Of course you do. The difference is that you change the radio station perhaps a few times in an hour, it takes less than a second, you can do it fairly well without even focusing your eyes that much, and it's in a place that doesn't pull your attention too far away from the road. In other words, hardly like using your phone at all.
I got some weird attention from other parents when I pointed out that the only real use for fingerprints is to identify your kid if they turn up dead somewhere.
Well? On what planet does the fingerprint deter a kidnapper or molester or whatever?
Agreed. If we're talking specifically about appropriation, that was all about race and not about gender. (And a lot of feminists really lost their way on that part, IMO.)
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.
Some guys may use that as an excuse to rape someone, and it's also possible that a woman gives off incorrect signals and invites someone to rape her.
What. The. Fuck.
Rape by definition is unwanted sexual contact. If a woman is seriously, actually inviting someone to have sex with her, it literally can't be rape.
There is no such thing therefore as "invit[ing] someone to rape" you. That rhetoric is just a dickhead justification for rape. Either she's inviting, such as by saying, "Hey, let's have sex!" and it's not rape; or she's not inviting, and then it is rape.
Seriously. It's way less complicated than you're making it. And it's got nothing to do with "incorrect signals." Unless, again, you're in the business of justifying rape as just a big misunderstanding that everyone should get over.
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.
Sexism isn't something that magically comes into existence when an observer becomes "offended." It's not a matter of keeping score on other people's screwups and proving you're better than them.
Right here, it's simply seeing a couple of douchebags promoting a seriously creepy app idea, at the expense of women, and getting a mostly positive response in the moment. (I imagine a lot of the dudes in the audience who laughed when they saw it, thought about it later and felt differently. But anyway.)
You really can't see how most women feel like they're being checked out all the time at conferences to begin with? So an app that purports to make that easier is going to make staying the fuck away from that conference sound like a really good idea?
Maybe an ab-staring app would feel the same way to a lot of men. But a) there isn't one, which should tell you something, and b) it's just not the same when you're not already legitimately feeling scrutinized simply by being there in the first place.
Bottom line, "where is the outrage about this nonexistent problem that wouldn't even really be the same thing if it did exist?" isn't very good as a dismissive argument.
And endorsing the dudes' immature bullshit (by giving them a platform at the conference) is a sexist thing to do. It's saying that a woman's reasonable expectation of being able to peaceably attend a conference and not be confronted with leering strangers all the damn time (which is a reasonable expectation) is outweighed by the fun and frivolity of this oh-so-clever app idea and those clever lads who came up with it.
Even though the app itself is a joke. The whole incident is pretty directly saying to women that their little bit of dignity and respect in a businesses setting is less than a joke to the organizers. That's why this became a thing.
Oh Jesus. That's not name calling. I've got name calling if you want some.
So are you saying the only difference in our positions is that you don't find it obvious that TechCrunch should be held to "professional" standards? And we're in agreement that the tit-staring app presentation definitely doesn't belong in a "professional" environment? Fine.
Your first statement in this thread though, is still just wildly wrong. Nobody said what you claim they said. (Which is what I called you on.) Even your cite was way off.
I'll go further and say the standard for tit joke venues shouldn't be "sterile corporate." Even a relatively casual conference or workplace shouldn't have that kind of crap--not because it's evil or anything in its own right, just that it has the effect of enforcing an exclusionary "bro" culture. Go ahead and make all the tit jokes you like with your drinking buddies or at parties with people (be they men or women) who appreciate them. They're disrespectful in places that are supposed to include relative strangers.
As for it being "TechCrunch's loss," no, that's not how it works. It's not okay to organize a significant slice of the tech industry in a way that's hostile to women. (Or people of color, or redheads, or whatever.)
So no, you can't substantiate your statement that (for the third time):
someone wants to make the statement that all men condone apps like "titstare" or masturbation apps
That's simply not true, and you didn't give a shred of evidence to support your claim, and now you're even trying to move the goalposts. All in the pursuit of a bullshit false equivalence to make this issue go away.
Now try to keep up. The complaint here isn't whether you or I or someone else might want to work in that startup. The complaint we're talking about right now is that the presentation was a bullshit thing to allow into the conference in the first place, because featuring a "tit staring" app is so plainly rude that it has the effect of telling women to stay away.
And there were others decrying anyone complaining about the performance as "slut shaming."
Okay, good point there. It wasn't all one-sided. Some said "This is bad because sexist objectification." Others said "Shut up, you're slut-shaming." And then others said "Hang on, you're missing how racist it all was." There was a lot going on.
Still, the main point is that the Cyrus performance wasn't just automatically considered awesome by some vast majority of feminists. A lot of them found it problematic for different reasons.
Also, not where I was going with this particularly, but as others have stated here: it's a blatant case of apples, oranges, and bullshit. What one might do on a pop music show that people watch for entertainment is of limited relevance to what's appropriate at a tech conference. Bottom line, when people who are invited to speak on stage go with boob jokes and jerking-off jokes, it's pretty clearly telling the women that they're not the intended audience.
It's not just that it's offensive, it's specifically a signal that "this is not where you're supposed to be." Kind of like throwing a party with nothing but country music and hanging a Confederate flag by the dance floor and wondering why your black friends leave really early. They may or may not be offended but they sure as hell know they're not actually welcome there.
If he wants to make the statement that feminists were all cool with the Cyrus performance, he should check and do his damn research first. Knowing what you are talking about is important.
Giving a 24-year-old man and a 28-year-old man free passes on creepy behavior you might gently correct in a 10-year-old boy? Yeah, that's pretty sexist.
If you're going to give a presentation at a tech conference, yes, a certain level of maturity is required. Letting that go because "boys will be boys" is privileged bullshit.
Try to keep up. Feminist blogs were full of criticism of that performance. I realize that ruins your little rant and your fantasy of persecution, but there it is.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a great new verb. Thank you.
Specialness noted.
Of course you do. The difference is that you change the radio station perhaps a few times in an hour, it takes less than a second, you can do it fairly well without even focusing your eyes that much, and it's in a place that doesn't pull your attention too far away from the road. In other words, hardly like using your phone at all.
No, if you were affording the car the attention it deserves, you wouldn't be dividing it. That's the point.
It's unauthorized access to my computing device.
I got some weird attention from other parents when I pointed out that the only real use for fingerprints is to identify your kid if they turn up dead somewhere.
Well? On what planet does the fingerprint deter a kidnapper or molester or whatever?
Agreed. If we're talking specifically about appropriation, that was all about race and not about gender. (And a lot of feminists really lost their way on that part, IMO.)
Word.
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.
What. The. Fuck.
Rape by definition is unwanted sexual contact. If a woman is seriously, actually inviting someone to have sex with her, it literally can't be rape.
There is no such thing therefore as "invit[ing] someone to rape" you. That rhetoric is just a dickhead justification for rape. Either she's inviting, such as by saying, "Hey, let's have sex!" and it's not rape; or she's not inviting, and then it is rape.
Seriously. It's way less complicated than you're making it. And it's got nothing to do with "incorrect signals." Unless, again, you're in the business of justifying rape as just a big misunderstanding that everyone should get over.
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.
Sexism isn't something that magically comes into existence when an observer becomes "offended." It's not a matter of keeping score on other people's screwups and proving you're better than them.
Right here, it's simply seeing a couple of douchebags promoting a seriously creepy app idea, at the expense of women, and getting a mostly positive response in the moment. (I imagine a lot of the dudes in the audience who laughed when they saw it, thought about it later and felt differently. But anyway.)
You really can't see how most women feel like they're being checked out all the time at conferences to begin with? So an app that purports to make that easier is going to make staying the fuck away from that conference sound like a really good idea?
Maybe an ab-staring app would feel the same way to a lot of men. But a) there isn't one, which should tell you something, and b) it's just not the same when you're not already legitimately feeling scrutinized simply by being there in the first place.
Bottom line, "where is the outrage about this nonexistent problem that wouldn't even really be the same thing if it did exist?" isn't very good as a dismissive argument.
And endorsing the dudes' immature bullshit (by giving them a platform at the conference) is a sexist thing to do. It's saying that a woman's reasonable expectation of being able to peaceably attend a conference and not be confronted with leering strangers all the damn time (which is a reasonable expectation) is outweighed by the fun and frivolity of this oh-so-clever app idea and those clever lads who came up with it.
Even though the app itself is a joke. The whole incident is pretty directly saying to women that their little bit of dignity and respect in a businesses setting is less than a joke to the organizers. That's why this became a thing.
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.
Oh Jesus. That's not name calling. I've got name calling if you want some.
So are you saying the only difference in our positions is that you don't find it obvious that TechCrunch should be held to "professional" standards? And we're in agreement that the tit-staring app presentation definitely doesn't belong in a "professional" environment? Fine.
Your first statement in this thread though, is still just wildly wrong. Nobody said what you claim they said. (Which is what I called you on.) Even your cite was way off.
I'll go further and say the standard for tit joke venues shouldn't be "sterile corporate." Even a relatively casual conference or workplace shouldn't have that kind of crap--not because it's evil or anything in its own right, just that it has the effect of enforcing an exclusionary "bro" culture. Go ahead and make all the tit jokes you like with your drinking buddies or at parties with people (be they men or women) who appreciate them. They're disrespectful in places that are supposed to include relative strangers.
As for it being "TechCrunch's loss," no, that's not how it works. It's not okay to organize a significant slice of the tech industry in a way that's hostile to women. (Or people of color, or redheads, or whatever.)
Wait, what? How's that working out for you in real life?
No it's not a quagmire. The soldiers are bound by the Status of Forces Agreement in their host country, and by the laws of war when occupying.
That's simply not true, and you didn't give a shred of evidence to support your claim, and now you're even trying to move the goalposts. All in the pursuit of a bullshit false equivalence to make this issue go away. Now try to keep up. The complaint here isn't whether you or I or someone else might want to work in that startup. The complaint we're talking about right now is that the presentation was a bullshit thing to allow into the conference in the first place, because featuring a "tit staring" app is so plainly rude that it has the effect of telling women to stay away.
Okay, good point there. It wasn't all one-sided. Some said "This is bad because sexist objectification." Others said "Shut up, you're slut-shaming." And then others said "Hang on, you're missing how racist it all was." There was a lot going on.
Still, the main point is that the Cyrus performance wasn't just automatically considered awesome by some vast majority of feminists. A lot of them found it problematic for different reasons.
Also, not where I was going with this particularly, but as others have stated here: it's a blatant case of apples, oranges, and bullshit. What one might do on a pop music show that people watch for entertainment is of limited relevance to what's appropriate at a tech conference. Bottom line, when people who are invited to speak on stage go with boob jokes and jerking-off jokes, it's pretty clearly telling the women that they're not the intended audience.
It's not just that it's offensive, it's specifically a signal that "this is not where you're supposed to be." Kind of like throwing a party with nothing but country music and hanging a Confederate flag by the dance floor and wondering why your black friends leave really early. They may or may not be offended but they sure as hell know they're not actually welcome there.
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.
Then don't make bullshit statements about what feminists do and don't approve of. Either pay attention or STFU. Jesus.
It was only six sentences. Surely you can point out to me where that statement was made. False equivalence much?
Hah! Point taken.
If he wants to make the statement that feminists were all cool with the Cyrus performance, he should check and do his damn research first. Knowing what you are talking about is important.
Giving a 24-year-old man and a 28-year-old man free passes on creepy behavior you might gently correct in a 10-year-old boy? Yeah, that's pretty sexist.
If you're going to give a presentation at a tech conference, yes, a certain level of maturity is required. Letting that go because "boys will be boys" is privileged bullshit.
Try to keep up. Feminist blogs were full of criticism of that performance. I realize that ruins your little rant and your fantasy of persecution, but there it is.