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

631–640 of 829 posts

Re: "Lighten up"

#631

Post by john_flintstone »

asto wrote: post #620
john_flintstone wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why not? If a man (fellow coworker) has nice biceps, I say it (I'm not gay, not trying to seduce him, but being fit is very high on my values list). If a woman (fellow coworker) is cute, I say it (I'm not trying to seduce her, I just think it's nice to give compliments). What about if a man has a nice bulge in his pants? Will you compliment him on that too? Because a reference to a low cut top is a reference to what…

Incorrect. Cleavage is socially acceptable. Having a bit of my penis sticking out of my pants is not.

I'm not talking about sticking out of your pants. I'm talking about a nice tight pair that shows off your 'assets'.

Re: "Lighten up"

#632

Post by hythloday »

Tichy wrote: post #625
hythloday wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like a set of instructions about how to talk to women properly Like you would talk to men. Simple.

Somebody has to make a move eventually, though, or else no sex, no kids and mankind would die out. I agree the work place does not seem the best starting point, but in the real world it turns out to be (see other posts, 18% of committed couples met at work).

Do you really ask women out by walking up to them with bulging eyes and saying "wow, that top makes your tits look great"? There are sexist and non-sexist ways to ask a woman at work out. The non-sexist ways give her the ability to easily decline and not feel bad--much like you'd treat a man, in fact. "Would you like to go for a drink on Friday" is something you might say to someone of either gender, no?

Re: "Lighten up"

#633

Post by Tichy »

richardk wrote: post #166
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mens' clothes are completely different from womens', though, particularly in what constitutes "sexually attractive" clothing (which the term "low-cut dress" seems to imply). Do women have a higher body temperature that they have to wear less clothing to account for?

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?

Sure it's possible, but I don't get to wear my pyjama at work. In fact in most places I would feel awkward with shorts, too. (Now we could argue if it is the work place or the pyjama wearer who is at fault, fair point).

Re: "Lighten up"

#634

Post by thhaar »

My £0.02: having worked in a few teams in the UK, France and Sweden over the course of the last decade, I'd say this is a cultural effect that can be won over locally by a certain company or social group, but would require a coordinated and concerted effort on behalf of men and women to stamp this kind of stealth-bullying out of social acceptability. I fully support the men who will help call out this kind of behaviour, and am also fully satisfied that this issue has front-paged HN for as long as it has.

From my own experience of work, cultural norms and popular issues, although only the smallest of samples, I'd say that (younger) Swedes have a much better handle on the balance of respect and gender roles than their peers in FR or the UK (England, specifically). Even the most subtle attempt at sexism is picked up on to a degree where it is unacceptable to at least publicly chance a remark of this kind in the workplace or in the media. Why this is I can only guess.

Prevalent (older) attitudes may account for the continued pay discrepancy between men and women and all that this reflects, but I'd say the Swedes have a very much less subtly-offensive 'working atmosphere' than those I've been part of elsewhere.

Also troubling is the question of 'women/babies/employment', but that's a whole other can of worms; just as a parting shot - men also leave poorly managed jobs when something better in life is offered to them, at least you get up to 9 months warning with women.

Re: "Lighten up"

#635

Post by Tichy »

hythloday wrote: post #632
Tichy wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody has to make a move eventually, though, or else no sex, no kids and mankind would die out. I agree the work place does not seem the best starting point, but in the real world it turns out to be (see other posts, 18% of committed couples met at work).

Do you really ask women out by walking up to them with bulging eyes and saying "wow, that top makes your tits look great"? There are sexist and non-sexist ways to ask a woman at work out. The non-sexist ways give her the ability to easily decline and not feel bad--much like you'd treat a man, in fact. "Would you like to go for a drink on Friday" is something you might say to someone of either gender, no?

I wouldn't say it, but to be honest, I would definitely think it. And if you say you wouldn't, I call you a liar. Also, I am lucky because I am in a steady relationship and don't have to worry about dating anymore.

What I am going on about is that the "I want to stare at your tits guy" might not be sexist so much as simply inept at dealing with attraction and dating. Calling him a sexist jerk is not going to resolve the issue.

It is not excusing the behavior, but seeking understanding and solutions.

Of course sexist jerks also do exists and have to be dealt with in another way. Also, believe it or not, but if such things go on at a work place, it might make men feel uncomfortable, too. Personally I don't enjoy sexist jokes.

Re: "Lighten up"

#636

Post by rmc »

einhverfr wrote: post #593
jiggy2011 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

job interviews in which she was shown pictures of her interviewer's bare ass; What the hell? How on earth did that happen, I really can't imagine why anyone would think that doing this could possibly have a positive income without having drunk a minimum of 5 beers.

You know here's the thing. I have had female co-workers complain about being asked in interviews at other companies as to whether they'd quit their jobs (rather than taking paid/unpaid leave) if they had kids. I would quietly listen, take notes in my heads as to which companies to avoid working at. There are two things that come to mind. These companies are ones where shit floats so to speak and nothing good will com…

Wow, in the European Union that would be illegal. I'd presume the USA has similar laws banning discrimination based on family status (that might fall under gender aswell). In which case the reply to that question should be "Isn't it against the law for you to ask that?"

Re: "Lighten up"

#637

Post by rmc »

chunkybacon wrote: post #474
ajross wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The rule is: some girls like it, some girls don't. You have to know what they will like before you open your mouth.

"girls"?! Do you know many female children that wear low cut tops?

Or do you mean adult women?

Re: "Lighten up"

#638

Post by DanBC »

ErrantX wrote: post #619
gurkendoktor wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, this may not be tempting, because you may be on the kind of team where you just know that, if you volunteer to do some thankless task, you'll be stuck with it forever. That is only the second thing that came to my mind. The other "danger" is being the only guy to act like that, then looking like a desperate "white knight" to the brogrammer crowd. Which sucks, because these exist and can be terribly creep…

You have to be careful how you do it as well. Because I offered to do a task like that (it wasn't note taking, I think it was making tea) saying something like [names changed] "Chris, I'm not sure why Amy is always asked to make the tea! I'll happily do it". Which I thought was politely volunteering whilst also publicly raising my bosses problematic behaviour - an educational experience. I got glowering dagger stares…

There's some research showing that people associate "bullying" with childhood. After that they think that being bullied makes them weak; or that they couldn't be bullies because that's something that kids do and adults are rational.

This NewYorker article (which I found via Longform) about the trial of Dharun Ravi (over the completed suicide of Tyler Clementi) has a tiny snippet about that.

(http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_...)

Your experience shows just how serious the problem is - people don't know or think they're being sexist; the target of that behaviour don't want to speak out because they're told to "just lighten up" or they don't want to appear "weak" and other people don't speak out because it feels awkward or not the right time or whatever.

And it's not just sexism; there's 'hetero normative' and racist and anti-disabled stuff going on all the time. And this anti-disability stuff is important for programmers - people on the Autistic spectrum (which covers Asperger's Syndrome) are covered by English Equalities laws, yet we see open mocking of people with Asperger's.

Re: "Lighten up"

#639

Post by jasonlotito »

olliesaunders wrote: post #627
ErrantX wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be careful how you do it as well. Because I offered to do a task like that (it wasn't note taking, I think it was making tea) saying something like [names changed] "Chris, I'm not sure why Amy is always asked to make the tea! I'll happily do it". Which I thought was politely volunteering whilst also publicly raising my bosses problematic behaviour - an educational experience. I got glowering dagger stares…

Amy shouldn’t be blaming herself for being the victim of sexist behavior. You could have tried to convince her of that. Even though you didn’t, you weren’t an idiot here. Aside from her internal negative reaction, the situation was actually improved.

From the sound of it, she's not. She's blaming ErrantX. What I gather is, she didn't feel offended, and rather, by him doing what he did, make her feel as if others saw her as being "offended."

I think that is much more likely the case.

The question is, should ErrantX be offended for other people? If he's offended, he should speak up. But being offended for other people implies they are also offended. And, if they aren't, sends the wrong signals.

Re: "Lighten up"

#640

Post by Anderkent »

rmc wrote: post #637
chunkybacon wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule is: some girls like it, some girls don't. You have to know what they will like before you open your mouth.

"girls"?! Do you know many female children that wear low cut tops? Or do you mean adult women?

Via google: Girl:

A young or relatively young woman

A young woman of a specified kind or having a specified job - a career girl

Women who mix socially or belong to a particular group, team, or profession - I look forward to having lunch with the girls

Perhaps this is a language issue, but it's just as common for me to call my male friends 'boys' as my female friends 'girls', even though all are adults. Not sure what the issue here is.

Post reply on HN