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

Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

geekchick77.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 392 posts

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#221

Post by roguecoder »

franticpedantic wrote: post #215
rmc wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a child who has all the toys is told they have to share, some children will throw a hissy fit. This is an apt metaphore for a "men's rights" movement which rares it's head when people talking about giving women as much power as men.

Men are as likely to be raped, but their (prison) rapes are considered funny in our society, whereas female rapes are considered a grave crime. Men are generally considered more disposable in dangerous situations ("let the women and children go"). Stereotypes and gender roles regarding men are much more rigid, and challenging them has much less cultural buy-in than challenging gender roles with women. Men are much mo…

The primary people fighting prison rape is feminists (and both prison rape and rape of drunk girls are treated as jokes in our culture). The primary people fighting stereotypes and gender roles, supporting stay-at-home fathers, supporting the importance of gender-flexibility for men, are feminists. The primary people fighting men's violence directed at each other are feminists. Feminists fought the draft and continue to protest wars around the world.

Your examples are feminist. You are a feminist, whether you choose to use the label or not. The only question is whether you realize this is a loose-loose situation and support other feminists as well as those focusing on your issues.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#222

Post by batista »

unalone wrote: post #195
batista wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yet another common trope in gender discussions is this idea that people shouldn't complain about sexism because there are more important things to worry about. Haven't thought of it that way, but sounds like a reasonable general guideline: don't worry about minor things when there are important things that mess with your life and your society. Oh, and I see what you did there --by adding "sexism"--, whereas my comme…

> don't worry about minor things when there are important things that mess with your life and your society Important things like women making less money than men, being more subjected to media objectification, being the target of laws that want to deny them rights because we still have a problem accepting that women are exactly equal to us? Important things like us dismissing their complaints about this shit without…

(Yes, quick quick, down-vote the heretic -- we haven't progressed much from Salem, have we?)

>Important things like women making less money than men, being more subjected to media objectification, being the target of laws that want to deny them rights because we still have a problem accepting that women are exactly equal to us?

Funny how you seem to have the missed the part where I SPECIFICALLY write: "It's not like I said we don't have to worry about men and women not receiving equal pay, or about rape, or freedom of choice, etc, which would be REAL sexist issues to worry about".

I.e, what I wrote is that THOSE are important issues, and "sexism AS IN "that's what she said" jokes and in "conference slides with some bikini-clad woman" IS NOT.

>Ever considered they don't like it because people like you see no problem with treating them this way?

No, because I have counter-examples, of women picking professions where they are treated the same or even worse, in much larger percentages.

Consider this: is every profession that women generally avoid a sexist one? Or do women also avoid some professions for other reasons?

Also consider this: could there also be some feminine and masculine side? (At least psychologists seem to agree). We know that hormones, for example, have a large influence on our behavior, re violence, introspection, sexual interest, etc, acting as regulators.

So could women also be more inclined towards some types of professions as women?

Can you get 5 year old girls interest in Star Wars as easily as 5 year old boys? (In general, not outliers). I don't think so --judging from the children I know, including mine, they already have their preferences re: cartoons. So, why wouldn't they also have re: professions?

Are those things never considered? If so, why? Because they are a "forbidden thought" since we must consider everyone the same? Well, being equal (a social ideal) is not the same as necessarily being the same. Well, I like empirical thinking, I don't care about "thought crimes".

>Even if the problem was as simple as "women don't like IT because they're given Barbies," the solution is not to shrug your shoulders and say "it's society, nothing we can do about it," because we are society.

I didn't said that, though. What I said was that "if the problem was as simple as 'women don't like IT because they're given Barbies'" then we shouldn't address non-problems, like "that's what she said jokes".

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#223

Post by zem »

EvilTerran wrote: post #197
JulianMorrison wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among feminists there is. Heck, there's science: "exposure to sexist humor can lead to toleration of hostile feelings and discrimination against women" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106083038.ht... The only people trying to argue "lighten up" are anti-feminists.

See, that link should be nearer the top of this thread. That's food for thought right there. On the other hand, "The only people trying to argue "lighten up" are anti-feminists" is a nasty false generalisation -- it ignores apath-feminists (damn, that doesn't work nearly as well as 'apatheists'); those who are thinking "can't we all just get along?", with absolutely no motive to stymie feminism; those who've never do…

"indiffeminists"

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#224

Post by tomjen3 »

wpietri wrote: post #168
tomjen3 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference -- you can ignore miss manners if you want (at your peril) in this case you have the room equivalent of a screaming maniac yell at you (politely) each time you do something wrong. And yes if you had that in real life, it would be considered rude.

Not quite getting your point. As you acknowledge, there's peril in being impolite. It's the peril of getting called out or shunned. The only thing that's different now from 30 years ago is that things have shifted enough that saying something sexist is rude. Also, we may disagree on what's rude. If I throw a party and somebody is sufficiently offensive, I'll show them the door. If they see that as rude, then it's onl…

My point is this:

It was the company culture to have fun with a joke aimed at nobody in particular (sex is not sexistic). A bad, unfunny joke but a joke nontheless.

One person decieded she did like it and ruined it for everybody.

If you show up to a frat house party and don't like it, do you demand that the others change their behavior to something that isn't rude or do you leave?

She essentially demanded that everybody else acted a new way just to please her and when she was refused forced them to.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#225

Post by prodigal_erik »

muyuu wrote: post #213

What's sexist about the "that's what she said" jokes? Maybe it's because these jokes never caught on where I live (UK), but I don't understand why would anyone be offended by that. Any clues? I'd ask my American coworker but she's not in the office.

It highlights accidental double entendres: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats%20what%...

I think it's an objection to making the topic of sex more prominent at work, rather than anything specifically negative about women. The original bot might have been funny for about one day, and I can imagine getting annoyed at the preachiness of the countermeasure.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#226

Post by smsm42 »

eaten_by_a_grue wrote: post #196
wpietri wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the same joke. The interruption and reaction makes it a metajoke.

Like most people caught out doing something wrong, now you are trying to make "rational" arguments against it.

That's an excellent argument. Using it you can win any discussion and prove anybody wrong, whatever is the issue - just declare anything rational the opponent says from this point on is said because he knows he's wrong and tries to rationalize it - and kaboom! you win. Nicely done.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#227

Post by unalone »

batista wrote: post #222
unalone wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't worry about minor things when there are important things that mess with your life and your society Important things like women making less money than men, being more subjected to media objectification, being the target of laws that want to deny them rights because we still have a problem accepting that women are exactly equal to us? Important things like us dismissing their complaints about this shit without…

(Yes, quick quick, down-vote the heretic -- we haven't progressed much from Salem, have we?) >Important things like women making less money than men, being more subjected to media objectification, being the target of laws that want to deny them rights because we still have a problem accepting that women are exactly equal to us? Funny how you seem to have the missed the part where I SPECIFICALLY write: " It's not like…

Your deciding what is and isn't important for women to care about is a perfect example of privilege. When somebody says they care about something, the right response is to take note of why they care, and try not to repeat the mistakes on display here. Responding with arguments about why we shouldn't care about this is furthering the problem.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#228

Post by pyre »

drhowarddrfine wrote: post #79
Jem wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly made me think - I'll even admit that for a moment my cursor was hovering over the down vote arrow. It's sad, but it made me think BECAUSE there are people who think like this (and I've seen similar serious responses here on HN.)

Oh shutup.

Lighten up!

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#229

Post by agateform »

calibraxis wrote: post #36
[deleted] wrote: post #3

[deleted]

I have a hard time imagining anyone here seriously saying, "Whether or not it's racism related is irrelevant." But I agree that men generally don't mind Bob with his hourly cracks about women (and maybe gays). That's why men swear up and down that they've never seen sexism in their workplaces. Because we simply can't see it. (And our society is sexist, so sexism is kind of like air.) Hard to imagine that silly ol' Bo…

>But I agree that men generally don't mind Bob with his hourly cracks about women (and maybe gays).

I'm male and certainly mind very much! I tend to find people that make cracks about woman not very smart. I also can't stand misandry which goes completely unnoticed by society.

>That's why men swear up and down that they've never seen sexism in their workplaces. Because we simply can't see it. (And our society is sexist, so sexism is kind of like air.) Hard to imagine that silly ol' Bob is doing anything so impressive as "reinforcing patriarchy."

The feminist patriarchy concept is also sexist. It implies that just by being a men one is in a more powerful and advantageous position. For a more detailed explanation please look at this video http://youtu.be/JHkGZvC0z4I

Note. Criticism of feminism is not necessarily anti-woman or anti-womans rights.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#230

Post by pjscott »

EvilTerran wrote: post #206
eaten_by_a_grue wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most people caught out doing something wrong, now you are trying to make "rational" arguments against it.

Er, the poster who replied to you (wpietri) is a different account from the one you replied to (unalone). Also, now you're engaging in vacuous sophistry - you've made an assertion of wrongdoing without backing it up, and yet neither of them could reply here to defend themselves without seeming to dig deeper into the hole you insist they're in, because "oh look more 'rational' arguments".

I think the technical term for this is a "fully general counterargument": one that can argue equally well for true and false ideas.
Post reply on HN