My point was that if we accept your argument, we must also accept the patently absurd (at least to me) argument that one must have compassion for Jeffrey Dahmer, and it doesn't sound as though you disagree.
It's a big deal. Not "lightening up" is a service to the company (and, I guess, the whole industry). I'm married to a woman who has put up with a lot of shit in this field (for instance: job interviews in which she was shown pictures of her interviewer's bare ass; I was, fortunately for all involved, in a different state when that happened) and am the father of an absurdly intelligent 10 year old girl who will, with…
job interviews in which she was shown pictures of her interviewer's bare ass;
I'm intrigued. How the heck did that scene play out? How exactly do one produce an image of his ass in an interview. How come he had one taken in the first place. So many questions ..
You see, I have problem with posts like this. First I'm like - "Woah, I can't imagine someone would be so insensitive to make joke like this!" and get all fed up and upset. But then... then I freeze, because next example is something that I can imagine myself saying. "Oop, Katie's got the low cut dress on today! I know where I'm sitting!" I... I'm at loss of words. I was trained during my teenage years, that it's coo…
The core problem here is that interpersonal relationships are not government by simple context free objective rules. Person A in Situation X can say and do things that are perfectly acceptable that would be deplorable and disgusting if Person B in Situation Y did precisely, exactly, identically the same thing. You can grab your lover's ass, but try that on a random stranger. Which makes telling people what they can a…
I don't think this is the core problem. Feedback is occurring, and the response isn't "Oh, I'm sorry. I'll avoid doing that in the future."
It's "lighten up!" That translates roughly to: "what I was doing that bothered you is so important to me that I refuse to stop, so get over it." I think that is the core problem.
How would you characterize the difference between "the problem is unfixable" and "nothing can ever change"? They are substansively the same position.
I thought it was clear from context, but I've added a clarifying clause. The point is that, if firing people for commenting on low-cut dresses doesn't work, complaining about it in a blog post certainly isn't going to do the trick. The problem is unfixable using the means at the disposal of the OP. In this case, although the outcome is lamentable, leaving the industry may be a rational response.
Firing people is clearly an extreme option; it might be worth asking kcunning if she felt that was an appropriate reaction (I'd guess not). Writing a blog post, on the other hand, has generated half a dozen people changing their minds about how much sexism they're prepared to put up with (ranging from "I am confronting my own active sexism and resolving to change it" to "I am more inclined to speak up to challenge active sexism when I see it"). Speaking for myself, it was a series of posts like this that gave me the confidence to start calling other men out when I saw active sexism take place. I suppose you could argue that everyone in this thread who is appearing to change their mind is lying, but that seems to be begging the question--purely on the responses I'd suggest that the preponderance of evidence is that writing blog posts does produce incremental change.
And who says he never did do that? You think he never came across people who were too risky to try to save? Why wasn't he able to save all the jews? My point was that it's pretty far fetched for anyone to believe InclinedPlane would risk his life saving slaves when he won't even risk his career trying to legally torpedo the original poster's workplace. It's posturing, nothing more.
"Why wasn't he able to save all the jews?" Because all of the other Germans who didn't agree with what was happening just accepted it and went along. Are we done here?
To be fair though, I've worked in places that were 70/80% female before and I was usually the first person they asked when they needed something heavy moved.
Perhaps it's just that many guys are so disorganized that it really makes sense for the woman in the group to take notes etc.
And who says he never did do that? You think he never came across people who were too risky to try to save? Why wasn't he able to save all the jews? My point was that it's pretty far fetched for anyone to believe InclinedPlane would risk his life saving slaves when he won't even risk his career trying to legally torpedo the original poster's workplace. It's posturing, nothing more.
"Why wasn't he able to save all the jews?" Because all of the other Germans who didn't agree with what was happening just accepted it and went along. Are we done here?
> Because all of the other Germans who didn't agree with what was happening just accepted it and went along.
That's not why Schindler didn't save all the jews. The point was risk analysis.
> Are we done here?
Unless you want to inject yourself between my reply to another poster again, yes. Feel free to see yourself out.
"Katie's got the low cut dress on today! I know where I'm sitting!"...As I'm getting older, I see how sexist and demeaning this is. At the risk of revealing myself to be a chauvinistic jerk, is this kind of response sexist and demeaning, or just inappropriate for the workplace? Why do women wear low-cut dresses if not to attract male attention (in the majority of cases)? Would it be sexist and demeaning for me to not…
This is always where geeks run off the rails in discussions like this. We want to come up with rules for things: either this statement is "sexist" or it is not, and here is the objective reason for that decision. But it misses the point. Context matters. In a utopian environment where women felt equally respected, sure, a sideways/slightly-inappropriate comment would be fine. In some workplaces today that might even…
We want to come up with rules for things: either this statement is "sexist" or it is not, and here is the objective reason for that decision.
Um, yes - geeks want objective rules which allow us to figure out that an activity is either legitimate or not. This principle is called the "rule of law".
Are you advocating that we should abandon the rule of law in cases of sexism?
Slaves were in imminent danger of being killed for minor offences. The situation isn't really comparable. Also, I'm not accusing Katie of cowardice.
Slaves were in imminent danger of being killed for minor offences. Were they? I'd bet that everything you've ever read or seen about slavery was produced by abolitionists and their intellectual descendants. Perhaps this might slightly color your views on the subject. By the way, before you call me a horrible person again, please read carefully. Nothing in the above paragraph implies an endorsement of slavery.
Well, it's not my area of expertise...
If you'd like to direct me to where I can read a more balanced view of the history of slavery I would be pleased to read it.
So, do guys wear shorts to draw attention to their legs or because it's more comfortable? Because it's more comfortable. So, maybe it's possible that a woman might wear a low cut dress because it's more comfortable?
Well, it's more subtle than that. A male may wear shorts to be comfortable, but he's wearing a sleeveless top because he wants to show off his biceps. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
> A male may wear shorts to be comfortable, but he's wearing a sleeveless top because he wants to show off his biceps.