Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon • Hacker News Board

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#171

Post by jessedhillon » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:39 AM UTC

gavanwoolery wrote: post #80

drostie wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the Correct Response. I would only add one thing: Even if you don't agree that this sort of prejudice and stereotyping amounts to discrimination, the discussion still makes sense . Why? Because most discrimination -- whether racist or sexist -- really happens at the level of social institutions rather than at an individual level. (Like, if you think that you are not a racist because you personally don't see a…

The foremost cause of sexism is the fact that many males (consciously or subconsciously) perceive women as mentally and physically weaker (and indeed the average woman is physically weaker than the average male, that's just the way nature played the cards for the human species). Sex-drive is not really as much of a problem with regards to sexism. Sex-drive causes sexual harassment, which is not sexism. If a male were…

The foremost cause of sexism is the fact that many males (consciously or subconsciously) perceive women as mentally and physically weaker (and indeed the average woman is physically weaker than the average male, that's just the way nature played the cards for the human species).

This needs to be called out. What is the basis for this statement? All over this thread you have been constructing arguments based on assertions, all which are substantiated entirely by your sheer ability to proclaim things. How do you know what the foremost cause of sexism is, and where are you getting this knowledge? Is it more of your opinion?

Any argument can be forwarded when you have access to a set of private and convenient facts.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#172

Post by 2muchcoffeeman » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:49 AM UTC

derleth wrote: post #86

codehotter wrote: post #61

Does this happen at non-IT parties where a lot of men gather to get drunk and to try and socialize? I admit I'm not much of a party person, but from what I have seen, the answer is yes. I do not believe this has got anything to do with IT nor with sexism. If you are an attractive woman (relative to the attending male population), you are going to attract attention. That is how men are wired. That is our culture. Men…

> Men have to approach women, or they don't laid. Hopefully, a reduction of sexism in our society will also change things like this. A longish article on the general subject of how sexism hurts men, too: http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/156194/what_abou...

I'd up vote you 100 times if I could.

I am quite unsuccessful with women, but the women friends I have that have tried to give me advice tell me the same thing. It is my job to make the first move, plan a date and pay.

I have never once got any useful advice on how to tell if a girl is actually interested though. Apparently I am supposed to potentially harass women until I get lucky!? I don't know.

I don't think it is right to make someone else feel harassed cause I misinterpret friendliness as romantic interest. So I almost never ask girls out. The few times I have I was mostly wrong. It's very depressing.

Rightly or wrongly, I think most guys are going to just try everything and see what sticks. So I don't think a significant reduction is harassment is likely anytime soon.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#173

Post by gavanwoolery » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:53 AM UTC

token_female wrote: post #46

gavanwoolery wrote: post #30

Maybe the title is link bait, but I don't think this is "sexism" by definition. Sexism: "Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." A bunch of males were hitting on the author, crassly or awkwardly, but they were not denying the author equal rights. If a female asked a male to show their privates, no one would call it "sexism"; it might be rude, uncalled for, or strange…

Without fail, the top comment on every HN link related to sexism in the field is "that's not sexism!". What is it going to take to convince you that sexism in the tech community is real and is a big part of why there are so few women? How many women have to tell you about their experiences being sexually harassed at tech conferences before you realize that it is a problem? HN/Reddit's responses to this kind of articl…

You know what is sexism? A qualified female applies for a job. A less qualified male gets it because he is a male. That is easy to interpret as sexism - deliberate bias of one sex over another. Groping a female - sexual harassment maybe. Sexism is not the correct term. Like others said, semantics is what we are upset about here.

Hacker News just happens to be filled with enough rational people who can identify what is and what is not sexism. No one here is sexist, or pro-sexism (for the most part at least). In fact, most of us encourage females to get involved in IT/CS.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#174

Post by anthonyb » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:54 AM UTC

Jach wrote: post #91

anthonyb wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is the way nature made us What utter bullshit. I've been in plenty of bars, while drunk, and never felt the need to sexually harass anyone. You're just excusing sexist, asshole behaviour.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/

Oh, a lesswrong pedant. No, it's disproving his statement. You only need one counter example for that.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#175

Post by swa14 » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:54 AM UTC

gavanwoolery wrote: post #103

token_female wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not believe this has got anything to do with sexism > That is our culture Has it ever occurred to you that "our culture" might be a bit sexist? > Men have to approach women, or they don't get laid 1. Approach doesn't have to mean sexual harassment 2. Women can like sex too. And women can approach men too. mind blowing, no? > He probably needed to do something like that and get away with it to be happy? What? W…

News flash: all men, deep down, view (attractive) women as a potential means to their sexual gratification. We cannot suppress it, short of, you know, lopping it off. We also happen to respect, admire, love, and look up to a good deal of women...but that would not make a very interesting article to talk about that stuff. EDIT: for those who don't understand what I am saying, let me clarify: Take special note of my wo…

>>Take special note of my words above, particularly "DEEP DOWN"

Especially DEEP DOWN, that's where the problem lies.

It's called "Appeal to nature", and it consists of explaining one concept in term of another (love in reproductive drive), even though their fields of use are on completely different levels. It's a form of reductio ad absurdum, which, even if ultimately and factually correct, adds nothing to the argument other than to discard important facets of a problem that are important for understanding the problem on one level, but not on the other, like, e.g.

"I am capable of feeling love without sexual connotations, but deep down I understand that the reason my brain loves is because it has found a worthy mate"

I'm sure a brother/father would be fascinated by that sort of reasoning :)

This is just to show that in your reduction of the term "love" to purely reproductional terms, you cast out a lot of complex interaction, because "love" exists on the level of rational human interaction, and is complex behaviour, whereas reproduction is not; in fact, the complexity of love is what makes it worth having a seperate term for "love" and "reproductional drive", and worth arguing about what it entails and its place in society.

To redefine it in simpler but unequivalent (even if related) terms, is to change the subject entirely, and that's why it's a logical fallacy.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#176

Post by gavanwoolery » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:54 AM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #166

gavanwoolery wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The statement you make is essentially that all behavior has an explanation behind it, no matter how distasteful or uncivilized. Fine, agreed. First, what is the value in pointing out this obvious conclusion?" No more value than the author of the article provides by pointing out she got hit on / harassed in a crowded bar full of males. "You then continue to say that because behavior has an explanation, that behavior…

Actually, that is exactly your case. You place an appeal to nature next to claims of why the story is not an example of sexism. You supplied a nature-derived argument as a counter to my argument that the behavior fit your definition of sexism. You are arguing that naturally explained behavior is not sexist! And simultaneously you are denying the conclusions of that argument. I don't mind telling you either, that a ke…

List of fallacies is useful, I need it myself as I am as prone to making them as anyone else (I bet you can find at least 10 in my arguments). I would suck at sales. ;)

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#177

Post by anthonyb » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 11:01 AM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #158

gavanwoolery wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be honored if "doing a gavan" or "woolerying" became terms. ;) But seriously, the only way to right a word of its negative context is to start using it in a positive fashion, that way no one can use it abusively. Retarded was actually not first used as an insult, but just a term meaning slow...people decided to make it an insult. Two of my friends who are gay call each other "faggots" - which is probably the…

Those are all three bad examples though. Call any black person "nigger", any gay man "faggot", or speak to a special ed teacher about his "retarded" students and on the whole all will be offended. The fact that retarded was a clinical term is irrelevant, similarly I think "nigger" derived from some matter-of-fact observation. This is really just another manifestation of your idea that root causes matter. They don't -…

> similarly I think "nigger" derived from some matter-of-fact observation

The latin niger means black

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#178

Post by anthonyb » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 11:04 AM UTC

gavanwoolery wrote: post #83

anthonyb wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is the way nature made us What utter bullshit. I've been in plenty of bars, while drunk, and never felt the need to sexually harass anyone. You're just excusing sexist, asshole behaviour.

Not excusing it, explaining it. Do you see the difference? If I tell you that serial killers kill people because it is the nature of sociopaths, I am NOT EXCUSING it, I am EXPLAINING it.

Thanks for the patronising tone, but I follow your logic (such as it is). You're just wrong.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#179

Post by mkramlich » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 11:10 AM UTC

natrius wrote: post #165

mkramlich wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully disagree. Unlike you have. Here's how I'll disagree. I hereby claim the following premise: that grabbing someone's ass is just grabbing someone's ass. At a minimum. Inherently. It may or may not be "harassment" depending on other particulars. And it is definitely not clearly inexcusable. Not always, not inherently. More specifically, grabbing someone's ass WITHOUT their explicit consent beforehand is NOT…

What you've said is valid, but is it useful? Probabalistically speaking, a random woman is going to disapprove of a random man grabbing her ass the vast majority of the time, which means it's usually inexcusable harassment. It shouldn't be done.

If it's valid, it should be useful. All true and valid things related to an issue should be useful. It's the false or invalid things, or the ignorant things, which should be useless. In an ideal world.

Re: Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon

#180

Post by natrius » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 11:26 AM UTC

mkramlich wrote: post #179

natrius wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you've said is valid, but is it useful? Probabalistically speaking, a random woman is going to disapprove of a random man grabbing her ass the vast majority of the time, which means it's usually inexcusable harassment. It shouldn't be done.

If it's valid, it should be useful. All true and valid things related to an issue should be useful. It's the false or invalid things, or the ignorant things, which should be useless. In an ideal world.

I don't think that's the case. Your point boils down to, "Sometimes women want their asses to be grabbed." It is true, but playing harassment roulette still seems ill-advised.