161–168 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot the "society ruled by women" part.
You mean the oppressed minority that constitutes over half of humans?
Bit regardless of that, if you think a majority can`t be oppressed, I suggest you learn some history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If its not sexist, then can you explain why it is inconsiderate?
I understand that you're attempting to imply that showing consideration demonstrates an admittance of guilt. I'm afraid that's not a compelling argument. It's inconsiderate, because it could potentially make some members of the audience uncomfortable or self-aware. This would not be a concern if you knew the comportment of your audience. Snoop Dogg doesn't present himself or his content the same way on David Letterma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respect is earned, not given.
People on HN generally start off with a reasonable amount of respect from me - more so than Reddit or 4chan for instance. I've never seen anyone piss it away so rapidly before though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, there is something wrong with objectification. When you reduce someone to an impersonal object, with no regard to their dignity or personality, you dehumanise them. You can essentially do what you will with them.
Guess what? People I don't know in a porn video performing sexual acts as their profession in order to sexually arouse people watching them are "impersonal objects". So are male and female models who exist as clothing-racks or make-up canvases. Musicians and actors exist to entertain and their dignity and personality are not relevant. My garbageman is a guy who exists to make my cans of trash go away. Even you, as hi…
However, when I deal with a garbageman, I treat him with respect because I know he's a human being doing his work. I don't see him as just a garbageman, though I interact with him with that primary purpose. But I can honestly never say I've ever considered my garbageman as only "someone who makes my garbage go away". This would allow me to be an arsehole to him while he is doing his job.
Lets say you see the garbageman fall over and break his leg. I'll bet you'd call an ambulance. Congratulations if this is the case, he is no longer just someone who takes away your garbage - you have not objectified him.
I never interact with clothes models, but then I don't look at the clothes model when I look at a catalog (not consciously anyway), mostly at the clothes. If I was to interact with them, then I would hope not to treat them as just an object.
When I watch a good movie, I interact with the character the actor plays - I don't objectify the actor in this case. I knowmthenactor is acting, and appreciate them for their personality and performance.
As for strippers and porn: I've never been to a stripshow in my life, and will never do so. I've had plenty of opportunities, but have always declined. Why? I don't want to objectify the strippers. And I don't want them objectifying me as the punter.
For porn: that's something I try to avoid at all costs. Not easy.
This highlights major problems our community suffers while the comments here clearly demonstrate a few more. It's all very disappointing. We are not doing ourselves any favours here. 1. Many male developers assume that they are in an all-male environment and behave as if they are. Sniggering schoolboy humour, edgy jokes, sexual jokes are a part of young male pack behaviour that is relatively harmless in all-male envi…
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.
This highlights major problems our community suffers while the comments here clearly demonstrate a few more. It's all very disappointing. We are not doing ourselves any favours here. 1. Many male developers assume that they are in an all-male environment and behave as if they are. Sniggering schoolboy humour, edgy jokes, sexual jokes are a part of young male pack behaviour that is relatively harmless in all-male envi…
2. Objectification it is, but I don't agree that that is wrong. You're trying to force a societal expectation over a natural process. More or less it's 'you should have interest in me because of all my qualities, not the sexual ones'. That is a bizarre rewiring of male sexual psychology pushed by non-males, I don't buy it.
3. keyword 'ironic' if a group of men 'ironically' made anything then it isn't automatically sexist. A group of women non-ironically a pack-track app that tracks penises IS sexist. Why? By the same definition you used above, objectification and a supposedly male belief that I am more than a penis and testicles. (Ironic that men have blow up dolls for sex, and women have a disembodied penis known as a dildo: talking about objectification and not considering the whole of a human!)
4. No feminism WAS a civil rights movement. If anything it is an ever shifting term that has evolved since it's inception. It is no longer about equality and opportunity, it is now about special rights and privileges (family court system, maternity leave etc.) (my view) You're right, an example of an unbalanced gender work force is not indicative of sexism. Which goes both ways! That means that just because women hold most teaching jobs doesn't mean men are actively pushed away from it, maybe they don't want to teach. Much like your counter point. Just because men hold powerful jobs doesn't mean that women are actively barred from it, they may not want to be in it! I have yet to see one well done study that has convinced me of this. Anecdotes aren't effective. Equality is about opportunity, that may not be reflected in a statistically perfect 50%. Men and women are different, and they can like different jobs. The end goal is freedom, not an enforced literal numbered equality. That was tried in communist systems and people were much more miserable because of it. 5. Most sexism is silent. We do it without knowing we are doing it. Women appoint women because the other women are women like themselves. Women know how to talk to women; Social women more-so. We fill our conferences with women, our panels with women, our keynotes with women because it is an easy thing to do. We promote bright young women because they remind us of ourselves. We tell ourselves that we are simply picking the best. Combating this silent sexism is hard. As long as all we see is women everywhere then we will continue to be silently sexist and men will continue to silently vote with their feet.
You see what I did there? It can easily be applied to Nursing. So now, do we have a sexist epidemic in nursing, on the eve of a geriatrics explosion? I don't hear ANYONE complaining about that and I am sure that is because of some very sexist reasons.
6.Women make up 51% of the population... they should therefore be over 50% of our community. Bad assertion. Really bad assertion. You're equating numeric equality with actual equality. You're assuming that women want these jobs enough to be 50%. You're assuming they are like men. I for one think they are individuals, not automatons and can have their own interests. This is somebody's fault and most probably ours. Also a bad assertion. With what unbiased reasoned study did you find this?
If we are throwing away half the talent how can we possibly be hiring the best?
Half of whom we hire must be sub-standard!
Say the top 1% is 'the best'. The entire industry cannot hire the best, unless you want 99% of the workforce unemployable for IT related fields.
2nd. Half of whom we hire must be substandard? No that isn't the case at all, probably the majority of whom you hire is standard (assuming a typical skill distribution)
More women in the field certainly would help, there would be more of the best, and more standard, and more substandard. You increased the supply of workers, which is a good thing
from certain view points. Your rhetoric is pretty awful though.
This highlights major problems our community suffers while the comments here clearly demonstrate a few more. It's all very disappointing. We are not doing ourselves any favours here. 1. Many male developers assume that they are in an all-male environment and behave as if they are. Sniggering schoolboy humour, edgy jokes, sexual jokes are a part of young male pack behaviour that is relatively harmless in all-male envi…
1. Quite the opposite, the woman may feel included, but it's a farce, she isn't one of the guys as long as the guys can't be themselves while she is around. Resentment can form this way 2. Objectification it is, but I don't agree that that is wrong. You're trying to force a societal expectation over a natural process. More or less it's 'you should have interest in me because of all my qualities, not the sexual ones'.…
That's the point. The guys aren't supposed to be 'themselves' whatever that means, they are supposed to be working — as part of a team. There is already resentment: that is why there is a need for equality at work.
2. Objectification it is, but I don't agree that that is wrong. You're trying to force a societal expectation over a natural process. More or less it's 'you should have interest in me because of all my qualities, not the sexual ones'. That is a bizarre rewiring of male sexual psychology pushed by non-males, I don't buy it.
'You're trying to force a societal expectation over a natural process'
The objectification of women by men is societal, not natural: not all cultures do it & not all men do. Nature is far more complicated than you suggest: there aren't just two genders there is a sliding scale of gender. Does you idea of 'male sexual psychology' include gay men? transgender men?
At work you should have interest in me because of my skills no matter my gender or sexual orientation.
3. keyword 'ironic' if a group of men 'ironically' made anything then it isn't automatically sexist.
Not true. Some things a group of men 'ironically' make won't be automatically sexist. But many things meant to be ironically sexist and/or peurile just end up being demeaning. While to a degree irony is in the eye of the beholder a joke made by the more powerful that is percieved by the target as offensive is usually just bullying.
4. No feminism WAS a civil rights movement.
As long as people make arguments like these Feminism very much IS a civil rights movement.
You see what I did there?
Very clever.
'we have a sexist epidemic in nursing'
Really?
2nd. Half of whom we hire must be substandard? No that isn't the case at all, probably the majority of whom you hire is standard (assuming a typical skill distribution) .. More women in the field certainly would help, there would be more of the best, and more standard, and more substandard. You increased the supply of workers, which is a good thing from certain view points.
If we are currently not using near-half the population then we must be missing half of the best people. Was it my use of the word standard that you object to? How about we go with 'average'. Take 100%. That's 50% above average, 50% below average. If you add another 100% you can put the two 50%s together to make a group 100% above the old average.
Your rhetoric is pretty awful though.
Nice.
7. Positive discrimination is one way to change the numbers, but as with affirmative action, the same arguments for and against apply.
The same arguments for and against what apply?
Feminism is needed because society still awards the most powerful, highest paid jobs and most of the best opportunities to advance their careers to men. Equality is needed because society gives these things to straight, white men.
While the days of blatant to-the-face discrimination may be over in much of the western world there is still plenty of silent discrimination occuring. I beleive most young men don't realise they are doing it — they are just behaving like their peers and would be appaled if it was pointed out to them. I am hoping that if we start calling it out they will realise and gladly change their behaviour. Arguments like yours are badly disguised sexism portrayed as 'the real' equality that fail to take in the level of the field we are playing apon.