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

311–320 of 392 posts

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

#311

Post by JulianMorrison »

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…

The trouble is that the default setting, the do-nothing, don't-care follow-the-norm setting, is anti-feminist. It's the "double standard" in dating. It's women as decoration. It's compulsory sexuality. It's misogynist porn. And, as here, it's sexist jokes. This is why feminism says we live in a patriarchy still.

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

#312

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#313

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#314

Post by wpietri »

bmelton wrote: post #307
wpietri wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. By calling them both "fire" you're drawing an equivalence between a bot posting sexist jokes and a bot posting feminist quotes. Or more simply, an equivalence between sexist and non-sexist behavior. See the problem?

Honestly, no. They're both, in and of themselves, wrong . I therefore look down on both parties almost equally. I'm not saying that what she did is any more wrong than the actions that prompted it, however, it certainly isn't right , and that's why I don't consider it appropriate. Regardless of equating it to 'fire', which I certainly didn't intend for anyone to take literally as it is an idiom, I'd think my synopsis…

I'd say that when comparing sexist and non-sexist behavior, only one of them is necessarily wrong. That being the former in case you're missing it.

Indeed, by posting feminist quotes rather than something equally but oppositely sexist, I'd say she de-escalated the situation. So she in fact did not take the most annoying way out.

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

#315

Post by AndyKelley »

unalone wrote: post #28
oskarth wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I find the most fascinating is that she did everything exactly right and people still feel like she did something wrong. She didn't go to her supervisor and she didn't turn it into a drama. Instead she fought the problem in its own arena by making a IRC-bot to combat the problem, and not only that: the IRC-bot is only selectively used in the exact situation that is seen as problematic and it does so by writing e…

Really? What do you want? We want women to shut up and stop telling us that there's a problem with how we behave, because it's rude to tell people there's something innately wrong with their behavior. Also it takes so much time and effort on our parts to try and behave like better people that it hardly seems like we should bother. The problem, for many people, is not that the issue is being handled indelicately. It's…

How does this satiric post help at all? We all know what bigots sound like. We don't need a demonstration. You haven't pointed out anything profound. You haven't suggested any way to fix the situation. You have only distracted people who couldn't tell whether or not you were serious and wasted readers' time.

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

#316

Post by agateform »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #309
agateform wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just wanted to point out that being anti-feminist does not necessarily mean anti woman or anti womans rights. I do agree that sexist jokes are a bad thing and not only when done against woman.

I'd accept that from a womanist who feels white women's feminism has failed her, or a lesbian or trans woman fed up of being ostracised, or a poor woman annoyed at middle-class feminism's priorities. But most groups who say "I'm not anti woman, just anti feminism" are flat out patriarchal, whether the flavour is religious or "men's rights", it's the same garbage. And I won't accept it from a man at all.

>But most groups who say "I'm not anti woman, just anti feminism" are flat out patriarchal, whether the flavour is religious or "men's rights", it's the same garbage.

Unfortunately my perception is similar to yours. I have seen enough nut case traditionalists and misogyny to not want to get involved with mans rights movement. Traditionalist ideology hurts MRM and I feel they are shooting themselves on the foot by allowing this sort of thing.

This is why I can't see my self associating with MRM or Feminists. Both groups can be pretty extreme although both have some (in my opinion) good goals like womans rights to choose & legal paternal surrender.

Thank you for your comment.

edit: I must say that I have seen MRM people against traditional patriarchy. Their idea is that a patriarchy does not allow men to be free.

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

#317

Post by readymade »

bmelton wrote: post #307
wpietri wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. By calling them both "fire" you're drawing an equivalence between a bot posting sexist jokes and a bot posting feminist quotes. Or more simply, an equivalence between sexist and non-sexist behavior. See the problem?

Honestly, no. They're both, in and of themselves, wrong . I therefore look down on both parties almost equally. I'm not saying that what she did is any more wrong than the actions that prompted it, however, it certainly isn't right , and that's why I don't consider it appropriate. Regardless of equating it to 'fire', which I certainly didn't intend for anyone to take literally as it is an idiom, I'd think my synopsis…

What do you think is wrong about writing an IRC bot that responds to "that's what she said" with quotes from famous women?

I'm curious. Because the only answers I can imagine are (a) you think writing IRC bots is wrong, (b) you think that displaying quotes from famous women is wrong, or (c) engaging in public discourse that politely and indirectly calls attention to sexist behavior is wrong.

I'll wait. I'd really love to hear more of your opinion on this.

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

#318

Post by rayiner »

wpietri wrote: post #310
rayiner wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jokes don't rely on the fact or imply that most men are abusers of women. The jokes rely on the listener associating the behavior in question with the stereotypical behavior of the group. E.g. most Catholics do not have dozens of children, but the behavior is associated with that group enough such that a joke can rely on the listener making that association.

I think stereotypes imply the characteristic to be common. In your example, I think the stereotype is that Catholics have large families (which I believe was true at one point), and the dozens is exaggeration for effect.

The characteristic need not be common, just easily associated.

See the study here for rape and sexual abuse statistics: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault.... Even if we limit "rape" to situations involving violence and the threats of violence,[1] the study found about 1.3% of the college students questioned admitted to acts that met the definition of rape, and 1.1% admitted to acts that met the definition of sexual abuse of a child.

Now, for example, are even 1% of muslims terrorists? Almost certainly not, but the behavior is common enough that it is easily associated with the group, and readily supports many jokes relying on that association.

The relevant behavior does not need to be common, just common enough such that it is readily conjured up in the mind of the listener in response to the joke.

[1] If you include people who answered "yes" to the question of whether they had sex with someone who was "too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)" the number skyrockets to 6.4%.

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

#319

Post by [deleted] »

wpietri wrote: post #310
rayiner wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jokes don't rely on the fact or imply that most men are abusers of women. The jokes rely on the listener associating the behavior in question with the stereotypical behavior of the group. E.g. most Catholics do not have dozens of children, but the behavior is associated with that group enough such that a joke can rely on the listener making that association.

I think stereotypes imply the characteristic to be common. In your example, I think the stereotype is that Catholics have large families (which I believe was true at one point), and the dozens is exaggeration for effect.

[deleted]

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

#320

Post by bmelton »

readymade wrote: post #317
bmelton wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, no. They're both, in and of themselves, wrong . I therefore look down on both parties almost equally. I'm not saying that what she did is any more wrong than the actions that prompted it, however, it certainly isn't right , and that's why I don't consider it appropriate. Regardless of equating it to 'fire', which I certainly didn't intend for anyone to take literally as it is an idiom, I'd think my synopsis…

What do you think is wrong about writing an IRC bot that responds to "that's what she said" with quotes from famous women? I'm curious. Because the only answers I can imagine are (a) you think writing IRC bots is wrong, (b) you think that displaying quotes from famous women is wrong, or (c) engaging in public discourse that politely and indirectly calls attention to sexist behavior is wrong. I'll wait. I'd really lov…

Regardless of what is said out loud, I believe the author's intent was to annoy her tormentors into submission.

I do not think that writing IRC bots is wrong (though I would consider them irritating), I do not think quotes from famous women is necessarily wrong (though one could suppose a non-curated list could potentially go awry).

I don't have a problem with polite discourse, but I don't think that's what this was. I assume that she was polite when she brought it up before, when she was ignored. Had she stopped there, or gone to a superior, or an HR department, then I believe she would have been in the right.

Again, I'm not saying that what she did was offensive. Just that it wasn't the high road. It isn't the right thing to do.

She isn't Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus, she's just trying to turn their own antics against them. As a prank, I'd applaud it. As a means of peacably resolving an uncomfortable situation, I consider it a failure, at best.

Post reply on HN