12 ms·

At risk of being called overly-PC, I must point out that the opening sentence is could be seen as objectifying women: >Brazilian soccer star Carlos Kaiser had

At risk of being called overly-PC, I must point out that the opening sentence is could be seen as objectifying women: >Brazilian soccer star Carlos Kaiser had it all: exclusive contracts with popular teams, money, fame, and women. I normally don't point out things like this, because hyper-sensitivity to things that are often considered "offensive" when they really aren't can be annoying. But I can't see how to interpret this other than "women" being a possession. To be fair, the author isn't likely being malicious, and I think he just means that he's receiving the attention of lots of women. Such attention is, arguably, an "object" in the sense of a commodity in the social marketplace ("that guy has a lot of women" is often seen as a compliment whether you like it or not). But still, I'm surprised at how much the author's choice of words bothered me. I don't even identify as a feminist in the traditional sense....shrug.

gakada 10y ago
Are you saying the author is being unfair on the average footballer by implying that they objectify women? :)
Normal_gaussian 10y ago
Whilst I have friends I don't own them. I endeavour to obtain more friends, and I judge people as to whether they would be the kind of friend that I want - short or long term. To describe somebody as 'having' women is often accurate and useful - I do not see why this should be penalised. Now what does confuse and upset me is the way in which we rarely describe women as being able to have lots of men - the slut problem. Enjoying regular sex and really exploring it, like any other hobby, seems incredibly reasonable. Hoping to enjoy lots of sex sounds like something anybody should want, and I don't see why this is limited as a descriptor for men only. In short, pretty much everybody likes a good fucking - why are we afraid to say it?
- kajecounterhack 10y ago
  To describe somebody as 'having' women is often accurate and useful - I do not see why this should be penalised. Can you also see that someone might find this language offensive? That 'having a woman' is somehow vernacular but you don't really see women being described as having 'money, fame, men' ? The language makes women sound like they are possessions.
  - Pitarou 10y ago
    Do you consider fame be a possession, even though it exists entirely in the mind of others?
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    I argue that it is correct to do so. Firstly I show how being grammatically in possession of something is not derogatory: > I have friends I then argue that this usage is in fact desirable > To describe somebody as 'having' women is often accurate and useful Which is followed by stating that I also consider the language to be one sided > Now what does confuse and upset me is the way in which we rarely describe women as being able to have lots of men So when you ask whether I can see that someone might find this language offensive I can only say "evidently". And when you state that we don't see women being described as having men I refer you to my earlier dismay. And when you state that the syntax of the language makes it look like women are possessions I wholeheartedly agree. Can you see that removing reference to "a persons ability to access sexual gratification" is detrimental to the expressiveness of the language?
    - kajecounterhack 10y ago
      Firstly I show how being grammatically in possession of something is not derogatory: "Grammatically not being derogatory" is not the same as understanding how something is actually being received. Language is only as useful as it communicates messages, and I think you can believe what you do and still see how someone could find this offensive, given the landscape which you recognize is one-sided. That is just what I meant. Justifying the usage as accurate and useful and grammatically correct doesn't take away from the point that someone can conceivably, justly, take offense to the language. It's valid for someone to feel the one-sidedness and inequality inherent to the statement. Can you see that removing reference to "a persons ability to access sexual gratification" is detrimental to the expressiveness of the language? If I'm reading this correctly, then I disagree. I think there may be a better way to say what the author was trying to say that is sensitive to the objectification women face.
      - 10y ago
- jimmyk 10y ago
  >Now what does confuse and upset me is the way in which we rarely describe women as being able to have lots of men - the slut problem. We do describe women, in a positive way, as being able to have lots of men -- we just call them suitors. We correctly identify that having lots of men that want to marry you is a rare gift, and that having lots of women that want to have sex with you is a rare gift. Having casual sex with a lot of men is not a difficult feat to achieve, so why would you expect anyone to glorify anyone for being able to do it?
  - kajecounterhack 10y ago
    So you recognize the inequality inherent in the situation. This is exactly why being sensitive to objectification of women is important for fighting gender inequality! The reason society praises men getting sex is because women are / have been historically treated in part as objects of pleasure / things to be won / conquests. Brides are literally given away at weddings. Women's suffrage in the US came after slaves. Once the "object" is "defiled" it is shamed, but the men are not defilable because they're not objects! They can't be defiled because it's not their job to be objects for others. Like, if I sleep in a set of sheets, and then you go to sleep in the sheets, you might say the sheets are defiled. But in no world do you say either of us are defiled. Society currently treats women like bedsheets, to put it lightly. Women are only praised for getting "suitors," so people who ask them to be their girlfriends, and people who ask them to marry them. But if you follow that model, women have no agency. There's no agency in waiting for men to ask. Again, they're just objects. And people take this all as normal?! That a man having sex never treats the man as an object of pleasure, but as a taker of pleasure? And women are just pleasure-giving commodities? That's exactly the problem. I don't think people care that much about what they're praised for, but more that they are seen as whole people instead of objects without agency.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Women had fewer votes than slaves. Incorrect. When slavery was legal, women had zero votes in and slaves had zero votes. Presumably, you are confusing the 3/5 compromise -- by which slaves contributed to the representation of the states in which they were held -- with giving "votes" to slaves, but that's not correct (it just gave more power in federal government to the states in which they were held.) But, not only is that not correct, but since women were constitutionally "free persons" despite not being granted voting rights, they were counted as full -- not 3/5 -- people for representation. So if you are counting their contribution to their states representation as "votes" (which is, again, wrong) they would have more than slaves, not less.
kajecounterhack 10y ago
Why is this downvoted? Can someone explain? If you disagree with this assessment maybe respond with rationale rather than disagreeing by downvote. I must point out that the opening sentence is could be seen as objectifying women This seems to be a valid point to make. If you object to the relevance of this, you may be wise to consider there are female readers on HN and be gently reminded that the software community has a diversity & inclusiveness problem.
- yongjik 10y ago
  Probably because this thread has a very good chance of becoming an off-topic flamewar. (I didn't downvote, by the way.)
  - kajecounterhack 10y ago
    Good point. I agree that it'd probably have become a flamewar and sucked. But also I wish it stayed at a low positive vote count, instead of being grayed out like it was an invalid opinion.
Pitarou 10y ago
In the context, I would take "[he had] women" to be shorthand for "[he had] sexual access to women he thought desirable". Maybe that commodifies them, but this probably reflects the attitude of a young Brazilian footballer more than it reflects the attitude of the author.

gakada 10y ago

Are you saying the author is being unfair on the average footballer by implying that they objectify women? :)

Normal_gaussian 10y ago

Whilst I have friends I don't own them. I endeavour to obtain more friends, and I judge people as to whether they would be the kind of friend that I want - short or long term. To describe somebody as 'having' women is often accurate and useful - I do not see why this should be penalised. Now what does confuse and upset me is the way in which we rarely describe women as being able to have lots of men - the slut problem. Enjoying regular sex and really exploring it, like any other hobby, seems incredibly reasonable. Hoping to enjoy lots of sex sounds like something anybody should want, and I don't see why this is limited as a descriptor for men only. In short, pretty much everybody likes a good fucking - why are we afraid to say it?

kajecounterhack 10y ago
To describe somebody as 'having' women is often accurate and useful - I do not see why this should be penalised. Can you also see that someone might find this language offensive? That 'having a woman' is somehow vernacular but you don't really see women being described as having 'money, fame, men' ? The language makes women sound like they are possessions.
- Pitarou 10y ago
  Do you consider fame be a possession, even though it exists entirely in the mind of others?
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  I argue that it is correct to do so. Firstly I show how being grammatically in possession of something is not derogatory: > I have friends I then argue that this usage is in fact desirable > To describe somebody as 'having' women is often accurate and useful Which is followed by stating that I also consider the language to be one sided > Now what does confuse and upset me is the way in which we rarely describe women as being able to have lots of men So when you ask whether I can see that someone might find this language offensive I can only say "evidently". And when you state that we don't see women being described as having men I refer you to my earlier dismay. And when you state that the syntax of the language makes it look like women are possessions I wholeheartedly agree. Can you see that removing reference to "a persons ability to access sexual gratification" is detrimental to the expressiveness of the language?
  - kajecounterhack 10y ago
    Firstly I show how being grammatically in possession of something is not derogatory: "Grammatically not being derogatory" is not the same as understanding how something is actually being received. Language is only as useful as it communicates messages, and I think you can believe what you do and still see how someone could find this offensive, given the landscape which you recognize is one-sided. That is just what I meant. Justifying the usage as accurate and useful and grammatically correct doesn't take away from the point that someone can conceivably, justly, take offense to the language. It's valid for someone to feel the one-sidedness and inequality inherent to the statement. Can you see that removing reference to "a persons ability to access sexual gratification" is detrimental to the expressiveness of the language? If I'm reading this correctly, then I disagree. I think there may be a better way to say what the author was trying to say that is sensitive to the objectification women face.
    - 10y ago
jimmyk 10y ago
>Now what does confuse and upset me is the way in which we rarely describe women as being able to have lots of men - the slut problem. We do describe women, in a positive way, as being able to have lots of men -- we just call them suitors. We correctly identify that having lots of men that want to marry you is a rare gift, and that having lots of women that want to have sex with you is a rare gift. Having casual sex with a lot of men is not a difficult feat to achieve, so why would you expect anyone to glorify anyone for being able to do it?
- kajecounterhack 10y ago
  So you recognize the inequality inherent in the situation. This is exactly why being sensitive to objectification of women is important for fighting gender inequality! The reason society praises men getting sex is because women are / have been historically treated in part as objects of pleasure / things to be won / conquests. Brides are literally given away at weddings. Women's suffrage in the US came after slaves. Once the "object" is "defiled" it is shamed, but the men are not defilable because they're not objects! They can't be defiled because it's not their job to be objects for others. Like, if I sleep in a set of sheets, and then you go to sleep in the sheets, you might say the sheets are defiled. But in no world do you say either of us are defiled. Society currently treats women like bedsheets, to put it lightly. Women are only praised for getting "suitors," so people who ask them to be their girlfriends, and people who ask them to marry them. But if you follow that model, women have no agency. There's no agency in waiting for men to ask. Again, they're just objects. And people take this all as normal?! That a man having sex never treats the man as an object of pleasure, but as a taker of pleasure? And women are just pleasure-giving commodities? That's exactly the problem. I don't think people care that much about what they're praised for, but more that they are seen as whole people instead of objects without agency.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Women had fewer votes than slaves. Incorrect. When slavery was legal, women had zero votes in and slaves had zero votes. Presumably, you are confusing the 3/5 compromise -- by which slaves contributed to the representation of the states in which they were held -- with giving "votes" to slaves, but that's not correct (it just gave more power in federal government to the states in which they were held.) But, not only is that not correct, but since women were constitutionally "free persons" despite not being granted voting rights, they were counted as full -- not 3/5 -- people for representation. So if you are counting their contribution to their states representation as "votes" (which is, again, wrong) they would have more than slaves, not less.

kajecounterhack 10y ago

Why is this downvoted? Can someone explain? If you disagree with this assessment maybe respond with rationale rather than disagreeing by downvote. I must point out that the opening sentence is could be seen as objectifying women This seems to be a valid point to make. If you object to the relevance of this, you may be wise to consider there are female readers on HN and be gently reminded that the software community has a diversity & inclusiveness problem.

yongjik 10y ago
Probably because this thread has a very good chance of becoming an off-topic flamewar. (I didn't downvote, by the way.)
- kajecounterhack 10y ago
  Good point. I agree that it'd probably have become a flamewar and sucked. But also I wish it stayed at a low positive vote count, instead of being grayed out like it was an invalid opinion.

Pitarou 10y ago

In the context, I would take "[he had] women" to be shorthand for "[he had] sexual access to women he thought desirable". Maybe that commodifies them, but this probably reflects the attitude of a young Brazilian footballer more than it reflects the attitude of the author.