14

Post by JS_startup »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #9
JS_startup wrote: post #6

Oh hey, a stupid slapfight on Twitter. Frankly, Shanley was really offensive in her approach and Christian's responses seem pretty measured. Not sure what the big deal is.

Christian's responses are measured, but they're a long way from being the correct response. The first big paragraph in the article is right. Christian had a perfect opportunity to turn this into a PR SUCCESS and instead decided to attack the method of criticism and attempt to shift the blame of the tasteless ad onto someone else. It's tacky and easy to see through. He could have ended the conversation there by offeri…

I agree that it was a PR blunder, but I don't agree with the accusations of sexism (anyone else noticed the sexist witchhunt that's been started since the Boston code jam fiasco?)

The story should have been framed as a PR misstep, not a calculated attack against women. I'd say Shanley's crass behavior gives women a much worse name than the girl who showed some skin for a commercial.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#15

Post by MartinCron »

From the official apology:

We apologize as well if our handling of the tweets offended anyone.

One of the things that I hate most in the world is when people use the word "if" in an apology. You should either make a real apology about being offensive, or stand your ground.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#16

Post by drivebyacct2 »

JS_startup wrote: post #14
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christian's responses are measured, but they're a long way from being the correct response. The first big paragraph in the article is right. Christian had a perfect opportunity to turn this into a PR SUCCESS and instead decided to attack the method of criticism and attempt to shift the blame of the tasteless ad onto someone else. It's tacky and easy to see through. He could have ended the conversation there by offeri…

I agree that it was a PR blunder, but I don't agree with the accusations of sexism (anyone else noticed the sexist witchhunt that's been started since the Boston code jam fiasco?) The story should have been framed as a PR misstep, not a calculated attack against women. I'd say Shanley's crass behavior gives women a much worse name than the girl who showed some skin for a commercial.

I agree that there is less forethought or less "malice" in this advertisement versus one that outright lists women as a perk, but again, this is hard to continue to repeat everywhere. You see an ad, it's the 20th ad you've seen this week that reminds you that you're a commodity. You're eye-candy used to move a product for horny men who, apparently, buy with the brain in their pants instead of the one in their head. It plays into sexism that is not just anti-women but anti-men in my opinion.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#17

Post by whyleyc »

EvilTrout wrote: post #2

I'm not sure why, but this article and supporting discussion was removed: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3739913

It was removed twice - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740378

I don't know why it keeps being flagged - there are loads of relevant issues at play here:

- Why sexism is a real issue within I.T.

- How Twitter can amplify customer criticism

- How (not) to handle complaints

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#19

Post by jtheory »

JS_startup wrote: post #14
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christian's responses are measured, but they're a long way from being the correct response. The first big paragraph in the article is right. Christian had a perfect opportunity to turn this into a PR SUCCESS and instead decided to attack the method of criticism and attempt to shift the blame of the tasteless ad onto someone else. It's tacky and easy to see through. He could have ended the conversation there by offeri…

I agree that it was a PR blunder, but I don't agree with the accusations of sexism (anyone else noticed the sexist witchhunt that's been started since the Boston code jam fiasco?) The story should have been framed as a PR misstep, not a calculated attack against women. I'd say Shanley's crass behavior gives women a much worse name than the girl who showed some skin for a commercial.

Here's a relevant question:

Were they hiring any male waitstaff to serve beverages? Or any women waitstaff over 40, for example?

I'm pretty sure they weren't doing either of those things.

Which makes it more than just a PR flub.

About overreactions -- well... these problems are so pervasive, and ignorance is so persistent, and under-reaction is so easily brushed aside, that it's very well worth it to make some noise.

Some people (not most) will change their behavior because they actually understand the problem and realize they're part of the cause. Other people are going to change their behavior because the femi-nazis will start a witch-hunt otherwise (damn, there seem to be more and more of them around!), and will feel that way about it until the day they die.

Either way: better than no change in behavior.

Post reply on HN