Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987 • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987

#31

Post by hindsightbias » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

apsec112 wrote: post #29

hindsightbias wrote: post #28

If a United States Naval Officer goes to the trouble to get his passionate views into the annals of the USNI, you better go to the trouble to retract them if you’ve evolved. This wasn’t some tweet. And context matters in retrospect given what happened in the Tailhook era.

The article says he apologized: "Golightly stepped down Thursday as Boeing’s senior vice president of communications following an employee complaint about the 1987 article, which he called “embarrassingly wrong and offensive.”"

A former Naval Officer and C-Level aplogizing when he gets caught 30 years later is not honorable. The time to do it was decades ago. It’s a wonder who vetted him.

He’s not some kid on the internet.

Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987

#32

Post by xboxnolifes » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 10:38 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #23

wegs wrote: post #9

Core to any sort of social progress is the belief that people can change, and people changing. I sure as heck wouldn't want anyone judged for views they held 30 years ago. I don't want to be judged for the views I hold today in 30 years either. That goes for most actions too: Even if you murdered someone 30 years ago, if you served your time and reformed, you ought to be able to have a normal life now. I'm a differen…

The problem is there isn't a culturally agreeable calculus to know when someone is trustworthy, and that the "punishment" here is one of withdrawing from relations through the free exercise of association. The main intervention you can do is to tell people to stop exercising their freedom of association. > That goes for most actions too: Even if you murdered someone 30 years ago, if you served your time and reformed,…

> If a person molested one child 30 years, should a label of "sex offender" follow them as they...

> If someone wrote in their youth on the violent nature of the negro and their intellectual...

They should be judged based on their current opinions and actions.

Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987

#33

Post by Kednicma » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 11:21 PM UTC

apsec112 wrote: post #25

Kednicma wrote: post #22

I see people complaining that he was canceled, but if it takes three and a half decades to get canceled, then I'm not sure I see the problem. If I were to write an article about how I think that women ought not to serve in the military, or any such similar drivel, then I would probably perish naturally before any punishment arrived. Are folks here anticipating that they themselves will get canceled for their old sexi…

This sort of retroactive vindictiveness is bad for everyone. In 1987, almost no one supported gay marriage, and many people wrote articles saying so. (DOMA was enacted in 1996 under Bill Clinton.) A lot of people, perhaps a majority of Americans, have changed their minds in the light of new arguments and evidence. How willing will anyone be to change their minds, if the response is "that doesn't matter, you're fired…

Well, this executive voluntarily resigned. He could have just as easily issued a statement condemning his younger self for their sexist and puerile remarks, disavowing his older views and committing himself to doing better. Plenty of folks have done just that, and found themselves growing and improving as people.

There are plenty of loud politicians that, since the 1970s, have supported gay rights; Bernie comes to mind [0]. (He also opposed DOMA [1].) Indeed, a majority of Americans, some 70%, have had to change their minds about this, but that does not mean that there were not folks back then who had reasonable moral stances about ensuring that all of us have the right to volunteer to go die for this country.

I'm not seeing what's actually bad here. Indeed I'm not even seeing what's vindictive. The wages of free speech is people reading and thinking about what you say.

[0] https://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-right...

[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9295867/bernie-sanders-gay-sold...

Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987

#34

Post by Kednicma » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 11:22 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #27

Kednicma wrote: post #22

I see people complaining that he was canceled, but if it takes three and a half decades to get canceled, then I'm not sure I see the problem. If I were to write an article about how I think that women ought not to serve in the military, or any such similar drivel, then I would probably perish naturally before any punishment arrived. Are folks here anticipating that they themselves will get canceled for their old sexi…

Here's the worry that I'm hearing from people: 1. I write an article or a comment that's acceptable, or even encouraged by the powerful people running the show today. 2. The powerful people get changed out for other powerful people, and they start encouraging different articles, articles very different from the ones I've been writing. 3. The new powerful people attack me for following the old powerful people, even th…

I'm sorry to hear that, but I would ask (5) how much time have people here had to serve "in the doghouse"? How much damage have folks here taken from these "powerful people"? It seems specious and speculative.

Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987

#35

Post by jtbayly » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 11:22 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #15

zozbot234 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although his conclusion may have been wrong, it sounds like he was ahead of his time in predicting some consequences of sexisim that many feminists point out exist today. ISTM that he's predicting some very real social frictions, but that calling them "consequences of sexism" may be a bit silly-- unless you posit that literally any institutional dynamic that might disadvantage women in some way is per se structural…

"Gender roles" seems obviously institutional. Who exactly assigns them, and why would it be silly to say that the portions that aren't clearly biological are likely sexist?

Are you saying it’s not clearly biological for men to behave differently around women?

That it’s not clearly biological for a man to place a high priority on seeking a woman for “individual sexual or romantic gratification” in a way that can cause him to view other men as competitors at the expense of “group loyalties and shared destiny”?

Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987

#36

Post by apsec112 » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 11:31 PM UTC

Kednicma wrote: post #33

apsec112 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of retroactive vindictiveness is bad for everyone. In 1987, almost no one supported gay marriage, and many people wrote articles saying so. (DOMA was enacted in 1996 under Bill Clinton.) A lot of people, perhaps a majority of Americans, have changed their minds in the light of new arguments and evidence. How willing will anyone be to change their minds, if the response is "that doesn't matter, you're fired…

Well, this executive voluntarily resigned. He could have just as easily issued a statement condemning his younger self for their sexist and puerile remarks, disavowing his older views and committing himself to doing better. Plenty of folks have done just that, and found themselves growing and improving as people. There are plenty of loud politicians that, since the 1970s, have supported gay rights; Bernie comes to mi…

"Well, this executive voluntarily resigned."

In this context, "voluntarily resignation" usually means "resign now, or you're fired":

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/23/business/23family.html

"He could have just as easily issued a statement condemning his younger self for their sexist and puerile remarks, disavowing his older views and committing himself to doing better."

He did do all of these things. It didn't matter, he was still fired. No forgiveness allowed.

"Plenty of folks have done just that, and found themselves growing and improving as people."

In my experience, making someone apologize and then firing them anyway rarely leads them to personal growth.

"There are plenty of loud politicians that, since the 1970s, have supported gay rights; Bernie comes to mind [0]."

I don't think even Sanders supported gay marriage in the 80s. The linked clip just says that being gay shouldn't be illegal.

"Indeed I'm not even seeing what's vindictive. The wages of free speech is people reading and thinking about what you say."

Reading, thinking, and responding to speech is good and healthy. "You are never allowed to earn a living, participate in commerce, or support your family for the rest of your life, regardless of what you do or how many times you apologize" is vindictiveness.

Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987

#37

Post by jtbayly » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 11:33 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #21

cbhl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In mathematics, an unsubstantiated armchair opinion is called a "conjecture", and can be subsequently proven or disproven by the same person or another person. If scientists of yore had "remain silent until you find a reason for your opinion" we'd probably still think the sun revolves around the earth.

Mathematicians clearly label their conjectures, but this was phrased as a statement. Surely you are not suggesting that mathematicians go around publishing their guesses with language indistinguishable from their knowledge. Strictly speaking, as you suggest, it wouldn't be wrong to write, "I thought about it, and although I don't have any reason to believe it, the notion that women don't form groups for the sake of c…

> Passing off guesses as knowledge only works as a career if you try to dress up your guesses as knowledge...

What he wrote was essentially common knowledge at the time, not a novel theory that needed defending. That’s why elsewhere in this thread it is pointed out that you can’t judge it by today’s standards. We have different common knowledge today that people use as justifications for their opinions without feeling any need to cite a paper. Some of that knowledge is right and some wrong.

For a modern example, you could take a look at a comment that says his conclusions were wrong without citing any evidence.

Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987

#38

Post by apsec112 » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 11:34 PM UTC

hindsightbias wrote: post #31

apsec112 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says he apologized: "Golightly stepped down Thursday as Boeing’s senior vice president of communications following an employee complaint about the 1987 article, which he called “embarrassingly wrong and offensive.”"

A former Naval Officer and C-Level aplogizing when he gets caught 30 years later is not honorable. The time to do it was decades ago. It’s a wonder who vetted him. He’s not some kid on the internet.

The guy is in his 60s. Asking people to remember everything they have ever written over their entire life, and then publicly retract it as soon as they change their minds about any given portion, is not reasonable. Heck, I had an article published in a student newspaper twelve years ago (in 2008), and even now I barely remember what it says.

Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987

#39

Post by jtbayly » Sat, Jul 04, 2020, 11:35 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #13

jtbayly wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could that statement balance my opinion of how right he was? If the only problem with it is that he didn't provide any sources or reasons to believe that, it is worth pointing out that you have neither provided sources or reasons to believe the opposite.

whatshisface wasn't trying to prove the opposite. It was a simple statement about somebody not showing evidence while making pronouncements about how half the human race behaves. You probably wouldn't have a problem with this in most other contexts; if somebody made a sweeping technical claim with no explanation or particular qualification, you'd laugh.

Whatshisface claimed the opposite and cited no evidence, just like the original that he’s criticizing.

Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987

#40

Post by whatshisface » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 12:08 AM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #37

whatshisface wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mathematicians clearly label their conjectures, but this was phrased as a statement. Surely you are not suggesting that mathematicians go around publishing their guesses with language indistinguishable from their knowledge. Strictly speaking, as you suggest, it wouldn't be wrong to write, "I thought about it, and although I don't have any reason to believe it, the notion that women don't form groups for the sake of c…

> Passing off guesses as knowledge only works as a career if you try to dress up your guesses as knowledge... What he wrote was essentially common knowledge at the time, not a novel theory that needed defending. That’s why elsewhere in this thread it is pointed out that you can’t judge it by today’s standards. We have different common knowledge today that people use as justifications for their opinions without feelin…

From a social standpoint, uncritically repeating what everybody thinks is acceptable. From a scientific standpoint, it is not.