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

"Lighten up"

therealkatie.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 829 posts

Re: "Lighten up"

#301

Post by javascriptlol »

wpietri wrote: post #280
javascriptlol wrote: post #219

The problem with these posts is that we only hear the horror stories. We get a sensational picture of constant harassment from one unlucky person. Most of what was written here was outright harassment. In many places it would be seen as outright illegal for the company to allow this to continue. I take issue with complaining about "subtle" sexism, however. Life is not fair for men either. In fact, unfairness is unive…

Your justification of bullying and aggression is just sad. Life isn't intrinsically fair, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to make it so. Further, that men don't have perfect lives does not somehow imply that sexism is ok. We can end it. We will.

Your response is sad, because you accuse me of things I never said. I never said "bullying" was justified. Infectious disease is a fact of life. We can wash our hands and prevent the worst plagues, but there is every reason to think that total elimination of disease would be ecologically unsound for humans. People need an immune system. Do you think that I am now "justifying" HIV? It's not "sexism" to be a prejudiced human being.

Re: "Lighten up"

#302

Post by hythloday »

daenz wrote: post #265
hythloday wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming by villainized you mean down-voted, pretty much every grey comment in this thread is by a man making the assumption that their experience of the world is women's experience. That's just not true; claiming so is not "rationality"--it's literally the definition of bias.

> That's just not true; claiming so is not "rationality"--it's literally the definition of bias. There is no person without bias. Just being a different person is a bias. It's ridiculous to exclude opinions based on the existence of any bias. > Assuming by villainized you mean down-voted No. I mean the twisting of words. The very comment I was replying to implicated me as "sexist asshole." There's some vitriol in thi…

Do you recognise the difference between examined bias and unexamined bias?

Re: "Lighten up"

#303

Post by [deleted] »

rosser wrote: post #269
Jabbles wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope that my criticism helps. I think "I can imagine myself saying" implies he thought it was "reasonable".

I think "I can imagine myself saying" implies he thought it was "reasonable". No, it doesn't. I can imagine myself saying all kinds patently disturbing and offensive things — things which, to a certainty, are not remotely "reasonable" — but I would never actually say, let alone mean, them. By analogy, I can imagine pulling my Leatherman out of its sheath and sticking the blade between someone's ribs. Doesn't mean it'…

[deleted]

Re: "Lighten up"

#304

Post by drostie »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #187

Will Schumpter win out here? Presumably in a perfect labour market competant women will leave companies like this and go work for the non sexist competition I believe that will be true for companies that do not embrace for example lean product discovery or software as transformative. But I just don't think the labour Market is really perfect enough to make this kind of difference but even so, start looking at jobsite…

Cass R. Sunstein in Free Markets and Social Justice offers a chapter with an interesting perspective called "Why Markets Don't Stop Discrimination." The book is actually one of the more readable economics works I've seen, and the author gives a more in-depth account of why competitive markets would normally be believed to work the way you're saying you expect them to work.

The basic idea is that even if you operate in a competitive market, your customers and associates may not: and due to this, competitive markets can sometimes only float the ball to some socially-appropriate level. So, let's talk about someone who stops doing business with you because they know your programmers are female and they hold some subconscious belief that female code is of lower quality. (I mean, if you called them on it they would say "no, of course not!" but somewhere deep inside they'd prefer the familiar and they discriminate institutionally rather than individually.) Now your incentives to discriminate are bound up in a complex: that complex contains their tastes, and what they're willing to pay to get a product which tastes right to them. If they're in a very competitive market they might not be able to afford any overhead, but if they're a personal user, or they are turning a profit, they get to choose based on their tastes alone and then your financial incentive is to also institutionally discriminate. The whole point is that discrimination might be "economically rational" while nondiscrimination might be "social justice" and therefore they can come at odds -- which is more or less the topic of the book.

I found it an interesting idea.

Re: "Lighten up"

#305

Post by sukuriant »

yelsgib wrote: post #246
kevinalexbrown wrote: post #140

As the woman, I've been the only person in the group asked to put together a pot luck (presumably, this work is beneath the males). I've been the only one asked to take notes in a meeting... even if I'm the one who's presenting (because my title really should be 'secretary who we let on the servers'). This, more than the jokes and comments, is the meat of the problem. Inappropriate jokes can be much more easily addre…

In my mind, an important point here is that NO ONE should be asked to put together a pot luck. Why does anyone think this kind of thing is appropriate in the workplace? It makes me want to vomit when workplace boss becomes social boss. If anyone ever told me to put together a pot luck my immediate response would be "go fuck yourself."

You're getting quite a bit of flak for this. You got a sucky boss? I rather like my co-workers, and potlucks are just one method of team-building/friendship making that can be had at work. No, work buddies should never be your only friends, but to have a pleasant time around co-workers, and to have team-building events such as those? There's nothing wrong with that; and, I would argue it helps to create a condusive and lower-friction environment.

Re: "Lighten up"

#306

Post by loganfrederick »

msbarnett wrote: post #206
seanc722 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm.. Why does it have to be a low cut dress. I see plenty of light dresses that would be suitable for professional situations that wouldnt bring out these comments. Men should be allowed o have there shirts unbuttoned down to their chest because their chests are hot from all the hair?

> I see plenty of light dresses that would be suitable for professional situations that wouldnt bring out these comments. Am I seeing this? Are you saying that if she didn't want to hear inappropriate comments, she shouldn't have dressed that way?

I think most people in most modern societies would agree a line should be drawn somewhere.

If she wore a bikini to work, is it really fair to expect every guy to not say something? Now, that "something" should be closer to "you should change your outfit" than "I'd hit that", but still, the responsibility for the dress and generally accepted code of conduct falls on the woman in that case.

I don't see this stance as sexist because, as others have noted, we expect similar conduct from men.

Re: "Lighten up"

#307

Post by MartinCron »

klausa wrote: post #87

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…

I think it's really brave of you to own up to this. So often people develop a sort of bunker mentality and can't see other perspectives.

If there's hope for you, there's hope for all of us.

Re: "Lighten up"

#308

Post by LaGrange »

irahul wrote: post #231
LaGrange wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only thing is, this would not be coming to partners defense, but pointless chest-thumping. Now, I think I know what he meant by writing that, and I doubt he'd actually do anything other than being nice to her and supporting her in whatever she chooses to do with it, but the expression still matters. The brainwashing gets us all. It's sad when it gets us while we're trying to be supportive. The proper expression is "I…

> The proper expression is "I was horrified and angered by it," I was horrified and angered by it, and I know very well that assholes who show their bare butt pictures in interviews are incorrigible bastards, and if I happen to meet one, I am afraid I won't be able to contain myself(not too sure I would want to), so it was for the best I wasn't around.

That's what I mean: he apparently had issues with containing own instincts. And by saying "I am afraid I won't be able to contain myself" you actually state more-or-less the same — that you're aggressive and prone to act aggressively against your own better judgement.

Yeah, sure, people like him that should be shunned, and preferably prosecuted. But, actually, one of the reasons they feel free to do things like that is the culture of domination that's not really hurt in any way by people making violent remarks about them.

Re: "Lighten up"

#309

Post by daenz »

hythloday wrote: post #302
daenz wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's just not true; claiming so is not "rationality"--it's literally the definition of bias. There is no person without bias. Just being a different person is a bias. It's ridiculous to exclude opinions based on the existence of any bias. > Assuming by villainized you mean down-voted No. I mean the twisting of words. The very comment I was replying to implicated me as "sexist asshole." There's some vitriol in thi…

Do you recognise the difference between examined bias and unexamined bias?

A man's opinion of this situation is equally valid, since a man is equally influencing the situation. If this was a problem that occurred in a vacuum, away from men, then a man's opinion would have less weight. Are you disagreeing?

Re: "Lighten up"

#310

Post by Jabbles »

klausa wrote: post #275
Jabbles wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope that my criticism helps. I think "I can imagine myself saying" implies he thought it was "reasonable".

I'm sorry, my English is failing me during this conversation, but I'll try to be more precise. I certainly don't think that's reasonable think to say. That part was more like "Fuck, I could actually say something like this, and this is BAD.". It comes from teenage-and-trying-to-get-group-approval-me saying things before slightly-more-adult-and-trying-to-not-be-an-asshole-me has chance to suppress those thoughts or wo…

Hmm, I can see the difference between that and "reasonable". Thanks for the clarification.

In that case the point I made is fairly moot, as it basically agrees with you in that it's a "BAD" thing to say.

Post reply on HN