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

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#71

Post by aplusbi »

Swizec wrote: post #27

I've watched the video ... if that is sexist, then what about this perfume commercial with a half naked Matthew M McConaughey? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL83sQG8fFA Or all those commercials with half naked men aimed at selling male underwear to women (so their man will look just as good). Is that sexism too? Why does nobody cry about that type of sexism? Guess what I'm asking, in general, why is sexism towards w…

The difference is in what is being marketed and to whom. Perfume is all about presentation and is marketed towards women.

Geeklist is a social media startup marketed towards both genders.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#72

Post by redthrowaway »

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…

Exactly. You could make the argument that the video was mildly sexist (though no more so than the rest of the advertising industry), but to demand it be taken down because "it's fucking gross" is idiotic. I would have simply told her to get lost.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#73

Post by jemfinch »

megamark16 wrote: post #48
japhyr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a higher moral ground than just what is legal, and what people are willing to do for money.

Agreed, and a lot of it has to do with the context. If your're selling swimsuits, then you hire models, have a photo shoot, and sell swimsuits. But in the technology industry, where a lot of people are working very hard to encourage more women to get involved, there's no place for this type of objectification of women. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

That's why we're all seeking to ban pornography, right?

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#74

Post by rorrr »

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…

What a about something like this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yD8EzRoZItM/TuWQwWlZNyI/AAAAAAAABc...

Every woman I've talked to LOVES this kinds of photos. I've never ever hear anybody protesting this (except maybe some prude religious idiots).

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#75

Post by swah »

envex wrote: post #21

Is it only the fact that they're scantily clad? Do women also find the fact that only women actors are used in cleaning commercials "fucking gross"?

Isn't that just because 9 times out of 10 those products are bought by women?

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#76

Post by Cushman »

arien wrote: post #49

This is slowly getting out of hand. I would even dare to speak of censorship. Who cares what a random girl in a video is doing? Was she forced to appear in there? Then what's the problem? It's not even "fucking gross", it's just a couple of people giggling around being silly! I'm a girl and never felt objectified by bosses/colleagues in the tech world, nor suffered any kind of sexism. But maybe it's because I never c…

I don't think you have a good working definition of censorship. There is no authority figure here, and no one is being silenced; what's happening is people speaking up about things that make them feel hurt, threatened, and alienated. This is how things work in a free society.

It's great for that you've never felt subject to sexism. (Says in your profile you're in the UK, might have something to do with it-- I don't know if you've read anything about the political climate here in the States, it's a little actively hostile towards women right now.) But I'm afraid what you're saying is wishful thinking. The fact of the matter is some people are assholes, and it's quite possible to do your job well and still not be respected, and in our industry that falls much, much heavier on women.

There are fewer women in tech today than thirty years ago. We have a real problem, and ignoring it isn't helping anything.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#77

Post by ceol »

arien wrote: post #49

This is slowly getting out of hand. I would even dare to speak of censorship. Who cares what a random girl in a video is doing? Was she forced to appear in there? Then what's the problem? It's not even "fucking gross", it's just a couple of people giggling around being silly! I'm a girl and never felt objectified by bosses/colleagues in the tech world, nor suffered any kind of sexism. But maybe it's because I never c…

> I'm a girl and never felt objectified by bosses/colleagues in the tech world, nor suffered any kind of sexism.

Many others have, though, and you shouldn't dismiss their experiences because you were fairly lucky.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#78

Post by ovi256 »

pja wrote: post #51
nknight wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't have enough information to differentiate the case you're making from "I don't like you being uppity about this thing which I care about and I was going to make right, but now I won't, because you're unprofessional and it's hard to believe you'll appreciate if I'll fix it" or even from "I don't like you being uppity about this thing which I care about and I'm going to make right, but you're unprofessional and I'd like you to tone it down so I'm going to slap you on the wrist until you do", which is completely innocent.

Think rationality/LessWrong differentiation. It looks to me that you just don't have enough bits to differentiate between the hypotheses.

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#79

Post by Jem »

arien wrote: post #49

This is slowly getting out of hand. I would even dare to speak of censorship. Who cares what a random girl in a video is doing? Was she forced to appear in there? Then what's the problem? It's not even "fucking gross", it's just a couple of people giggling around being silly! I'm a girl and never felt objectified by bosses/colleagues in the tech world, nor suffered any kind of sexism. But maybe it's because I never c…

"I'm a girl and never felt objectified by bosses/colleagues in the tech world, nor suffered any kind of sexism."

I can tell. How sad that you should use you lucky position to blast those who have, rather than showing women that it doesn't have to be that way.

Nice insinuation that those of us unlucky enough to have been on the receiving end of sexism are not working hard enough to earn respect... sigh. Sisterhood, eh?

Re: OH HAI SEXISM

#80

Post by japhyr »

darklajid wrote: post #62
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 agree that women are underrepresented in our field (and certainly others). I have two issues with your post. Maybe they are a failure to understand what you're saying (blame it on reading comprehension in that case): 1) ".. has negatively affected most women's ability to be treated professionally and respectfully" If you reread those lines, would you still choose them? _Most_ women's ability to be treated in either…

1) ".. has negatively affected most women's ability to be treated professionally and respectfully" If you reread those lines, would you still choose them? _Most_ women's ability to be treated in either way or both is negatively affected? Maybe I stumble when I read 'most' and change that mentally to 90% or so - which my gut rejects as unreasonably large and way over the top.

Yes, I'd write this the same way. I'm referring to the subtle effects that the real katie wrote about yesterday in "Lighten up". Women are treated professionally and respectfully in many situations, but the subtle effects of what she described add up, and do indeed affect most women.

Post reply on HN