4 ms·

> I was recently talking to a guy who works in the city who bragged about “collecting all the flags” through his exploits on Tinder. If I had to work with chauv

by tomp 10y ago

> I was recently talking to a guy who works in the city who bragged about “collecting all the flags” through his exploits on Tinder. If I had to work with chauvinists like that, it would be a different story.” Some people have sex for fun, some have sex for money, others pursue yet other goals. What happened to sex-positive feminism? Oh, right, I forgot - non-judgement is reserved for women only...

ybrah 10y ago
Slut shaming for men is apparently okay
- yompers888 10y ago
  I wholeheartedly believe that the reason for your post's low score is not the opinion represented, but the fact that you express it without any explanation of your thought process. Please explain what you mean, and how you judge the author to have meant that, so that you at least give the possibility of a positive discussion.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ktRolster 10y ago
He's not treating the women as people, he's treating them as objects. The reason it would make her feel uncomfortable is because he would probably look at her the same way, because objectifying isn't something you just turn on and turn off. Also, it's not really a topic you should bring up at work.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- stcredzero 10y ago
  objectifying isn't something you just turn on and turn off. You can't. Objectification isn't a sin. It isn't inherently evil. Much like stereotyping, it's an epiphenomenon of our finite human brains. We naturally tend to jump to conclusions and take mental shortcuts from external signifiers. (Stereotyping.) We naturally process our goal seeking in terms of instrumental causes and effects, and we sometimes forget to take into account the subjective experience of other people in our plans. (Objectification.) This is why cultures have manners that encourage active mental compensations for the deficiencies of our brains. Are these manners as received from tradition perfect? No. There needs to be some further iteration. But I would contend that taking brand new stances of vilification and shaming will be just as toxic and problematic as such stances were in the past. Not defending any actions in the article. I just want to straighten out the way people process these concepts: Objectification and stereotyping are information processing problems, not moral ones. They are not sins!
  - foldr 10y ago
    Either you think it's ok to sexually objectify women in the workplace or you don't. I think your comment is basically a long-winded way of saying that you're ok with it, but you could have just said so without all the patronizing verbiage and pseudoscience. It makes no sense whatsoever to think about sexual objectification in terms of "information processing". If men can understand other men as more than purely sexual beings, then they can do the same with women. I hardly think that taking the non-sexual aspects of any particular woman into account is going to lead to some kind of information overload.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      Either you think it's ok to sexually objectify women in the workplace or you don't. False dichotomy. Fallacy. I think there is a certain range of behavior that's toxic. We would probably largely agree on what that is. However, no one who actually understands cognitive and social psychology would say that people can actually never objectify, no more than any expert would reasonably expect a person to never stereotype. I think your comment is basically a long-winded way of saying that you're ok with it I think your comment is a prime example of the toxicity that results from people thinking of such things as a sin. Also, nice job projecting fictional thoughts and ideas on someone with scant evidence. (Exactly what is your evidence?) without all the patronizing verbiage and pseudoscience. Please provide a quote as to where I patronized anyone. As far as I an tell, you are simply offended at my suggestion that objectification isn't a sin. (As opposed to a potentially toxic side effect of the way humans process information and goals.) Surprisingly and quite troubling, your primary focus seems to be to ensure such a thing is seen as a moral issue. (Thanks for being obvious about it.)
- gnicholas 10y ago
  > Also, it's not really a topic you should bring up at work. FWIW, he didn't bring this up at work, and my reading of your comment implies that he did/would. She doesn't work with this guy, and she doesn't suggest that he said this in a work-related context. If everyone's suitability as a colleague were judged by what they said outside of work, I imagine that most of us would fare poorly.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I can see her not wanting to work with a guy who would view her as a flag to collect.
Kluny 10y ago
Unless I misunderstand, "collecting the flags" refers to being flagged for every possible thing that you can get flagged for - scamming, using fraudulent profiles, being aggressive, being abusive, etc. Someone who is collecting flags is intentionally violating the terms of service and making the Tinder experience unpleasant for others. Feel free to pursue whatever goals you want, but not at the expense of other people's enjoyment. That doesn't have anything to do with gender.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Joky 10y ago
  It seems to me that it is really about "national flag": http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flag%20collecting http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flag%20collec...
dang 10y ago
Resentful nitpicking is a poor genre to begin with, and swerving straight into gender flamewar makes this an outright bad comment for HN. We all know what comes of this, and none of it's good (edit: and in the time it took me to write this, you'd already provoked five of it), so let's please not re-rehearse it.
- harryjo 10y ago
  "rehearse" ?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

by tomp 10y ago

ybrah 10y ago

Slut shaming for men is apparently okay

yompers888 10y ago
I wholeheartedly believe that the reason for your post's low score is not the opinion represented, but the fact that you express it without any explanation of your thought process. Please explain what you mean, and how you judge the author to have meant that, so that you at least give the possibility of a positive discussion.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ktRolster 10y ago

He's not treating the women as people, he's treating them as objects. The reason it would make her feel uncomfortable is because he would probably look at her the same way, because objectifying isn't something you just turn on and turn off. Also, it's not really a topic you should bring up at work.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 10y ago
objectifying isn't something you just turn on and turn off. You can't. Objectification isn't a sin. It isn't inherently evil. Much like stereotyping, it's an epiphenomenon of our finite human brains. We naturally tend to jump to conclusions and take mental shortcuts from external signifiers. (Stereotyping.) We naturally process our goal seeking in terms of instrumental causes and effects, and we sometimes forget to take into account the subjective experience of other people in our plans. (Objectification.) This is why cultures have manners that encourage active mental compensations for the deficiencies of our brains. Are these manners as received from tradition perfect? No. There needs to be some further iteration. But I would contend that taking brand new stances of vilification and shaming will be just as toxic and problematic as such stances were in the past. Not defending any actions in the article. I just want to straighten out the way people process these concepts: Objectification and stereotyping are information processing problems, not moral ones. They are not sins!
- foldr 10y ago
  Either you think it's ok to sexually objectify women in the workplace or you don't. I think your comment is basically a long-winded way of saying that you're ok with it, but you could have just said so without all the patronizing verbiage and pseudoscience. It makes no sense whatsoever to think about sexual objectification in terms of "information processing". If men can understand other men as more than purely sexual beings, then they can do the same with women. I hardly think that taking the non-sexual aspects of any particular woman into account is going to lead to some kind of information overload.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Either you think it's ok to sexually objectify women in the workplace or you don't. False dichotomy. Fallacy. I think there is a certain range of behavior that's toxic. We would probably largely agree on what that is. However, no one who actually understands cognitive and social psychology would say that people can actually never objectify, no more than any expert would reasonably expect a person to never stereotype. I think your comment is basically a long-winded way of saying that you're ok with it I think your comment is a prime example of the toxicity that results from people thinking of such things as a sin. Also, nice job projecting fictional thoughts and ideas on someone with scant evidence. (Exactly what is your evidence?) without all the patronizing verbiage and pseudoscience. Please provide a quote as to where I patronized anyone. As far as I an tell, you are simply offended at my suggestion that objectification isn't a sin. (As opposed to a potentially toxic side effect of the way humans process information and goals.) Surprisingly and quite troubling, your primary focus seems to be to ensure such a thing is seen as a moral issue. (Thanks for being obvious about it.)
gnicholas 10y ago
> Also, it's not really a topic you should bring up at work. FWIW, he didn't bring this up at work, and my reading of your comment implies that he did/would. She doesn't work with this guy, and she doesn't suggest that he said this in a work-related context. If everyone's suitability as a colleague were judged by what they said outside of work, I imagine that most of us would fare poorly.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

I can see her not wanting to work with a guy who would view her as a flag to collect.

Kluny 10y ago

Unless I misunderstand, "collecting the flags" refers to being flagged for every possible thing that you can get flagged for - scamming, using fraudulent profiles, being aggressive, being abusive, etc. Someone who is collecting flags is intentionally violating the terms of service and making the Tinder experience unpleasant for others. Feel free to pursue whatever goals you want, but not at the expense of other people's enjoyment. That doesn't have anything to do with gender.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Joky 10y ago
It seems to me that it is really about "national flag": http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flag%20collecting http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flag%20collec...

dang 10y ago

Resentful nitpicking is a poor genre to begin with, and swerving straight into gender flamewar makes this an outright bad comment for HN. We all know what comes of this, and none of it's good (edit: and in the time it took me to write this, you'd already provoked five of it), so let's please not re-rehearse it.

harryjo 10y ago
"rehearse" ?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]