Slashdot Mirror
Sexist Presentations At Startup Competition Prompt TechCrunch Apology
beaverdownunder writes "Silicon Valley technology conference organizers TechCrunch have been forced to apologize after two Australian men pitched a smartphone app called "Titstare" in front of a nine-year-old girl. The Sydney duo's presentation had the mainly male audience laughing, but angered Twitter users and reignited a debate about sexism in the technology sector. The two entrepreneurs — Jethro Batts, 28, and David Boulton, 24 — pitched their 'tongue in cheek' idea at TechCrunch Disrupt in San Francisco on Sunday after winning expenses for the trip to the US in a similar competition, AngelHack Sydney. In their pitch, Boulton explained to an audience of hundreds (plus thousands online) that it would allow users to 'take photos of yourself, looking at tits'. 'It's science my good friend, science,' Boulton said. TechCrunch also apologized for another pitch for a product called Circle Shake, in which a man simulated masturbation."
What are these people? 10 years old?
the people offended by this. Grow up!
I would have thought that their talk was satirical with an ironic twist, thereby not being sexist at all in the given context.
How wrong the political correctness freaks have proved me once more!
That is not sexism, poor taste at best.
So it's wrong for a guy to talk about "taking a picture of yourself staring at tits" and to simulate masturbation in public, but it's perfectly all right for Miley Cyrus to do the same (and more!) on national television in front of millions of people? I guess they should have done it on MTV; then it would have been ok.
Blood and gore are one thing. Now TITs... how could you?
Although I do believe that overt sexism is a real problem, I think this particular case (as well as many others) is more an example of immaturity. We would not accuse a 10 year old of being "sexist" because he repeats dumb sex jokes to his friends at school, but we DO expect that 10 year old to learn what is appropriate and when. Unfortunately since tech companies overwhelmingly rely on young males as both developers and customers, it tends to amplify and support the worst qualities of that demographic.
I'm offended by your post. You should be forced to apologize.
It would have been just as sexist without her there.
I'm not sure this is sexist. I see it as just plain stupid to present something like this to a conference. It's two young programmers who didn't really think things through.
Whenever any instance of misogyny is usually reported in the tech industry, the usual thing to happen is that the woman gets vilified and constantly harassed via social media. Fortunately, I can't quite imagine that happening to the nine-year-old girl in the audience.
I am offended at your offense.
Nonsense. This is an isolated incident. The people putting women off technology are those going around claiming that all men are like this, and that it's a widespread problem.
and this totally isn't going to ostracize either of you in the worst possible way.
Most startups fail, so when the need a job I wonder how many companies will hire these two ... and will it be against the objections of their HR personnel? And if their startup is successful, will they be able to draw female talent? Will another company want to buy them if they have a rep for being sexist asshats?
Let's hope the venture capitalists have better judgement than these two.
Please post a pic of them on twitter and get them fired, that should help your cause.
About two weeks ago we had this story Silicon Valleys Loony Cheerleading Culture is Out Of Control.
Titstare just seems like a satire on the completely pointless app genre that seems to be the new popular thing to do if you are a young hip coder looking to score big in the new social/app bubble we are in.
Didn't Facebook start as a way to rank girl's appearance at Harvard? Who's to fault these guys, they could be the next Zuckerberg. Titstare is (however tongue-in-cheek) indicative of the trend of creating valueless apps and hyping them up to billion dollar status and then selling to the highest bidder trying to reinvigorate their failing business. (example: AOL/MySpace/HuffPost).
Yes, women need a dickstare app for balance.
Yep it seems juvenile behaviour is promoted by technology start-ups. I am a man but think both apps demonstrated by these morons are inappropriate even in an all-male audience. It is as though Anthony Weiner was not such an anomaly in terms of the behaviour of some males. Grow-up or someone will snip, snip your weiners Jethro and David.
Funny thing is that i believe these guys (and IT people on their 20's/30's) are not that sexist. What we don't need is assho...people like you ready to crucify others for stupid mistakes.
Submitted by beaverdownunder Perhaps!
Silence is a state of mime.
"You treat women like human beings, you must be a particularly physically weak male. Cower before my obviously flawed logic, and limited mental capacity"
Women have boobs. People jerk off. Stop trying to hide obvious human sexuality issues from everyone. EVERYONE does this stuff. Why hide it? This puritan crap needs to go away.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Breaking news: men are fascinated with breasts. It is pretty much universal and isn't sexist.
Obviosuly their display in front of children was uncalled for.
But something to do with gender doesn't mean it is sexist. It is killing what true sexism is, real discrimination.
Here is her story and app.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
well where the fuck are tit app developers supposed to show their stuff then? it's big business you know. as stupid it is it might well be the most viable app at that gathering.
tit apps = bad. apps that let 10 year olds try slutty clothing and makeup virtually good? and then there's shit like this official app https://itunes.apple.com/app/honey-boo-you/id694249248?mt=8
and wtf was 9 year old doing there? it's a fucking pitching gathering.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
While I don't approve of either act, there's a difference for what an entertainer does onstage and what happens in a supposedly "professional" environment.
Entertainers do crazy stuff onstage for attention all the time. This is the industry that gave us Lady Gaga and Kylie Minogue, and introduced the term "wardrobe malfunction." It's a show. It's designed to provoke, and entertain. If you're not into it, don't watch MTV (I don't understand why anyone would have in the last 10 years, but there I go being old again).
A professional technology conference is not an entertainment venue. It's for serious business. Sure, you can inject humor into a presentation or two to make people smile and keep it light. But it's not a venue for shock or "look at me!" attention grabbing. It's where we as an industry come together to share our knowledge with each other. It's where we showcase the best of what being in technology is.
So to inject something fairly deliberately offensive into that environment reflects on the industry. And not just the presenters. It's everyone who didn't walk out. Who laughed. Who applauded at the end. They, more than the presenters, are the problem.
If you're in the industry, you can't "opt out" of going to events like this without hurting yourself professionally. Unlike pure entertainment, it shouldn't be incumbent on the audience to "just don't come if you're offended" in CASE something like this is presented. Either this is who we are as a technology industry, or it's not.
I don't get it 'take photos of yourself, looking at tits' so someone else hold your phone and snaps a pic of you when you stare at boobs of the girl across the street? How is that different from an app? or how would they app that concept?
Just another second banana
i kan reed must be Rand Paul's secret account.
It was a lame joke, end of story
So then why are you complaining of others being humorless? If it is so obviously a lame joke, then it has no value across the board, and seems like a pointless exercise that most can expect to piss someone off. If it were actually very funny on the other hand, there are times that the risk of being offensive is worth it. You will sometimes find people telling offensive jokes if they are funny enough, even though it is quite obviously not expressing any opinion of the joke teller.
These guys aren't retarded, they know it's sexism.
It's supposed to be funny. Laugh.
Seriously, why is everybody always crying like a baby when things aren't 100% polically correct.
Go live on an island with other stuck-up people that can't handle life.
What cause? At what point did I advocate anything?
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
Male feminists are the worst.
have no sense of humor.
You're late to the party, white knight. The village has already been pillaged.
I've never been quite so insulted in a manner that made quite so little sense in my life.
tit apps = bad. apps that let 10 year olds try slutty clothing and makeup virtually good?
So because some people somewhere thing that app is "good" it therefore applies universally and therefore makes complaints about "titstare " hypocritical?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You ever notice how people who hate women for imagined reasons are also good at hating lots of men for imagined reasons too? Like they don't have anything useful to contribute to society, so all they have left is being angry at people who do?
Oh, ffs, the reason you don't make category-targetted jokes like this isn't because it causes offense (it does, and people are entitled to be offended, but that's neither here nor there), but because it's a pointed act of exclusion. Some people are offended by my use of the term "ffs", and that's fine, they are right to be offended, and I'm being offensive here for a reason. But I'm not in the process of making this point telling those same people that they're not welcome in this discussion. Approvingly presenting a product about staring at women's chests in a technology conference very much is.
Myu:
Anybody else catch this? Where I come from, forced apologies aren't apologies.
Great technology, it is very Freudian to think this is simulated masturbation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYxP0LDEsV0
Maybe the people that complained should look at themselves.
Yes, women need a dickstare app for balance.
By all accounts, the whole audience was staring at two of them...
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
How do we stop racism? Stop talking about it.
--Morgan freeman
Same for sexism. Stop getting outraged and making a huge fuss over it, and get over it. People say things that are offensive around me all the time, but my getting outraged wouldnt really change much.
The real problem is that we have reached the point where the puritanical values have caused men's reactions to breasts to become national news, and to where breastfeeding mothers are made to feel they are doing something shameful.
Stupid, stupid Americans. I doubt the Aussies even considered America's hypersensitivity in the process.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Nonsense. This is an isolated incident.
Yes, men staring at tits, talking about staring at tits, finding new ways to stare at tits, finding new tits to stare at, or rating tits is all a new thing, invented by the giant sausage factory that is technology development.
Normally men choose to do this without women around, I suspect that the lack of gender balance at these things tends to bring out the frat boy mentality that would otherwise be suppressed.
Not the guy you're replying to but, I love women. My wife is truly my equal, and I respect her as I would a 'man'. I also respect all races equally (she's white and I'm half black but visibly all black). Having said that I just do not get male feminists. Feminism stopped being about equality in the 70s, today it is about 'womyn' over men sorta the way the black panthers wanted equality by stomping white people.
How do we stop racism? Stop talking about it.
Yeah, Martin Luther King Jr should have just STFU about his dreams.
IOW sometimes shutting up is not the right choice.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Umm, I don't know about you, but when I stare at tits, I prefer them to be female tits. Moobs are just nasty.
Feminists are toxic. Male feminists doubly so. Note that I am not saying that you should not be nice to women (Why just women? Be nice to everybody.) The problem is with the extremists. Sexism can be a problem, but if sexism is your topic to an extent that you become a feminist, then you are the problem, not the sexism. If you're fighting for the eradication of sexist jokes, you're tilting at windmills, and that leaves a mark on your personality that's impossible to ignore. You don't call for someone's head (or for ostracizing them) because they've made an inappropriate presentation. That's the kind of extremism that creates a much more hostile workplace environment than the joke itself. Bad jokes are to be dealt with, not to be done away with.
When did it become the ethical equivalent of a hate crime?
But I'm not in the process of making this point telling those same people that they're not welcome in this discussion. Approvingly presenting a product about staring at women's chests in a technology conference very much is.
Being offended is nothing but a power trip. Get offended, well the OTHER person has to change according to the fucked up mores of our society. Offended people get to exert power over another person - if they allow it.
If one doesn't like what one says, you ignore it. If your precious little snowflake hears something that you want to shelter her from, then you need to discuss with her about what she heard and get a grip because she WILL hear things that are going to offend you time and time again and there's not a damn thing you can do to stop it.
Now, get a fucking grip.
I've never been quite so insulted in a manner that made quite so little sense in my life.
You need to spend more time browsing at -1, then :)
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yeah, remember when we didn't talk about racism back in the early 1800s. Not a peep of discrimination then. Morgan Freeman is an actor, distanced by a fuck-ton of money and a great deal of celebrity from the day-to-day discrimination that a lot of African Americans face.
It's not your job to get outraged, but that doesn't mean that horrible things aren't happening.
Did you not get the memo, men have no place in society anymore! No macho-ism only feminism! You must be one of those new feminine men? My only problem with it, they should not have done it in front of the dear children, that is something for Obama to do like bomb the poor Syrian children.
Ok, so, I'm not the strawman you created. Your entire post can be boiled down to "people care about different things than me and that's obviously and inherently bad"
Feminism isn't an extreme position in the slightest. The broken mental construct that it is is basically pro-discrimination.
I like big tits and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty blouse
And round things in your face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough
'cause you notice those tits was stuffed
Deep in the blouse she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
and wtf was 9 year old doing there? it's a fucking pitching gathering.
She was there pitching her app.
My old roommate had some of the biggest moobs I've ever seen. Then he shaved his chest. I swear I had never seen such an uncanny valley before.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Don't like sexism in the tech industry?
How about getting an engineering degree and making yourselves visible; because more women in the industry, the more visibility women will have, and the less sexism there will be.
Otherwise its just a bunch of whining.
And I have never seen sexism in an workplace that employed a substantial number of women. so fix this garbage by actually stopping the whining, getting jobs and actually making a difference.
Yeah, Martin Luther King Jr should have just STFU about his dreams.
IOW sometimes shutting up is not the right choice.
Martin Luther King Jr. lived in a vastly different time.
It's 2013 and a black guy's President. Not that black people - or rather, people in general - should not be on guard for it... But the current media frenzy over making every single goddamned thing that happens a racial issue? Time to put Sharpton and Friends into the closet. Keep picking at a wound and it won't heal. Keep pretending we're still in the 60s and we'll never leave them.
Political correctness is inextricably linked with hypocrisy. It is impossible to be politically correct without becoming a hypocrite.
One cannot take a stand against "exclusion" or "intolerance" without becoming exactly that which they stand against. Not tolerating those who are intolerant is in itself a form of intolerance. Excluding those who wish to engage in exclusionary behavior is in itself a form of exclusion.
The inherently hypocritical and contradictory nature of political correctness means that it is an intellectually invalid position to take. Anyone who professes to embrace political correctness cannot be taken seriously.
and wtf was 9 year old doing there? it's a fucking pitching gathering.
Showing her app. What do you think she was doing?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
As said by a previous poster, a crotch stare would balance things. Of course the app would not be widely used because we all know that when women stare at men, it's the hands they look at...
Right ladies ?
Feminism is a fight that has spun off from a justified cause but is no longer that justified cause. Feminism is an ism. It's pretty much by definition something that dominates a person's decisions. Treating women as the equals that they are doesn't make you a feminist. Feminists are people who see everything through an "is that sexist or not" filter. Where feminists show up, they are destructive, through their own toxic behavior. They're like traumatized soldiers: The slightest hint triggers their trauma, and they've lost the ability not to overreact. That's not a matter of "I don't care about the things they care about". It's a matter of intensity.
Women can display all their sexual characteristics all the time with no problem. A part of men's sexuality is looking at women. But somehow receiving photons is evil.
Everyone seems to be focussing on "Titstare" which was admittedly juvenile, sexist and potentially offensive. It may just be me, but what's the problem with "Circle Shake". It was juvenile and potentially offensive, but was it sexist? It keeps getting mentioned in the same breath but I just don't see the comparison. One was objectifying women, the other was a joke about masturbation.
I've worked in a few different settings in my career, and there's no denying the fact that there is a subset of the "IT crowd" that is described quite well by the show of the same name. Reasons can be debated for ages, and there are lots of theories -- lack of exposure to appropriate models of behavior, the silly "brogrammer" meme, etc. etc. etc. But the fact is that people like this who can't keep that side of them from showing and even coming through in their work make it impossible for IT to ever graduate to a "professional" field.
Some stereotypes (and actual real world examples I've seen) of IT folks would have you thinking that there are no people in the field who are married or who have normal relationships, have kids, etc. I can't tell you how many IT people I've met who have Asian mail-order brides and other not-normal relationship patterns. But there are a lot of us who wouldn't dream of getting up on stage and demoing an app like these guys made. Not because we're Puritans, or PC, or whatever, but because it's rude. I'm married and have two kids, one of whom is a girl. Normal relationships aren't compatible with being the drooling idiot in the strip club.
That said, I am aware that there's a difference between IT in an established company and the startup culture, especially in software development. I don't know what it is, but it's similar to the culture of sales organizations. Startups have a unique mix of type-A fraternity types with development nerds, and that culture creates a pretty big echo chamber for behavior like this.
Look at the very public examples of this kind of behavior in the last few years -- this thing, the "Twitter shaming" of a couple of nerds making a stupid joke at a conference, and this thing that totally boggles my mind. The behavior is surprising, but so is some of the reaction to it. It ranges from "that's really stupid" to "F you, PC police. If you're offended, I don't care."
I'm well aware that everyone has a right to free speech. But the IT industry will never shed its stereotype of being the nerds in the basement if we continue to allow things like this to be what the management class associates with us.
In what way is staring/commenting on a womans tits "not treating them like a human being"? Its very easy to know that women are humans and still admire a nice set of tits. Just like a woman can know a man is a human and still admire his pecs or his dick or whatever. Youre an idiot.
It was only six sentences. Surely you can point out to me where that statement was made. False equivalence much?
Feminism, Sexism, Machoism, ...ism, ...ism, ...ism...
I'm still searching for Humanism, believing that that would be the solution. But, alas, it seems I'm always searching in all the wrong places...
Oh, ffs, the reason you don't make category-targetted jokes like this isn't because it causes offense (it does, and people are entitled to be offended, but that's neither here nor there), but because it's a pointed act of exclusion.
"the reason you don't"? Well, some people do, so your point went right out the window.
Or did you mean that people shouldn't do that? If so, who are you to decide such a thing? Are you an omnipotent being who decides what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong? Otherwise, I'm going to have to conclude that the matter is simply subjective.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
To be honest I don't know most of the speech, but from what remained with me; he didn't talk about racism, he talked about the opposite.
Yes, it was mostly about the racial implications but many feminists shared strong opinions about the sexist aspect of the show. It's both/and.
'Circle Shake' sounds like an apt description for the whole 'app' market.
Apparently females need to be barred from technical conferences. It seems to be the only way to avoid these tempests in tea pots over perceived sleights.
Captcha says: Insipid. How does it know?
Thanks for making the point that this isn't just an anomaly and IT really is full of jackasses.
..instead. Much better than looking at tits.
You Americans are disgusting.
Congratulations Jethro Batts, 28, and David Boulton, 24 for showing young women interested in technology exactly what assholes they have to look forward to growing up. Your joke was real funny and we're all impressed, and this totally isn't going to ostracize either of you in the worst possible way.
Thank you, general public, for showing young men and women exactly what sort of bitter, humorless, assholes you're going to have to deal with for the rest of your life. You had best learn right now that any attempt to poke fun at yourself or others will be met with bitterness and hatred. It doesn't matter how amusing and/or true what you are doing might be, some busybody with a stick up their ass and nothing better to do will find some way to take offense and blow it all out of proportion. You'll be ostracized, accused of being a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. and publicly humiliated for daring to make light of anything at all, no matter how benign. You will get to watch as others choke back their laughter, lest they be gang-raped by the "Sensitivity Training" police during mandatory compliance training classes. You, however, will get to experience the forced indoctrination camp yourself, where you will learn that Men are a horrible, evil plague upon humanity. You will not be set free until you bow your head and admit that it's ok for women to be overly emotional, hormonal, and irrational at work and that it's your fault for being a vile man, and as such you will have to make allowances for their shortcomings.
Congratulations Jethro Batts, 28, and David Boulton, 24 for showing young women interested in technology exactly what assholes they have to look forward to growing up.
You mean it's only 'technology' people who do/say things like this...? Thanks for the warning.
No sig today...
We all know that the only Omnipotent being is Government, who has the sole ability to tell us "right from wrong".
There is a reason why we have "social norms", it makes society function. When norms are ignored, it is a sign of dis-functionalism. When people say there are no "norms" it allows for the most egregious acts, under the guise of "tolerance".
This isn't about what is or what isn't appropriate, it is about what is appropriate in certain social arenas, and what is not. While I'm sure there is a whole slew of people who would be happy if women walked around without any tops on, it isn't appropriate in certain settings. Failing to make that distinction is why our society is doomed. Failing to understand is due to allowing idiots to make the rules.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Specifically, why are they there? Since when is the event for children?
No, he's not omnipotent, he's just speaking from a position of human decency and explaining what, from the point of view of prefering the world not be full of exclusionist assholes, was wrong with what these people did.
As was obvious, but you, and it appears the moderators who are modding your bizarre little hysterics up higher than his post, have managed to miss it. Perhaps if you spend more of your life around real people, and less in your basement reading Ayn Rand novels for your homeschooling assignment, you might understand this a little better.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
My brother was roommates with one such guy who ironically treated his girlfriend like shit. Online he was a watchdog for womens rights, bashed marriage as a patriarchal institute and patrolled a number of forums starting flame wars. In real life he was a woman's study major who was a selfish piece of shit. My brother had to restrain himself from knocking the guys teeth out before he moved after a series of wrongdoings by mr righteous.
That's also the reason why many young women now automatically say "I'm not a feminist".
I posted an article in another response the the St. Mary's frosh week incident. When the girls were asked why they participated they said they weren't feminist so it didn't matter to them.
They don't want to be associated with the negative destructive effects that occur when an extremist walks into an office and all the sudden everyone's hiding under their desks for fear of being the next target. Men have to be extra careful and guarded when talking around female co-workers because we have no idea how they might react and what will be taken as offensive. The result is a lot of women are excluded from some conversations until the language has been vetted and we can be sure it won't set off the fire alarms.
Extreme feminism hurts women, I've seen it first hand and completely agree.
Nonsense. This is an isolated incident.
Yes, men staring at tits, talking about staring at tits, finding new ways to stare at tits, finding new tits to stare at, or rating tits is all a new thing, invented by the giant sausage factory that is technology development.
Normally men choose to do this without women around, I suspect that the lack of gender balance at these things tends to bring out the frat boy mentality that would otherwise be suppressed.
Hey, maybe they were just trying to let the women in on the 'boys club!' After all, isn't one of the main issues with sexism that men act differently around each other than they do around skirts?
Some broads just don't want to be satisfied, I guess. Like most of my exes, bu-dum psht.
(In case anyone failed to figure it out - yes, I am being facetious.)
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I happen to be a minister of Spiritual Humanism, so feel free to hit me up with any questions you might have.
TL;DR - Yea, I find the human need to piss and moan about how other people express their freedoms pretty fucked up, too
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
No, he's not omnipotent, he's just speaking from a position of human decency and explaining what, from the point of view of prefering the world not be full of exclusionist assholes, was wrong with what these people did.
Much of that seems rather subjective to me.
Perhaps if you spend more of your life around real people, and less in your basement reading Ayn Rand novels for your homeschooling assignment, you might understand this a little better.
I don't see why I would change my opinion that much of what he said was subjective. Do you have evidence that absolute morals exist? Why did you bring up Ayn Rand?
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
There is a reason why we have "social norms", it makes society function. When norms are ignored, it is a sign of dis-functionalism. When people say there are no "norms" it allows for the most egregious acts, under the guise of "tolerance".
Where did I claim that there are no norms? I claimed that morality is subjective; that's all.
This isn't about what is or what isn't appropriate, it is about what is appropriate in certain social arenas, and what is not.
So it's about what is or what isn't appropriate. Got it.
Failing to make that distinction is why our society is doomed.
Believe me, our society will not fall apart because some people ignore certain social norms; I believe many of them are nonsensical to begin with. It seems rather silly to me to say that our society is doomed in this context.
Failing to understand is due to allowing idiots to make the rules.
Failing to agree with me completely is due to allowing idiots to make the rules.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Who was being exclusionists here?
These guys were just telling a joke, base on how Men see Women. Men see women and think about sex with them, plain and simple. Men know this, Women know this.
It isn't exclusion to make jokes, especially when not based on something everyone knows is true in this world.
The problem with this is another example of political correctness gone haywire and a big blow up was made over nothing.
I seriously doubt it would be such a controversy if two women had come up with an app that poked fun at Men, maybe an app for rating guys with an asshole factor, or penis size compared to car they drove. I'm sure we'd never have heard an apology for such a presentation.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
> EVERYONE does this stuff. Why hide it?
Because it is good manners to do so. Good manners exist for a good reason: we have to constantly be around other people and behaving well in public eliminates unnecessary interpersonal conflict. Good manners help you put your best foot forward, while poor taste, crudeness, and indecency will always lower other people's opinion of you and damage your reputation, your job prospects, and your chances of getting what you want when dealing with others.
Good manners have nothing to do specifically with hiding sexuality, boobs, or the fact that people masturbate. We do not expose these in public because they are unflattering, not because they are shameful. Society has reasonably well defined expectations of what is and is not acceptable to do in public. These expectations are there to help you by telling you how to behave in order to be perceived as a person worth dealing with.
Good manners also help other people to go through their day without having to deal with things they find offensive, ugly, or just in plain bad taste. People who spend their days surrounded by what they like and enjoy are happier, more productive, and easier to deal with.
Society's standard of good manners does change with time, but the reason for having them does not. As long as you always try to show your best side in public, you'll be ok. The problem with the situation in the article, Miley Cyrus, or whoever is currently getting on your nerves, is that these people do not try. Not only do they fail to show their best, but they flaunt their worst - this is the real tragedy and a sign of the decline of our civilization.
I always believed the best way to end a negative aspect of something was to find a way to laugh about it.
Let's face reality here - so long as there are obviously different races, there will be racism; it's an inevitability. The trick is to not let the racist fuckers dominate and dictate the narrative; this goes for racists on both sides of the fence, i.e. your KKK member and Al Sharpton types, and the best way I've found to do this is to laugh right in their faces anytime they start bloviating about the differences between Race A and Race B. By making fun of them for obsessing over such trivial nonsense, you take the power away, and eventually they either learn to laugh themselves, or they shut the fuck up and move on. Well, or option 3 - they continue being racist assholes, but nobody cares or listens to what they have to say.
I have a dream - that children of all colors will one day stand together and have a big, hearty belly-laugh at all these idiots who can't see past the pigmentation of another person's flesh... as the kids are pushing them into the mouth of a volcano.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
They didn't talk about racism in the early 1800s? And I thought my public school was bad...
Straw man argument! No one is FORCING anyone to apologize.
No one is FORCING me to stay sober at work. That doesn't mean I can chug this bottle of whiskey in my desk without consequence.
In this case, no one is FORCING techcrunch to apologize. They just realize the consequences of letting their event sink to the professionalism of Def Comedy Jam are pretty negative.
I know it's fun to hate on political correctness, but make sure you limit it to when someone is actually infringing on your freedom of speech rather than A: someone saying they were offended by something and you can take that how you will or B: someone dealing with consequences of being seen as an asshole. If it's the government saying the thought police are going to tazer you if you say "Black" instead of "African American," then you have cause to be upset over PC speech. If someone is just saying "Hey, maybe don't use 'gay' as an insult and you won't be fired from someplace that prefers to hire adults," then, well, you can be offended if you like, but you are a fucking idiot.
It's pretty much by definition something that dominates a person's decisions.
No, it is a label. As with any other label, there are people who try to live to the label. But that doesn't mean everyone uses labels that way, so use it just to describe how they already are. That doesn't require dominating a person's decisions, only a trend or preference, especially when people usually have multiple things factoring into it.
The slightest hint triggers their trauma, and they've lost the ability not to overreact. That's not a matter of "I don't care about the things they care about".
You're right that it is not a matter of different interests between you and others, it is a matter of difference between your straw man definition and the definition used by people that self-label as a feminist, or even those that avoid the label but get labeled as such by others.
You don't understand what isms are and how they affect people.
The fact that business in general is an adult world is a damn good reason to not allow minors into these types of presentations. What's next, porn companies aren't allowed to pitch their apps either, because some tween might be present in the audience? They've got just as much right to commerce as anyone else... well, except maybe a child, since most nations have laws against kids working in actual jobs.
I want to know what the kid thought about the "offensive" presentation. My guess is, she got a bit excited when she saw the pitch, thinking, 'sweet, a craptastic app like that stands no chance of getting funded over my uber-awesomeness!' People don't give kids enough credit - especially people who want to shelter and protect them from any and everything that might be naughty or mildly hazardous.
FWIW, by the age of 9 a lot of us had seen much, much worse shit than a tit-finding app, and all-in-all we're not any more mentally fucked than the next group.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Who gives a fuck about this ?
No one with a brain.
This has been said like a thousand times already but why is this sexist? It isn't. Sexist is saying and believing in something like women should serve man, but it's also part of most religion and way of life in general, so even that is hard to even say it's sexist. I think people should stop focusing so much about what is sexist and what it isn't and just focus on their own lives. Yeah, groping a woman or a man randomly in public is sexual harassment, not sexist but a lot of people claim that it's sexist. These guys have an idea, which is quite honestly a good idea if you want the internet to be more about porn but they have to realize that san francisco is a part of a nanny sate which is part of a nanny country. You can't just say the word "tits" to anyone or showing them off without people going batshit crazy. Somehow that causes trauma to little kids or pissed off women that want to label everything as sexist, so avoid doing these kind of things in the US because the nanny state says that you are allowed to walk around topless by law but you're not allowed to show them because it'll traumatize little kids. Now, I'm sure it would if you had flapjack aureolas but that's beside the point.
"Let's face reality here - so long as there are obviously different races, there will be racism; it's an inevitability."
Let's face reality here - all humans are clearly members of one race. Racism is the *delusion* to the contrary. Apparently it is a delusion you have yet to free yourself from.
You need to set your own mind free before you can help others with their own.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
If sexual harassment kept women out of industries, then no woman would ever become a nurse. Because doctors are crazy about that kind of thing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm still searching for Humanism, believing that that would be the solution. But, alas, it seems I'm always searching in all the wrong places...
In humans?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah, remember when we didn't talk about racism back in the early 1800s.
No, I don't remember that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
" TechCrunch also apologized for another pitch for a product called Circle Shake, in which a man simulated masturbation." - as Nintendo patented this for the Wii.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
I suspect that the lack of gender balance at these things tends to bring out the frat boy mentality that would otherwise be suppressed.
Frat boy mentality? Boys start staring at girls' chests from the onset of puberty, you can act like a pompous fuck about it or deal with the simple fact that it's tied to biological mechanisms and is part of a normal sex drive in males of our species.
I don't see people getting all pissed off about women's normal biological reactions to men. This is just another case of hypocrisy and double standards in the workplace, and a country gone insane on "Political Correctness".
Everyone seems to be focussing on "Titstare" which was admittedly juvenile, sexist and potentially offensive. It may just be me, but what's the problem with "Circle Shake". It was juvenile and potentially offensive, but was it sexist? It keeps getting mentioned in the same breath but I just don't see the comparison. One was objectifying women, the other was a joke about masturbation.
No, titstare is making a joke about guys who stare at tits, it's poking fun at the men not "objectifying women". And more to the point, staring at tits is normal for men to do, but where's the outcry about women staring at men's junk? And yes ladies, you DO do it, whether you realize or admit to it or not. Checking out the sexual viability of the opposite sex is something humans DO, it's normal, it's healthy, it's not "objectifying" someone.
So basically "You're not God, you can't convince me, therefore I can do whatever the hell I want". Not all ethical realism is religious. You'd have both Ayn Rand and Sam Harris to side against here. But yes, even if you're an ethical realist, you can do whatever the hell you want. You'd be wrong at least some of the time, and you shouldn't do the wrong thing, but you can still do it.
Myu:
Congratulations Jethro Batts, 28, and David Boulton, 24 for showing young women interested in technology exactly what assholes they have to look forward to growing up. Your joke was real funny and we're all impressed, and this totally isn't going to ostracize either of you in the worst possible way.
You are a pathetic pussy-whipped loser.
Women don't mind guys being interested in their tits.
And real men know this is true.
Well, it's an app for men to take pictures of themselves while looking at a woman's...balloons!
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Good lord
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
Actually, we're all members of one *species*. 'Race' is a ethnic categorization mechanic based on where one's ancestors grew up and/or what semi-distinct cultural and/or religious norms they adhered to at the time.
Didn't Tech Crunch get in trouble before for throwing a "industry" party with strippers giving lap dances?
His white mother was far more important to his life than his black father.
If you paid more then $10 for ordination, you got robbed.
I am also an ordained minister.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Why does this exclude anyone, other than people who do not own a smartphone? Everyone loves tits.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
TL;DR - Yea, I find the human need to piss and moan about how other people express their freedoms pretty fucked up, too
I'm having problems understanding this. Can you explain, please?
Thanks
Exactly. This isn't so much about sexism (unless we're not going to pay attention to what the definitions of words are). It's an issue of not using your brain and being inconsiderate. And no, acknowledging that it was inconsiderate isn't an admission of guilt or an admission that sexism was involved.
It is reasonable to suspect that this content could make some people in an audience feel uncomfortable. Just because you feel uncomfortable or awkward about something does not mean that thing is sexist. Not being sexist is not a justification to ignore the sensibilities of others who may be in attendance.
In other words, we could all do with a little maturity when we do these things. There are a lot of people you alter your behavior or content around, using your personal judgement. There is nothing wrong with swearing and yet I try to avoid swearing around my new quite religious neighbors. It is a simple gesture that keeps us both from feeling awkward. It's just a simple human decency.
If you know your audience is going to be a bunch of fun-loving, light-hearted, edgy, hard-to-offend people, then maybe sexual content or humorous content trading in breasts and genitals is reasonable. When your audience is more general and you should perhaps take that into account.
Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that those who feel awkward or are put off by something can't help themselves but to label it as sexism and misogyny. It must be something awful that has a label that shades an entire group of people negatively with a great deal of shame and that must be stopped at all costs. And those who are not put off by it or even who traded in that content can't help themselves but to assert that since there is no malice or sexism (the actual kind, not the kind everyone throws the word blindly around for) then those who are offended should shut the fuck up and they should just continue to keep doing the same content in the same situations and fuck everyone else.
Maybe if we all acted a little closer to our ages, we could acknowledge that it's okay to be offended or even just uncomfortable about something without it being "sexism" or some other "super evil thing" and that just because something is not "sexism" or another "super evil thing" doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise some tact and consider finding ways to be more inclusive and make for less awkwardness so that more people can enjoy events and content. Being able to sense the discomfort of another human being and being willing to adjust yourself to accommodate that discomfort is simple human decency.
man... and children aren't harmed by see a pair of tits. I most societies in fact children are breastfed from birth! And in others there are nudge beaches. And holly crap- changing rooms in the rest.
"Let's face reality here - so long as there are obviously different races, there will be racism; it's an inevitability."
Let's face reality here - all humans are clearly members of one race.
Are you really going to ignore my point because of semantics?
You need to set your own mind free before you can help others with their own.
You need to get over yourself, Chief.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Do you have evidence that absolute morals exist?
Who said anything about "Absolute" morals? Being an ethical realist doesn't necessarily involve a commitment to morals being eternally and inalterably fixed. There might be facts of the matter about what the right thing to do is that are sensitive to context. That doesn't mean we are ultimately forced to accept ethical nihilism.
But if you would like a discussion about evidence for ethical limits to human action, you might enjoy cognitive scientist Stephen Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature", where he discusses statistically significant correlations between statistics for violence in societies and the adoption of particular social values, and epidemologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's "The Spirit Level", where they chart a similar correlation for various indices of well-being in a society, such as physical and mental health, and argue for a causal mechanism in the distribution of income for the correlation they find.
Myu:
No, actually, 'race' is a flat out delusion. It is distinct from ethnicity and implies a biological connection (between members of a purported race) as well as biological separation (between the purported races) neither of which actually exists.
It's not impossible to have multiple human races on the planet - it's happened before and it might well happen again. But the last human race besides our own, the Neanderthals, have been extinct for quite some time now, and all living humans are clearly of the same race.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
When you are in a room filled with women and a couple of men while the women giggle snort over middle school penis humor is when you are not treating the men as equal partners in technology and creating a difficult environment to work in. Also, when a large proportion of people cannot see the problem with this situation is when it becomes more than just offensive but a real problem that needs to be exposed and shouted down.
How about your stupidism LordLimecat http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4176879&cid=44790545
If you paid more then $10 for ordination, you got robbed.
I am also an ordained minister.
If you paid at all, you got stiffed, bro.
I've been ordained since 2006. Even officiated a couple weddings.
Good times.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Omniscient you cock swallowing dickgobbler god damn. Omniscient is all-knowing; omnipotent is all-powerful. Did you not fucking finish third grade when they were explaining how story writing works? You know, the whole story writing perspective thing? First person, second person, third person? Third person limited, third person omniscient? (Second person writing is really fucking creepy...)
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Exactly... My favourite (naive, admittedly) quote: "for an ideal society, don't bug anybody, and don't be easily bugged"
I'm still searching for Humanism, believing that that would be the solution. But, alas, it seems I'm always searching in all the wrong places...
Hey! Your eyes should be up here, where my humanism is.
Despite that I'm admittedly a humorless beta-male I'm not in any way outraged. However, look at the outrage in these comments here, and look at which party is expressing that outrage. It's very clear that the *only* people expressing any hostility or outrage here are the people suggesting others need to learn to take a lame joke. See for yourself.
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
Forget getting worked up about sexism. That problem, at least for those two men, is buried under another problem: arrested adolescence.
Martin Luther King Jr. lived in a vastly different time.
Maybe if you live up north, but down here the differences are a lot less dramatic. "Stop talking about racism" will be a good idea eventually, but we're not to the point yet where we can just let it drop.
So basically "You're not God, you can't convince me, therefore I can do whatever the hell I want".
That's not what I said, but if believing that's what I said makes you feel better, then fine.
Not all ethical realism is religious.
It might not be, but it all seems rather magical to me.
You'd be wrong at least some of the time, and you shouldn't do the wrong thing, but you can still do it.
I don't believe in absolute morals.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
No one is claiming *all* men are like this, but some are - and it is a problem. Victim blaming and closing your eyes won't help solve a very real problem (http://www.marieclaire.com/career-money/jobs/geeks-attack). This is not an isolated problem - its an indicative incident and a teaching moment. Let's not waste it by jamming our fingers in our ears and humming angrily. Let's listen.
I'm already a secular humanist. Most of the tenants of feminism are a natural consequence.
Who said anything about "Absolute" morals?
When you state that something is wrong as a fact, I simply assume that you believe it is objectively wrong; otherwise, why would you do such a thing?
"Oh, ffs, the reason you don't make category-targetted jokes like this isn't because it causes offense (it does, and people are entitled to be offended, but that's neither here nor there), but because it's a pointed act of exclusion."
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
It was vulgar and inappropriate, but not sexist.
One might wonder though if its a good idea to seek to suppress all expressions of sexuality and attraction. Its not healthy.
Omniscient is all-knowing; omnipotent is all-powerful.
Usually being omnipotent means that you're both. Besides, if you're all-powerful, you'd be capable of making certain things 'wrong' and other things 'right,' so your point seems rather hallow to me.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Political Correctness is WRONG.
People don't have a right not to be offended. Fuck em if they can't take a joke, or don't like someone else's opinion or agenda.
Anyone who sues because they were offended need to have their suit thrown out with prejudice as the 1st amendment overrides, period.
As long as people are talking / writing, it's covered.
As soon as some takes action based on writing / statements and the action is illegal, then by all means, go with due process.
But for God's sake, the 1st amendment is there for a reason, to keep the idiots who want to restrict what they read/hear from having the power to do so.
So it's about what is or what isn't appropriate. Got it.
What is acceptable in one place, is not acceptable in another. Some people (you it appears) fail to recognize that there is a difference between being acceptable (in general) and acceptable in only certain arenas.
Saying it is acceptable to go 180 MPH is not exactly true. Going 180 MPH at Talladega is acceptable. Going 180 MPH down I5 is not acceptable.
There is a small group of people who don't understand the difference. We shouldn't cater to them.
Believe me, our society will not fall apart because some people ignore certain social norms; I believe many of them are nonsensical to begin with. It seems rather silly to me to say that our society is doomed in this context.
Just because you do not understand, doesn't mean there is no purpose. Some people think there is nothing wrong with being naked in public. However, I happen to think that just on "health" reasons alone, it should not be acceptable. I do not want to sit in the same seat as the one just used by the "Naked guy".
Failing to agree with me completely is due to allowing idiots to make the rules.
No, failing to realize that the letting idiots define "social norms" is letting them make the rules. Just because someone disagrees with me doesn't make them an idiot, but failing to understand the full unintended consequences does.
I was not offended by Miley Cyrus' performance. However those people "shocked" by it, because "little kids" were watching have completely missed the point. The VMA awards were not "kid friendly" (did you miss the PedoBear part of her act?), and haven't been for a while. I won't be watching, and I feel sorry for the sorts that feel compelled to watch things like that. It wasn't entertaining, anymore than watching a train wreck is entertaining.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That's not what I said, but if believing that's what I said makes you feel better, then fine.
It wasn't about making me feel better. It was a correct interpretation of what you said. You stated, specifically, that in any case other than that in which I am a God that decides absolute correctness, you conclude that ethical judgement is simply subjective - by which, on the standard reading of subjectivity in ethics, you take it that it is decided by individual people for themselves. By which, you must, logically, include yourself.
As regards "absolute" morals, I'm not really fussed. Factive ethics is more than good enough for my point to get off the ground, and as mentioned above, that position is well supported by the statistical research of some excellent investigators.
Myu:
Wow, Morgan Freeman said that? Amazing, all it takes to turn a present-day black man's understanding of race relations to that of an early-1900s white man's is a metric fuckton of money. I guess it separates you from the realities of racism as well as it does from most other realities.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's a fact of our particular social situation, and about the research surrounding how social situations shift and change in response to equalities of representation. "Absoluteness" doesn't come into it. Or, indeed, anything claiming any kind of legitimacy to scientific practice. Such a vague word, "absolute", don't you think?
Myu:
Sexism would be asserting that women are inferior.
This is just men acknowledging the fact that most men like tits. It's a fact, not talking about it is silly. By all means, make a "dongstare" app if you want, I won't be offended.
Some people (you it appears) fail to recognize that there is a difference between being acceptable (in general) and acceptable in only certain arenas.
I do not fail to realize that, but the issue is still what is and is not acceptable.
Some people think there is nothing wrong with being naked in public. However, I happen to think that just on "health" reasons alone, it should not be acceptable. I do not want to sit in the same seat as the one just used by the "Naked guy".
This is why I feel 'moral' crusaders are problematic; they'll oftentimes try to steal freedom away from everyone else simply because they don't like something.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
I did not say that I can do "whatever the hell I want." Where did I say that? Where did I even say that, because you're not a God, you can't convince me? I merely asked if you were an omnipotent being capable of deciding what is absolutely and what is absolutely wrong.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Well 9 years old seems like a good time to me to learn how some people can behave and too see why you shouldn't act like that.
Isn't it enough that the men look foolish and juvenile?
Did the sexism complaint really have to happen?
People complaining seem to forget that this video and the men's behaviour are going to be on record forever, could you imagine one of them applying for a job in 20 years and the interviewer plays the video.
"We don't think so show the kind of judgement we want at CORPO corporation."
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It's a fact of our particular social situation
Which is irrelevant to me; you phrased it as if it is absolutely wrong. If you intended to say that many people believe it is wrong, then I believe you should have simply said so.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Why aren't there more women programmers? Take a look at the moderation of the parent comment and it will tell you exactly why.
Nah it can't be an all-pervasive culture of sexist bullshit straight out of the 1950's. Women aren't programmers as only manly men are capable of manly amounts of computational manputering. Because penis.
Usually omnipotent implies both, yes, since all-powerful means you can force knowledge into your head and have the power to understand it without breaking under the stress.
I don't buy into the philosophy that $DEITY says i.e. sex with your sister is wrong, so it's wrong. It's wrong because A) society says it's wrong; B) your religion says it's wrong and *you* accept that; C) broken babies (if this is your only argument, there's condoms and birth control and abortions--if you want to have an actual philosophical debate, this is your starting point; expect lots of squick); D) mom caught you; E) it just feels wrong to *you*; etc. $DEITY appears and declares this is wrong, everyone says "Wait we all use birth control for that, what's so wrong about it?", you should invoke Klingon beliefs and kill $DEITY.
Oddly enough, all-powerful doesn't let you actually make things wrong. You can adhere consequences--like going to hell or getting hit by lightning--but that just makes you an authoritarian dictator. This is why I'm bad at religion--believing in the existence of a god doesn't really do much for me. Abrahamic Jehovah is actually real? ... your point? No, fuck that guy, he says a lot of stupid shit I don't like.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"Are you really going to ignore my point because of semantics?"
I am really going to point out when the point you thought you were making is inaccessible or unclear at best, because of your lack of semantic hygiene. You bet.
Semantic hygiene is extremely important if you wish to be able to think clearly and communicate clearly. If you think that semantics is somehow trivial or unimportant? You need to rethink that and find your error.
Unfortunately you may have to improve your semantic hygiene before you will be able to think clearly enough to realise how important it is. Kind of a chicken and egg problem there I guess.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
He brought up Ayn Rand because you disagree with him, and that automatically makes you an exclusionary, oppressive 1%er, which is the total opposite of him, who is kind and never tells mean jokes or targets certain groups and loves everyone. Except you.
Check your privilege.
Gay Rights advocates are "moral Crusaders". Do you consider them problematic?
As a libertarian, I oppose government defining what is and what isn't marriage. Defining Marriage is problematic the moment you transcend away from "traditional marriage" (1 male, 1 female, non related peers). Why is Polygamy, Polyandry, other forms of Plural marriages not included? Why can't I marry my daughter for the benefits offered by marriage, that the Gay people are wanting, but are otherwise denied to me and my daughter?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
He did, but kind of spontaneously in response to a sudden question in a conversation, and he went onto a more nuanced answer than that. But people love to take moderate quotes from minorities about minority rights out of context and use them in a justification of something extraordinarily bigoted. It's another flavor of "not racist but" or "my black friend". It's like how Chris Rock decided he need to make a public retraction of the "black people and niggers" stand-up routine because racists were using it to justify all sorts of horrible opinions, and he felt extremely concerned about his impact on race relations.
That's rape, pure and simple. All men should be castrated.
Check your privilege.
Well, it's apparent to me that there's an inherent instinct to not only have a problem with the way other people live their lives, but to also insist that one has some perceived right to tell others how to live. Take, for example, the uncountable number of 'special interest' organizations that 'push for acceptance' - essentially, these groups demand that people (other than themselves) be forced to change lifestyles, because it 'offends' aforementioned groups in some (probably stupid) way.
The issue with such an attitude, especially in the United States, is the idea that all persons have a right to self-expression - demanding that said right be curtailed because some overly-sensitive crybaby gets all butthurt about differing opinions is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Hope that clarifies the previous statement.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The reason that money separates his is that the color most people are concerned with is green. One of the big challenges that society faces with regards to racism is that impression that it is only poor black people that have horrible things happening to them. In reality, poor people of all races have horrible things happening to them, and by trying to segregate the poor, you end up working against the very cause you think you are helping.
I don't buy into the philosophy that $DEITY says i.e. sex with your sister is wrong, so it's wrong.
Well, neither do I, but if they're omnipotent, presumably they could do anything, since that's what that means. I don't believe omnipotent beings exist, of course.
It's wrong because A) society says it's wrong
Many people might believe something, but that does not make it true.
Oddly enough, all-powerful doesn't let you actually make things wrong.
Then they're not all-powerful, which wouldn't surprise me, because being all-powerful seems rather impossible to begin with.
What's sexiest about this? Pervented, raunchy, lude, innappropriate, sure. But where's the sexist behaviour?
~ChibiSkuld~
I was talking about people who act like moral crusaders, but in reality, simply want to restrict others (i.e. laws against public nudity). Though, you didn't actually say it should be illegal...
Aussies have an extremely childish sense of humour, just saying "tits" in a comedy show is considered hardcore!
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
Sure, people can laugh about this stuff.
Women can laugh about jokes about women.
LGBT can laugh about jokes targeting them.
Blacks can laugh about jokes targeting them.
Lots of laughter,
Just don't laugh at something targeting a group you're not a part of. You don't have that right - because the second you do, you're oppressing them and disdaining all that they've fought for.
That explanation would make sense... The only problem is that the joke was at the expense of men. And as we all know, no one (especially no woman) is excepted from laughing at men.
Seriously? Disliking people and groups of people who significantly differ is something humans have done throughout recorded history. Surely if it were just as simple as accepting enlightenment, this would have stopped millenia ago.
It happens. It's part of human nature.
Classism.
Racism.
Sexism.
You-don''t-look-like-me-ism.
You-don't-speak-like-I-do-ism.
It's all the same. And - since throughout recorded histroy we've not risen above it - I think it's safe to say that it's part of our make up.
It also used to be good manners not to show your breasts in public.
Now that women do show them, why shouldn't men stare at them?
The way many people talk about it, they are pissing off the people up north by lumping all whites together as racists, and all men as oppressors of women. On balance, that makes things worse, not better.
"It's all the same." No, actually, it's not all the same. Racism is unique in that it is prejudice based entirely on delusion. Men and women really are different on a biological level - I am not saying that excuses sexism, but sex itself is not something we just invented and assign arbitrarily, it's a real biological distinction. Race is not.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Just don't laugh at something targeting a group you're not a part of. You don't have that right - because the second you do, you're oppressing them and disdaining all that they've fought for.
Yup, that's the real issue - a general lack of tolerance.
Kinda like how some rappers think it's OK to call each other "My nigga," but the first time someone without enough melanin in their epidermis uses the exact same euphemism in the exact same context, they jump all over the poor bastard.
I hear all too often, 'well, you're a white guy, so you wouldn't know what it's like.' Which, if I were like so many others, would piss me off - I'm not just a white guy; hell, my paternal grandparents were both full-blooded Blackfoot! But, I don't expect people to know that (although I always thought the penny-colored summertime skin tone was a dead giveaway), and I still laugh my ass off at Indian (feather, not dot) jokes, so long as they're actually funny.
TL;DR - non-rich Caucasian guys are one of the most persecuted groups on the planet today; we can't get away with anything.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
blah blah blah.
FWIW, you seem to be the only one who didn't understand what I meant by "race" without having it explained to you.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
no one is saying men dont like women's chests.
he is saying however most of us arent so stupid as to come up with this sort of idea, and then talk about it in front of a professional audience (which presumably includes women) and also 9 year old girl ! most of us have better sense than that and self censor nearly every moment of every day because we're considerate of who is around us.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Have you ever listened to his speech? His dream was of a world where we weren't all talking about racism. He dreamed of a world where every damned issue didn't come down to the color of someone's skin.
I'm not saying that we've eradicated racism (or sexism), but making every situation about race (or gender) and oppression and victimhood isn't the solution. We've made some serious progress since his time and this obsession with finding an easy (and wrong) cause to blame every problem on is only slowing our progress.
Morgan Freeman wasn't talking about silencing necessary discussion about racism. He was talking about not forcing everything into the box of racism, no matter how poorly it fits.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Oh golly, you're the whole package. Can you and the other "tenants of feminism" still take a piss while standing?
They aren't 'African Americans' unless they were born in Africa and emigrated to the US.
Black American citizen are JUST THAT AND NOTHING MORE. They are Americans. The African shit has to go. If you're going to be so fucking pedantic, the entire human fucking race came from Africa as best we know, so we're ALL African Americans in the US.
You're racist and just don't realize it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Not only my comment, but the overall tone of this entire thread. The hostility and contempt shown for people, not only women but all people, is pretty sobering. And the fact that these slashdotters lack the insight and self-awareness to recognize that *they* are absolutely and undeniably the reason that many women feel unwelcome in the tech-sector is depressing.
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
Let's face reality here - all humans are clearly members of one race. Racism is the *delusion* to the contrary. Apparently it is a delusion you have yet to free yourself from.
Agreed! Though I also agree with the post you are replying to. As long as people have differences, there will be fear, prejudice, hate and suffering. Doesn't make it okay, but it is what it is.
We do need to set our own minds free first. I am unable. I am better than my parents. I hope my child is better than me. If I succeed, at least I left the world better off than when I started. While my parents were 'more prejudice' than I am, I think they also tried to raise me not to be as bad as they were, so I feel they succeeded to some extent as well.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Wait, what? How's that working out for you in real life?
You find such a natural peer in urine.
Firstly, Neanderthals were likely a different species.
Race is synonymous with breed in other animals. It's all about physical and behavioral traits that differ from others of the same species. It may not be important for drawing meaningful conclusions, but it's measurable (like with skin color) so people classify by it. It's certainly based on heredity (phenotype is obviously heritable), but ethnicity has a strong component of heredity too so that's not an unreasonable way to describe it.
Identifying differences between races and acknowledging that there are different races isn't racist in and of itself. Ascribing more to racial differences than actually exist and prejudging people based on the color of their skin is racist.
Where did I say that?
When you said:
... people shouldn't do that? ... I'm going to have to conclude that the matter is simply subjective.
Saying that "should" is simply subjective is saying that people can do whatever they want.
Where did I even say that, because you're not a God, you can't convince me?
When you said:
Are you an omnipotent being who decides what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong? Otherwise ...
Saying that the exceptional case is one where I'm "an omnipotent being who decides blah di blah" and otherwise "simply subjective" means that the only way I can possibly change your mind is if I'm God. QED. Sorry.
Yes, I am being a jerk. Sometimes, nice is not right, and right is not nice.
Myu:
I take that as a no.
The problem with humanism is that there is always going to be some other human (or group of them) who you don't like or who doesn't like you. It's the nature of humans to conflict, unfortunately.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Saying that "should" is simply subjective is saying that people can do whatever they want.
People could do that anyway as long as it's not impossible for them to do.
Saying that the exceptional case is one where I'm "an omnipotent being who decides blah di blah" and otherwise "simply subjective" means that the only way I can possibly change your mind is if I'm God. QED. Sorry.
I asked if you were an omnipotent beings; nothing more. I did not say that was the only way you could change my mind.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
You can take it however you want it, if your personal sense of dignity depends on your having a specific belief about how a stranger on the internet engages in a bodily function, you're way beyond pity.
Wait, what? How's that working out for you in real life?
Pretty well, actually - ever since I learned to laugh at insecure douchebags who feel a compulsion to transfer their self-loathing onto others, instead of getting all offended, I've been a much happier person in general.
Plus, nothing pisses a troll off like knowing that no matter how hard he tries, he'll never get under your skin.
Except maybe his mom forgetting to buy more Doritos.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You've got me, I'm racist because I elected to say African American, instead of "black" because that's so much more physically accurate and in no way brings in insulting implications.
The feminists like to cry foul even when it's the other way around. Who's killing babies after all?? Feminist women.
You take that quote well out of context.
In the 2005 interview Morgan Freeman is talking about Black History month, and how it is ridiculous because "You're going to relegate my history to a month?"
He goes on to say "I don't want Black History Month. Black History is American History." The interview asks "How are we going to get rid of racism until ..?" And Freeman responds with "Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace, you know me as Morgan Freeman. You're not going to say, 'I know this white guy named Mike Wallace."
His point, as I see it, isn't to stop talking about Racism, it's to stop labeling people and things with a race, as the context gives the example "Black History is American History."
To apply this to Sexism is fine, stop giving actions, objects and abstract concepts gender. Don't stop talking about Sexism and think it will fix itself.
Women arent dying or losing any rights just because some devs have a sophmoric sense of humor.
Seriously, get over it.
Yeah, see, that's the thing; if all the hardships you ever had amount to a joke, then yes, by all means laugh them off.
Sexual != sexist
Yeah, see, that's the thing; if all the hardships you ever had amount to a joke, then yes, by all means laugh them off.
Bit of a childish assumption, isn't it? Is it not equally possible that I'm one of those apparently rare souls who is better at not letting shit bother them than others?
I laugh at hardships, because to me that's a better option than wallowing in self-pity. YMMV, but that's no reason to be a dick about it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Actually, on a related note, I've seen this disturbing trend of "I'm sorry that you're offended" apologies. This should be apparent to everyone, even those not able to function in society, that this is not a real apology. A real apology admits that the actions were wrong. This sort of "I'm sorry that you were offended" is like a 5 year old being forced to apologize by a mother.
No, I'm just questioning the reality of woo-woo as a problem-solving technique. It doesn't seem very scientific. You can laugh at diabetes or foreclosure, but that doesn't make them go away.
Making fun of staring at boobs is not sexist, reminding everyone that women are inferior is.
The problem with this is that when you are dealing with content like the one the app presents, it's impossible to talk about it or even adequately sell the product because it will make some people feel uncomfortable. One could easily argue that to do a professional job selling or describing a product with the content described, the only way to do it "professionally" is to use perverse humor, because after all, that is what the product does. Am I the only one here who thinks that they in fact may have been acting professionally?
You've heard of Hugo, haven't you? sigh
Also, I'm going to pick a little at your relating to women "exactly" the same as men. I don't think it should be the same. It depends on circumstances, but... you know what I mean? Not everyone has the same background and experiences and challenges, but yeah I'm going to make some basic adjustments--like maybe paying attention a bit more to whether I'm talking too much or taking up an aggressive physical posture, that sort of thing. It's just a matter of paying attention and using your head.
On the whole though, I agree with what you're saying here. Feminism isn't something you play along with to get what you want. It's something you incorporate because it's part of being a decent person.
"I've never been quite so insulted in a manner that made quite so little sense in my life."
You're obviously not married or dealt with menstrating or menopausal women before.
No, I'm just questioning the reality of woo-woo as a problem-solving technique. It doesn't seem very scientific. You can laugh at diabetes or foreclosure, but that doesn't make them go away.
Well, obviously the issue is that you're aiming at a different set of goalposts than everyone else in this discussion - we're talking about effects and artifacts of human emotion, whereas you seem to be insisting on tangibles. I figured the clarification was in the rest of my original post (where I exclusively focused on racism), and assumed that most people with decent reading comprehension skills would be able to infer the scope of my meaning without me having to bust out the crayons and draw them a picture.
And no, it's not scientific at all, but it works for me and that's all I really care about in this regard.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
His quote was basically saying "stop using the racism lens to view the world; it just creates more racism".
A really good example is hate crimes. Percieved issue: People being racist and attacking minorities. Solution: Create a class of laws that differentiates between the race of the victim. OOPS, I think we just created entrenched legal racism.
Another really good example: Affirmative action. Issue: Minorities tend to be underrepresented in college entrance. Solution: Force colleges to take race into account when admitting students. Whoops, I think we did it again.
If everyone stopped looking at "race" as the answer to all of lifes injustices and moved on, maybe people in general could stop "seeing" race. That, on its own, may not be enough to end racism-- but forcing everyone, always, to view the world through a racial lens is most certainly counterproductive.
So when Morgan was asked about black history month, black this, black that, thats what he was talking about: Why not White history month? Why not Jewish? Why does it matter, why cant it just be American history month and do away with the question of race?
They are different to some degree, but there is a lot of overlap.
More to the point tho, I think "victim mentality" isnt terribly helpful. Making an issue heard is fine; taking it overboard is not. People are jerks in this world, and at some point you have to get over it.
I mean as a christian republican on slashdot, I will tell you I have seen some really nasty stuff aimed at christians and republicans. I tend not to go on rants on a blog about it though, because that doesnt help and the world is sometimes mean. You cannot let one or two people acting immature control your sense of worth or well-being, or you will be perpetually upset-- and lets be clear, most people would agree these jokes were in poor taste.
I agree with your position about Adria Richards, but in her case, the jokes weren't about women, they were about penises and sex. She just assumed they were about women, and for whatever reason, asserted that they were degrading to women.
In this case, the jokes *were* about women, and they weren't some guys in the back of the room talking to eachother, they were two guys on the stage. They were selling an app which encourages voyeurism and harassment. It should have been weeded out by the conference before it reached the stage.
I'm not sure this would even be okay for a porn conference... the voyeur and harassment aspects are... really bad.
It's like all men and all women on earth are engaged in a virtual, metaphorical couple relationship. You observe the same things happening between men and women globally as you might observe in your average couple. I was going to cite examples, but I don't want to upset any feminists...
Do you stop racism and sexism by pretending it doesn't exist?
They can laugh at penis jokes all they want; I don't really care. Besides, you didn't even respond to his argument that staring and/or commenting on women's boobs is not the same as not treating them as human beings.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Racism hasn't ended just because of Obama. It's still very rampant. Is your workplace demographics reflective of the demographics of society at large? I'm in California and I can tell you for sure that we don't have 50% hispanics at work, I never saw 50% hispanics even at the state universities or colleges. There's still subtle racism still happening in governments; as in voter suppression at historically black colleges (small counties never like students voting but they seem to want to clamp down on the black colleges much more than others); you see legislators keep bringing up the myth of illegal immigrants illegally voting, or that people cross the border to have babies.
Maybe not, but where are current examples of other industries with this sophomoric reputation? (politics doesn't count, and should not be considered the benchmark)
Word.
If anybody's still reading this thread, can somebody explain what the app was supposed to do? Ignoring the issue of taste, it doesn't make any sense. Does the app display pictures of women and then use the front camera to take pics of you while you're looking at a pic of a woman's tits? That seems hugely lame and pointless. If it's supposed to somehow catch guys staring at women's chests in public that's a vaguely amusing idea, but still hard to see logistically how that's supposed to work. Anybody have an explanation for what the joke-app here even really is?
Married means to become master of. You are master of nothing.
9 years old is old enough to be married in old testament religion. Old enough by far.
(in God's religion one can marry children (see uriah and his little lamb, also see the law on rape in deuteronomy, in hebrew)
A woman's country asks "is she old enough"
A maaallleeeessss nation "is she young enough"
It's still very rampant. Is your workplace demographics reflective of the demographics of society at large?
The demographics at large have ~15% of the population as black. I would say thats probably representative of where I work.
Get over it? You can't tell me what to do! How dare you try and silence me! Political correctness run amok! AMOK!
The two apps were stupid. Funny, but stupid. You wouldn't expect those apps to show up at a professional tech conference. If two women programmers made an app called "Dickstare," would anyone call it sexist?
Same AC here. I read 30 or so posts and holy shit is this thread depressing with the dumb meanness mistaken for humor. The cluelessness, childishness, and insensitivity proudly on display here reinforce the already poor reputations programmers have as far as social skills are concerned.
Thankfully it isn't the entire tech sector. While present, we don't have anywhere near this level of bullshit in the life sciences, be it academia, biotech, or pharma. "Titstare" and "circle shake" would get you fired, and that's if you just presented them internally and only to adults. In front of the audience including potential customers, potential business partners, and children like in TFA, hell their boss would be breaking out into a cold sweat over their own job prospects.
An avalanche of dudes trying to explain why this isn't sexism. Maybe y'all should STFU and listen for once.
I'm in the "just bad taste" boat.
Objectification is a misrepresentation of what these 'fuctional' pictures are.
Having the producers create this app has the same defensive posture as them (or you or me) using the app; they condone it's use, or find it usefull for themselves, and are simply providing implementation as an option for others to use. Having said that, attacking them in this instance is like you attacking personal use of pornography and I would be very up in arms if anyone told me I was not allowed to. In this light few would seriously debate pornography as sexist but "objectifying"? Really it's just a matter of knowing what stimulates you as a person, a result of sexuality, not choice. As for objectification...
"Objectification" is a fuzzy definition and an understated moral accusation all in one, and almost always globbed together with sexism. I find it's a useless word. By the definition that people seem to so liberally use, corporate stock photos would be objectifying, as would calendars of puppies. They all express some quality with no intent to show the express of the individuality of the target in question. But what picture really can? Who really expects photos to be a medium to get to know a person. Is any picture of a person you don't intend to know inherently objectifying?
As for my intuition as to what is at the heart of the debate, I would not say the producers are guilty of any objective fault, just most people instead feel the developers have some unspoken ill-will towards women and that are trying to publicly express and validate this. They certainly are not doing a great job of preventing this image, though. However I agree it is in 'bad taste' (for me). Though, taste is just a personal preference and nothing more.
You should leave it at "I personally feel they are sleazy" and not something as objective as "sexist" or "objectifying".
Martin Luther King Jr. lived in a vastly different time.
It's 2013 and a black guy's President. Not that black people - or rather, people in general - should not be on guard for it... But the current media frenzy over making every single goddamned thing that happens a racial issue? Time to put Sharpton and Friends into the closet. Keep picking at a wound and it won't heal. Keep pretending we're still in the 60s and we'll never leave them.
Things are far better than they were in the 60s.
But all other things being equal, do you really think you'd do just as well if you were black instead of white? The fact we've come a very long way doesn't mean we're at our destination.
I stole this Sig
Men have to be extra careful and guarded when talking around female co-workers because we have no idea how they might react and what will be taken as offensive.
This is an example of one of the most absurd corollaries to "feminism is the radical notion that women are people" that I've encountered. In one sentence, you've expressed essentially a perfect caricature of the modern butthurt reactionary antifeminist. Let's unpack it, in order:
- I speak for all men.
- The presence of women as peers is dangerous.
- All women behave identically.
- Everything every man says or does is beyond reproach.
- Women are emotionally capricious.
- No woman's feelings are valid.
- Men are incapable of understanding and learning from reactions to their behavior.
- Women's expressions of their experiences are equivalent to assault on the men who caused those experiences in the first place.
- Men are defenseless.
Actually, that was eye-opening. Honestly. And in a weird way, I now kind of agree with at least part of the "men's rights" movement: entitled men, afraid their undeserved privilege is at risk of society leaving them behind, have raised a generation of terrified emasculated man-babies who have forgotten how to be strong. For thousands of years, women have been subjected to torture, rape and slavery so that men could create a society of children who crumble at the first sign of back talk!
Man up and treat women like people! It takes far more strength, courage and—dare I say—balls to experience empathy than to exhibit this sort of whiny flailing half-formed emotional outburst.
(Note: I apologize for my use of ageist language in this rant. It was only for impact to the intended audience. Most children are far more emotionally secure and mature than that audience.)
racists on both sides of the fence, i.e. your KKK member and Al Sharpton types
Because people like Al Sharpton have committed centuries of murder, terrorism, torture and destruction of basic human and civil rights? Oh, wait, they're not alike at all.
Oh. They already did.
Insert gratuitous mammalian protuberance pun, here.
"Filter error" defeat: I can and did type more than (nothing) for my comment.
As long as this is the dominant notion of sexism, heterosexuals will associate pleasure with guilt. But just like good Catholics, they are allowed to keep sinning if only they confess on a regular basis.
Enlighten me: what is sexist about someone "simulating masturbation"? That it's a male person? If anything, it objectifies males. But I doubt that is what they mean.
I did not say that was the only way you could change my mind.
In saying "Otherwise" in that context, you said exactly that. If you didn't mean that, then you shouldn't have said that.
Myu:
Basically, this whole diversion should demonstrate two things to you.
First, that you shouldn't play the game of semantic uncharitability without being absolutely semantically beyond criticism. If you insist on being a pedant, fine, but be authentic in your pedantry, rather than just using it as a tool to poke cheap jabs at other people in a debate.
Secondly, that even in accepting the idea that there is a matter of fact about semantic interpretation, you are committing yourself to certain oughts and shoulds. At this point you might trot out Hume's "is-ought distinction", and in response I will point to the idea of semantic protocol (in, say, Gricean semantics) as constituted by conventions and psychological properties of human beings.
If you're going to go play the ethical nihilist, do not try to correct peoples' use of language.
Myu:
My intention was to say that it is wrong, not that it was either "absolutely" wrong or "commonly believed" wrong. The rules are independent of what people believe - they are there in the structures discussed in social science, whether people believe them or not. That doesn't give them any kind of claim to "absoluteness"; something I still don't know what you intend to mean, which I notice you're deliberately avoiding addressing in our conversation.
Myu:
Well what can I say. You're mostly right, except for the part where you just patriot the talking points. You have no idea what my workplace is like, but you presume to throw me into the same category as a bunch of women haters. THAT is the true flaw of feminism. Just like men for the longest time categorized and discriminated against women all the sudden it's ok to categorize and discriminate against men. And I at least have no recourse to speak out because I don't have political correctness on my side.
I have a wife, daughter, mother, sisters and nieces. I treat them like humans and expect others to as well, there's no reason not to. In the workplace women, just like men, are competition. They aren't anymore dangerous on a professional level then other man are, but certainly I've seen women use sexual harassment as an excuse to have male competition fired or removed as an obstacle. If you believe it doesn't happen then you're foolish.
I don't speak for all men, I speak for myself and for the men I work directly with and for friends and good workers that have been let go because they said or did something that was considered offensive. Most of the women we work with are great and I normally I wouldn't think twice about chumming around with them like I do with my male co-workers. There's really only a couple women that we all know are "unstable", but the problem we have is they group up. I say something to "Jill" and at lunch they're sitting around chatting and before you know it one of the trouble makers is jumping around screaming that "Jill" was sexually harassed and they shouldn't stand for that kind of behavior. Sorry, but whether you want to believe it happens or not, it does.
Mixing men and women is dangerous, we have completely different ideas about what is acceptably and what isn't. Men and women are equal, but we're different on many levels, accept it.
These are jokes about sex, not sexist jokes. Specifically, these apps are jokes about male responses to sex. Who are these women that think they have a monopoly on sex? Men are involved as well, and I think that gives them some right to talk (or joke) about it.
I taught a Cisco course three weeks ago. I bring beer for late lab session on Wednesdays. I sometimes play YouTube videos in front of the class and when a link came up for "Naked men doing the Harlem Shake in the snow." the female student said "I wouldn't mind that one.", so I played it in front of the class.
This obviously was not in the U.S.. If it had been, I'd have been fired and sued.
The behavior mentioned in a civilized country would have spawned boos or jokes at the expense of the presenters. Their comments weren't sexism, it was bad humor. And if you're upset about the issue of the 9 year old. I'm pretty sure the parent should have know that at a conference for adults, a kid didn't really belong there.
The presence of women as peers is dangerous.
What is acceptable behavior among most men and women is not acceptable behavior when feminists are present. So when a woman is around, normal behavior is replaced with very guarded behavior to avoid triggering a feminist's trauma, at least until you know you're dealing with a normal woman. Feminism turns just being a woman into a latent threat, whether that woman is a feminist or not.
All women behave identically.
No, but until you know what kind of woman you're dealing with, it is prudent not to trigger any sensitivities.
Everything every man says or does is beyond reproach.
Obviously not, or men would not have to treat women like trip mines.
Women are emotionally capricious.
Feminists are emotionally capricious. Until men know if a woman is a feminist, they treat all women as feminists, simply because the looming threat is so severe.
No woman's feelings are valid.
Not sure where you're getting that. Of course a woman's feelings are as valid as a man's, which means that sometimes they aren't.
Men are incapable of understanding and learning from reactions to their behavior.
Men learn just fine. That's why we're telling you this: Feminists are toxic. They have an influence on the workplace precisely because men learn to play it safe around women. I grew up with lots of women around and never had any worries cooperating with them, but this is changing, much the same way I avoid being alone with children. The potential damage from one accusation is just too great. Why should I take the risk?
Men are defenseless.
Men are not defenseless, but the defense finishes what the feminists started: It turns a productive workplace environment into a war zone where everybody has to be on guard all the time. This is not a good development. It's particularly damaging to women, because it makes hiring women risky and raises the bar for women to become part of the team. And women see this too. They don't want to be made the enemy, so they actively denounce feminism to avoid being lumped together with feminists.
Some people are offended by my use of the term "ffs", and that's fine, they are right to be offended, and I'm being offensive here for a reason.
Bloody hackers...
I think constantly telling the black population that the reason theyre not as successful is because theyre victims and need special allowances does far more to harm the community than anything else might.
Race is an english word, and like all other words that people use, it has a meaning that is determined by how it is commonly interpreted by others.
The word race in common usage refers to ethnicity. You can be pigheaded and insist that its dictionary meaning is different, but then you will only have yourself to blame when everyone misunderstands you.
racists on both sides of the fence, i.e. your KKK member and Al Sharpton types
Because people like Al Sharpton have committed centuries of murder, terrorism, torture and destruction of basic human and civil rights? Oh, wait, they're not alike at all.
Sure they're alike, in the way I mentioned: they're both examples of racist people.
Just because he has not directly, with his own hand, killed or tortured anyone, does not mean Al Sharpton is not a racist asshole. FWIW, most Klansmen never killed or tortured anyone either.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You are simply wrong. In common usage, race comes out nearly the same as ethnicity, but it is not an exact synonym. The distinction is that race carries with it the notion of biological division, which ethnicity does not imply. And it is precisely that element of biological division which does not, in fact, exist among humans today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The point is where and when the joke was told and not the joke itself. A pork chop is fine but not welcome in a synagogue.
Usually I like to stay out of debates when it comes to sexism in Tech. There is no way to really win as there are two polarizing sides to the argument and they are the loudest. Somewhere though there is a happy medium that is often missed in the debates.
After reading a lot of comments you start to see a pattern. The supporters point to the product and it being natural male behaviour and that it is satirical. The other side point to the fact that it was presented to an audience that contained a 9 year old girl and made people uncomfortable. They're both right.
If this was presented as a satirical piece in a stand up show at some comedy club - would anyone have raised an eyebrow? The fact is there was nothing sexist about the actual presentation, the issue is where the presentation was given and to whom. Obviously the two presenters want to get themselves out there and who can blame them? They still have to take some blame though for marginalizing members of the audience, but who is really to blame are the conference organizers for not screening (something which they say they'll be taking more seriously in future.
So what makes this sexist is not the actual product but where it was given. The presentation assumes a vast majority of male members which is sexist. We shouldn't be able to assume that members of a tech conference will mostly be male - and if we do we shouldn't target them separately in a manner which would make the female portion uncomfortable and feel apart from the rest.
My thoughts exactly.
I hate sigs.
Sad to think this sophomoric humour won an Australian competition, and money was spent paying for their trip.
A client of mine in Australia relayed to me once about his views on US vs Australia in that : " You guys were settled by puritans, we were settled by convicts..I think we got the better end of the deal. "
Basically, this whole diversion should demonstrate two things to you.
Actually, plenty of people believe in absolute morals, I believe. If you do not state your position clearly, how am I to know what you really mean? This is different from merely being pedantic about word choice for no reason, but if that's what you want to do, then go ahead; I believe I could have worded that sentence better.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
That doesn't give them any kind of claim to "absoluteness"; something I still don't know what you intend to mean
You're not the only one who doesn't understand absolute morality; I think it's nonsense. But there are people who treat morality as if it's separate from opinion and as if there is some sort of mystical being in the universe who decides right from wrong, and that being's opinions are more 'correct' than ours. I don't know how it works, nor do I really care to.
The rules are independent of what people believe - they are there in the structures discussed in social science, whether people believe them or not.
Independent? But if people were vastly different than they are now (had vastly different beliefs), would these "rules" not change as well?
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
... and commercialise it to the female pre-teen market so that they can tell ma and pa exactly how they want their silicon tits to look like for their birthdays.
Perfect!!!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
That is not correct; there are physiological differences between "races". Black people tend to have higher risks of certain heart disease; white people have higher risks of some kinds of cancer; Inuit people have a lower risk of death from cholesterol build up due to fatty diet; etc etc etc.
Spoken like a true New Yorker -- pretending to live in the south.
Been all over this country for years at a time, and you're full of crap.
Nonsense. This is an isolated incident. The people putting women off technology are those going around claiming that all men are like this, and that it's a widespread problem.
Right, and it's incredibly difficult to find any other "isolated incidents" of sexism in the tech industry. It's darn near impossible. We can, in fact, say with confidence that it doesn't exist. Right? Right?
Right, and because it's not incredibly difficult to find any "isolated incidents" of murders, rapes and muggings by black people, we can say with confidence that it's an inherent race trait sorely in need of correction.
I'm sorry I can't find you all the news articles about men and women quietly working together in IT without making big deal about gender one way or another - the number of those between incidents like this would pretty much drown them out, but, alas, this kind of stories doesn't generate pageviews and thousands of flaming comments.
First, that you shouldn't play the game of semantic uncharitability without being absolutely semantically beyond criticism.
Also, that makes no sense. The fact that I have some improving to do does not mean that my observations about you are incorrect.
If you insist on being a pedant, fine, but be authentic in your pedantry, rather than just using it as a tool to poke cheap jabs at other people in a debate.
I don't see them as "cheap jabs"; I simply have no idea what your actual position is unless you make it clear.
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Even though I dont agree with you I will commend you for focusing on the key issue instead of chasing down side-alleys. But in fact your analysis, while commonly held, is fundamentally incorrect. These are not biological divisions but simple *statistical differences* - and much, much smaller than the differences between individuals of the same 'race.' You can redraw your *race* lines in a hundred different pseudo-random ways and get several hundred different groups that will all be somewhat mushily distinguishable on the basis of tiny statistical differences but that doesnt mean there is any real biological division there. The difference between two individuals is typically orders of magnitude larger than the differences between these supposed races.
Which indicates clearly they dont really exist. They are socially constructed categories given added and undeserved credibility by the assumption that they reflect a biological reality to which, in fact, they bear little to no resemblance.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I posted an article in another response the the St. Mary's frosh week incident. When the girls were asked why they participated they said they weren't feminist so it didn't matter to them.
Ugh. I'm trying to find the upside to that Nova Scotia chant and it doesn't seem like there is one, nor does it seem like people are overreacting to it. It seems like a cheerful chant in support of raping underage girls in an area which has a high proportion of sexual assault.
That doesn't seem like anti-feminism, that's just nasty. You don't have to be a feminist to be against it. :-/
You do bring up a very interesting point: examples of racism are just as likely to be dismissed as isolated incidents rather than symptoms of a more widespread phenomenon. Racial minorities in tech experience a lot of the same issues as women do, and the same frustration with the dominant paradigm refusing to acknowledge that it's actually real.
I'm pretty fortunate--my current workplace (I'm a woman in IT, obv) is as you describe, men and women working together in a pretty egalitarian environment. But even I'm not so naive as to think that my experience invalidates all of the other examples of sexism in the industry. For one thing, the happy scenario you describe hasn't always been my experience. It isn't the experience of many other women in the industry. And you don't have to visit any linkbait websites to see evidence of this, either. Try attending a tech conference like this one and just talk to the women in attendance about their experiences. Better yet, listen.
Yeah, there's a fine line for sure and you need to be careful in how you handle it.
I stole this Sig
I'm offended by the lack of exercise in the very important freedom of choice by those who are reading your well worded and deliciously offensive response to a thread on a topic that has reached ad-ridiculum. Can we all be a little more offended by the massive human death, intentional waste, and horrendous destruction of the ecosystem that our species has engaged in rather than the fact that the males of our species like to visually judge the mammary glands of the females of our species prior to attempting mating (aka always) but is too stupid to understand why? Get over it. There's bigger rivers to cry into. Count to 5. Breathe. Now find something important to go shake your fist at and stop sheltering the youth of this world from reality because that's how they'll end up like you.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
Yes a goalpost shift due to be pretending to have poor reading comprehension and using semantics to justify it. You win! You found a petty mistake, pretended not to understand it was and mistake and exploited it by pretending to be stupid - you are master at mass debate and don't even care if you look retarded so long as you win. Now please let the others get on with it.
False accusation? Unfortunately not.
hang on, the 9 year old's parents are responsible for the 9 year old. tech presenters should not have to self-censor because there might be a 9 year old in the audience. this app is just soft porn. loads of them put there. so it's not particularly innovative. but suggesting it should be censored because of its content seems puritanical
I didn't say it was anti-feminism, nor that it wasn't offensive/nasty. I do think what people have been calling for is over the top. These are a bunch of kids away from home for the first time participating in a group activity. I remember my own frosh week, even if I didn't participate in a lot of things, and it's very easy to get caught up in the mob. Most people here were just having fun and just want to belong/make friends. I can't fault them for that. They are being punished by having to attend mandatory sensitivity training, which I think is fair.
The issue I see here is if you look at a lot of the earlier comments it's from obvious feminatzais calling out men for being so disgraceful, when there are obviously women taking part in the chant as well. It's stereotyping men in a negative light and shows the double standard extreme feminist try to force on boys/men while letting girls/women off the hook for equally bad behavior.
Another issue was with the "rape" of Rehtaeh Parsons. Rape in quotes because I have no doubt she didn't consent, but I wasn't there to witness so I can't know for sure. She went to a party with a friend got drunk and refused to leave when her friend wanted to go. Then she refused to leave when her friend brought her mother (friends mother, not Rehtaeh's) in to try and pull her out, at which point Rehtaeh was apparently already naked with "four" boys (number of boys varies based on who's telling the story). One of the boys Rehtaeh accused of participating came out later proving he wasn't even at the party that night. Then later on one of the boys had sex with Rehtaeh while another snapped a photo of them with Rehtaeh propping herself up in the window where she supposedly was throwing up while the boy had sex with her from behind. Rehtaeh didn't report the incident as a rape for a few weeks later when the pictures the boys took surfaced. So to me this seems like she might have regretted the sex after the fact when she was humiliated and was using the rape claim as a way to get back at them. She didn't even know who was involved and almost ruined the life of someone who wasn't even there. Don't get me wrong there was a lot of things going on here and a lot of people dropped the ball, but the way the story was played was the boys raped her, despite the everyone involved saying she didn't object.
So they couldn't get the boys on rape charges because there was no evidence of rape, despite there being a picture of the "rape" as it took place. Rehtaeh committed suicide and the media went on a blitz. After much public out cry the boys were charged with making and distributing child pornography. I would normally be against that since all parties involved were under age, but in this case they took pictures and distributed them in what I consider bad faith. So I'm glad punishment is being dealt for that.
What was parroted over and over was, "Well she was drunk and they boys should know not to have sex with a drunk girl.", but I'm kind of of the opinion that's saying boys have to be doubly responsible. It was Rehtaeh's decision to get drunk in the first place and the boys were obviously drunk as well. It was Rehtaeh's decision to stay at the party and by all accounts the boys never forced her to do anything, but the responsibility for what happened for some reason falls completely to them. The boys are being held more accountable because they're boys and should know better.
In the case where a man is physically forcing a women to have sex with him, or blackmailing her it's rape. In the case where a girl willingly gets drunk and/or doesn't explicitly say yes or no, I don't believe it is rape and a girl shouldn't be able to come back months or years later with rape accusations. Equal treatment means being held equally responsible.
It just seems to me "feminist" don't want equal treatment, they want to be treated equally when it's to their benefit and that is what's wrong with the current state of the feminist movement. For the most part women aren't being t
I cannot give offense: only you can take offense. The choice is yours not mine.
Anyone who is offended simply has not read, or not understood, enough RA Heinlein
'It's not sexist!'
'But what if women did something like that?!'
'Waah get over it, it's just an app!'
'I don't know any women who have a problem with this/have experienced sexism, therefore it's not real.'
'Political correctness run amok means no fun allowed anymore.'
'WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?!'
Every time an article suggests that maybe, just maybe, the tech sector has have a problem with sexism that consistently makes women feel uncomfortable and alienated, a horde of bleating yahoos (most of which work in the tech sector, by all accounts) descend upon it in order to spout this kind of crap.
Which makes women feel uncomfortable and alienated.
The irony is so think I can taste it.