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

OH HAI SEXISM

storify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#51

Post by pja »

nknight wrote: post #13
untog wrote: post #2

I don't know if this is going to be an unpopular post, but I don't think this is such a clearcut case of sexism as the API Jam/"Lighten Up" stuff we've seen recently. I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA. But I think that everyone in this story went about things the wrong way. Shanley Kane had a legitimate complai…

It's a story about sexism. The "PR" in this case is basically a "How to be Sexist" guide. They hit all the high points -- "looking for attention", "double standard", "I bought you drinks!", and, of course, threatening the woman's economic welfare. It's absolutely, unmistakably clear that this is a company whose culture is inherently and proudly sexist.

You missed "tone argument" (as in, "I don't like you being uppity about this thing which I don't care about so I'm going to draw attention to the language you chose to use rather than deal with the actual issue at hand.") but otherwise yup, that pretty much hits all the high points.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#52

Post by Pewpewarrows »

lhnz wrote: post #37
Pewpewarrows wrote: post #3

I really hope that everyone is as equally offended and quick to point out sexism for every advertisement, television show, and movie featuring a very fit, shirtless man doing a stereotypical "masculine" activity (construction work, heavy lifting, playing a sport, or fighting each other).

Are you trying to assert that a couple of half-naked women in an advertisement for no reason is analogous to a shirtless man in the context of a masculine activity during a film? I would love to see your reasoning because I believe the context dictates the offensiveness of the message. Also I can detect the implication that somebody is a hypocrite if they do not sit there and correctly judge every single case of sexi…

I should have specified that those actions take place out of context. Such as showing a half-naked man riding on a horse down the beach to sell a product to women.

Obviously everyone has different sensitivities, but if you cannot objectively identify sexism of both men and women in advertisements, yes you're a hypocrite.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#53

Post by lhnz »

Sanz should have realised that what he saw as her attacking him and his brand was actually a girl trying to get some social justice. If he removed his ego from the equation he would have understood that a thoughtful response and change in behaviour from him and his associates would have provided a PR win-win for him and a happy response from the women that his company may serve.

I literally can't believe he tried to play the victim card and to get her employer involved. Knowing how to handle yourself and how to represent your company under stress is very important.

There is a great opportunity for somebody to start an association of start-up founders that are female-friendly and get people to join. Creating a social contract to do the right thing would help people lead in the right direction without feeling criticised.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#54

Post by LaGrange »

Pewpewarrows wrote: post #42
japhyr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a legitimate counter-argument. The use of women in advertising, and our social treatment of women in general, has negatively affected most women's ability to be treated professionally and respectfully. The use of fit, shirtless men in advertising does little to hold men back in general.

I never intended it to be a counter-argument. I was just pointing out how hypocritical it would be if you don't agree that half-naked men in advertising is as equally sexist and offensive.

Actually, it does get mentioned a lot, both in discussion of difference of portrayal, how it hurts men who don't actually want to strive towards displayed image (or, for example, have little chance of developing such a body type), and how it hurts women (because a heterosexual woman will probably end up in a relationship with a guy, and in our culture, it's not a question if he's influenced by the mainstream image, but how badly).

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#55

Post by [deleted] »

envex wrote: post #36
bct wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do women also find the fact that only women actors are used in cleaning commercials "fucking gross"?" It's not gross in the same way, but yeah, that is a great example of sexism!

I understand that it sucks, but it's targeted marketing. Same reason the use kids in toy commercials and sports in beer commercials.

[deleted]

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#56

Post by koeselitz »

untog wrote: post #2

I don't know if this is going to be an unpopular post, but I don't think this is such a clearcut case of sexism as the API Jam/"Lighten Up" stuff we've seen recently. I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA. But I think that everyone in this story went about things the wrong way. Shanley Kane had a legitimate complai…

> The actual root sexism isn't the story here. It's a story about PR, or about making- and dealing with- complaints.

I think it is, actually. This method of dealing with women who speak up - veiled threats, sniping about "tone," complaints that 'we're not being treated fairly!' - is the actual root sexism. It's not just a PR problem or a problem with complaints. The anger here focused directly and solely on the woman who made the complaint, in an ugly and crass way, and that qualifies as more inherently sexist than anything in the video.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#57

Post by ForrestN »

untog wrote: post #2

I don't know if this is going to be an unpopular post, but I don't think this is such a clearcut case of sexism as the API Jam/"Lighten Up" stuff we've seen recently. I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA. But I think that everyone in this story went about things the wrong way. Shanley Kane had a legitimate complai…

You're right, the original sexism definitely isn't the story. But the way the geeklist guys handled it wasn't just bad PR. As Kane pointed out several times, the way they treated her was part of the same orthodoxy that gave rise to the sexism in the first place.

Threatening a woman for speaking out, repeatedly invoking one's "family", demanding politeness, etc., saying she's desperate for attention, all have overtones that aligned with the sexist narrative in an unfortunate way. When two men are accused of condoning sexism respond by trying to bully the woman who's complaining, that means something different than just bad PR.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#58

Post by bct »

envex wrote: post #36
bct wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do women also find the fact that only women actors are used in cleaning commercials "fucking gross"?" It's not gross in the same way, but yeah, that is a great example of sexism!

I understand that it sucks, but it's targeted marketing. Same reason the use kids in toy commercials and sports in beer commercials.

Just because it makes sense and makes money doesn't mean it's ok.

If sports-lovers had their options limited in life because of stereotypes perpetuated (in part) by beer commercials, then that would be a problem too.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#59

Post by dlikhten »

dbuns wrote: post #47
mhurron wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing Nope. They're paid for it, there is nothing illegal about it and I fail to see anything wrong with targeting perceived likes of a segment of the population to move product. In fact, I believe that's what advertising is. I see no difference between a woman in a bikini or a celebrity in an ad.

+1 As long as consumers choose to us services that monetize primarily on ads, (Facebook, Google, et. Al), I say game on. I may not personally agree on a style basis, but focusing on the morality of a business model seems like a way better time sync than trying to get everyone to capitulate to your opinions.

My point with all this is that you can advertise however you want. Naked women, women in bikinis, who cares. However if you do some blatant sexism and want to attract intelligent women into your ranks, or want to attract intelligent men who give a shit, you fail. Furthermore you can expect a PR backlash. And of course will try to justify yourself.

The reason for this is obvious: they have NO INTENTION to take the video down, and will do anything they can to stop criticism. Classical Trolling.

The appropriate response would have been:

"We are sorry for this, and did not realize the sexism portrayed, we will begin work asap to move away from such advertising."

That would have been the end of the conversation. And would have boosted their cred if anything.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#60

Post by untog »

koeselitz wrote: post #56
untog wrote: post #2

I don't know if this is going to be an unpopular post, but I don't think this is such a clearcut case of sexism as the API Jam/"Lighten Up" stuff we've seen recently. I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA. But I think that everyone in this story went about things the wrong way. Shanley Kane had a legitimate complai…

> The actual root sexism isn't the story here. It's a story about PR, or about making- and dealing with- complaints. I think it is, actually. This method of dealing with women who speak up - veiled threats, sniping about "tone," complaints that 'we're not being treated fairly!' - is the actual root sexism. It's not just a PR problem or a problem with complaints. The anger here focused directly and solely on the woman…

The anger here focused directly and solely on the woman who made the complaint, in an ugly and crass way, and that qualifies as more inherently sexist than anything in the video.

Well... no, because the anger would have to have been because she was a woman rather than just directed at a woman. Being angry at a woman isn't sexist.

I don't see any evidence that the responses were that gender-specific. If I'd made similar complaints they might have also called me out on my tone.

Post reply on HN