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

XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 298 posts

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#251

Post by protomyth »

parfe wrote: post #248
protomyth wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they are not and you sadly you went with the snarky comment. If you are a user, you need to make public your sex or lie (other is not undisclosed and has a different meaning to a part of the population). Yes, there is always the "don't like - don't use it" defense. On the other hand, they could simply not make it public without permission and save the trouble. Downplaying the concerns of people just because you do…

Sadly? Are you disappointed in me? Who are these abused females you are white knighting for?

"white knighting"? This is HN not Fark.

I find a lack of compassion for the difficulties of other people or their exclusion because of dogmatic rules not very helpful to the world. It is quite a lot like the proposed change to the WoW forums to require real names. The "it works for me" brand of design is not a good one.

The basic government stats and research are here: http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/violence-against-women/w...

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#252

Post by spiffworks »

Is there any particular reason that Buzz and Plus need public profiles? I really like Plus, but I have a friend who has voiced a few significant concerns where it defaults to public on some occasions(such as when you change your picture). Especially given that Plus is so integrated with the rest of Google's services, I want to fully understand the privacy implications before committing to it.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#253

Post by mentat »

demallien wrote: post #223
mentat wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's saying that judging sexual attractiveness is inherently objectification and that both sexes do it. Though I believe it is a fallacy to say that you can't dislike to be objectified if you are in fact objectifying others, in non-logical areas (like here) it does tend to weaken one's perceived case.

Oh, you too. That is not what sexual objectification means, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification Specifically, sexual objectification is when you see someone as nothing other than a sexual object - they have no other characteristics in your eyes. Now, knowing that, I would like you to explain to me how making the judgement that someone is not attractive is in any way shape or form sexual obje…

Well, assuming that you're referring to objective qualities (fat, bald) and tying that to attractiveness in an non-platonic sense, I think it's a simple deduction that that is sexual objectification. I would say that the second paragraph of that article agrees with me. I'm interested in understanding how you're reading this that doesn't lead to that conclusion. Though it seems that you think I'm a random person on the Internet harassing you, I've studied sexual ethics with feminists for quite some time and seriously am interested in coming to a common understanding or agreement about differences of opinion on this subject.

Arguments about authoritative definitions tend not to be interesting, but I think that the claim is that using physical characteristics as judgment points leads to "insufficient regard for a person's personality or sentience" and that that insufficient regard is not limited to one sex.

Hopefully this at least clarifies the point I was trying to make and addresses a little of the "you too" that you're feeling. Perhaps not, we'll see if this thread persists.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#254

Post by saulrh »

gommm wrote: post #194
saulrh wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was simply being annoyed at an unbacked statement like that, especially given the topic. We always seem to forget that being a woman is, in fact, bloody dangerous. Something like one in five American women experiences a rape. We aren't discussing some abstract edge case; half of the population lives in completely justifiable terror of something that actually happens . I mention gender because that modifies the stat…

I don't see how you arrive at the statistic of "one in five american women experiencing a rape" from 28 rapes per hundred thousand people. Even if we considered that only women were victim of rapes and that half of the incidents weren't reported, it would still amount to something like 112 rapes/100k so around 0.1%. Anecdotically, none of my female friends were ever raped which doesn't match with your assertion that…

I didn't go from one to the other; I should have made that more clear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Rape_...

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#255

Post by throwaway939393 »

dfxm12 wrote: post #232
throwaway939393 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There absolutely should be an option to hide gender on your profile. I was lucky to get a +1 invite early but didn't create an account because of this issue. Here's why: I'm a hacker. I do freelance work for a living. I avoid all references to my gender in anything work-related because it creates too much extra mental overhead. Instead of focusing on getting things done I end up wondering whether a disagreement on a…

Don't you think you are doing other females a disservice by doing quality work and hiding the fact that you are a female? Maybe you'll have to deal with those headaches you describe now, but then maybe you can make it easier for your daughter, or inspire other young female hackers. Isn't that worth it? I can appreciate it if you aren't up for this fight, but think of it like this: wouldn't it have defeated the purpos…

When I was younger I worked for a nonprofit that supported women in non-traditional fields. I guess I'm just too tired to fight anymore. I'm no Rosa Parks. When given the choice of spending my time hacking or discussing gender issues, I will pick hacking every time. I deeply respect the folks who have the energy to tackle the issue head on.

BTW, my clients do eventually find out that I am a woman when we do phone calls.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#256

Post by mentat »

brianmatter wrote: post #127
perlgeek wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a video of Randall talking about a variety of stuff (I think it was "Google Tech Talks" or so), and I got the impression that he just talks to people, and listens to what they say. While reading his comics I also thought multiple times that he must be a very good observer. That doesn't necessarily make him an expert in the sense that conducting a scientific study would make him, but it's still worth listeni…

i don't doubt it. i just question his ability to talk about what many women feel. how many women do you have to "talk to", "listen to" and "observe" before you can consider yourself to be assigning what "many woman feel" without ever being capable of feeling it yourself?

We all draw conclusions about the feelings of groups of people without experiencing what the group actually feels. Making observations and conclusions based on those observations is necessary to reason. "Many women that I've talked to" should be the read version of all group observing statements. Then the conversation can continue about how someone else's observations may differ.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#257

Post by burgerbrain »

Duff wrote: post #234
gommm wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you arrive at the statistic of "one in five american women experiencing a rape" from 28 rapes per hundred thousand people. Even if we considered that only women were victim of rapes and that half of the incidents weren't reported, it would still amount to something like 112 rapes/100k so around 0.1%. Anecdotically, none of my female friends were ever raped which doesn't match with your assertion that…

Incidence varies by community and definition. Sexual assaults are very common on college campuses. The stereotypical scary guy with pantyhose pulled over his head is only one manifestation of rape. "Date-rape" and taking advantage of people not capable of giving consent (drunk, drugged, etc) happens all of the time.

"taking advantage of people not capable of giving consent (drunk, drugged, etc) happens all of the time."

Men are also victims of that.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#258

Post by Dove » 

    Many women grow up with a sense of physical 
    vulnerability that's hard for men to appreciate. Our 
    culture's relentless treatment of women as objects 
    teaches them that they are defined by the one thing 
    that men around them want from them—men who are 
    usually bigger, stronger, and (like any human) 
    occasionally crazy. This feeling—often confirmed by
    actual experiences of harassment and assault—can lead,
    understandably, to a lifetime of low-level wariness
    and sense of vulnerability that men have trouble 
    appreciating.
This is so absolutely dead right on the money, I find myself wondering where a male author gets such an insight. I feel this way, and I was raised in idyllic suburban circumstances surrounded by loving and honorable men.

(Edit: Here's an old comment of mine on the phenomenon of women preferring gender anonymity online: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=750413 )

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#259

Post by jrspruitt »

cjzhang wrote: post #250
jrspruitt wrote: post #48

I understand the issues that arise with forcing people to expose more about themselves, than they are comfortable with. From a personality standpoint, my google+ account is a well defined sliver of who I am as a whole, by design. Mostly because I consider it something that could be put on a resume. As far as the social issues of such public knowledge, I wonder, is hiding from the problem, by sexually, racially, and o…

Are you saying you should be allowed to use racial slurs because disallowing people to say them doesn't make them less racist?

Well technically you can use racial slurs all you want, the only thing stopping people, is the social circles around them's willingness to accept such behavior. Or if you are a media figure, loosing your job.

If it was me, I'd rather know they were, than have them hide it, at least I would know who I could trust. And I think once exposed, its a problem that could be better dealt with. Instead of teaching people just keep those thoughts to your self, and let your racist, sexist, ways come out more passively. Which allows people to constantly be suspicious about other peoples motives and causes a lot of tension between people.

Though admittedly, getting people to stop needing some other group to put down, so they can feel better about themselves, is not ever going to be easy. Its a shame, in the "survival of the fittest" certain members of the species, find it easier to hold people down, than excel at it themselves. But we are what we are, and have been. At some point in our history there may have been a point to all this, but not anymore. Maybe it made more sense when we were doing these things over food, because there wasn't enough? Who knows.

I think its more effect to actually talk to people about why they think this way, what caused it. It was socially acceptable when they were kids, some one picked on them, stole their girl friend, cultural conflicts, etc. Getting to the root of the problem, than just telling them, you can't say it, but keep on thinking it.

Re: XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

#260

Post by klipt »

parfe wrote: post #226
epochwolf wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Generic_they It's been around for a very long time.

Are you saying that usage is common or are you showing me the exception that proves the rule? I Don't think I'd ever use a "They" in a way such as being described here. "John was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic." Or is it "They was caught in traffic." ?

> "John was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic."

It sounds ungrammatical because the gender-neutral pronoun follows a gender specific name. The actual use is more like

"A friend of mine was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic."

Post reply on HN