6 ms·

"Micro aggressions", rape, lives being "destroyed", "emoji-induced tears", and violence undermine the point of the article. Tragically comedic hyperbole. Pro

by ra1n85 9y ago

"Micro aggressions", rape, lives being "destroyed", "emoji-induced tears", and violence undermine the point of the article. Tragically comedic hyperbole. Pro tip: The next time someone offends you, call them on it. Stand up for yourself. We need more people talking and less "retreat and blog".

crsmithdev 9y ago
Thanks for providing yourself as a great example of the problem here.
KirinDave 9y ago
Step 1: immediately introduce straw men to knock down. Step 2: blame the victim of sexual harassment for being there and not finding a way to not be harassed. Step 3: Right after telling them to stand up for themselves, immediately shame them for talking about the experience. It might give them resources to actually follow the advice you patronizingly tossed out in step 2. This playbook is old. It's unacceptable. It's a way to try and shield men from the consequences illegal, unproessional, and immoral actions. It's an attempt to undermine anyone who notices. You're doing something awful. Stop it.
- MadSax 9y ago
  It's interesting how you decry the straw man but then set up your very own in Steps 2 and 3.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    >> Step 1: immediately introduce straw men to knock down. > "Micro aggressions", rape, lives being "destroyed", "emoji-induced tears", and violence > Tragically comedic hyperbole. >> Step 2: blame the victim of sexual harassment for being there and not finding a way to not be harassed. > The next time someone offends you, call them on it. Stand up for yourself >> Step 3: Right after telling them to stand up for themselves, immediately shame them for talking about the experience. It might give them resources to actually follow the advice you patronizingly tossed out in step 2. > We need more people talking and less "retreat and blog" There are no straw men here. Only classic deflect-and-gaslight tactics older than either of us. But hey, you go on misusing the phrase "straw man", champ. Credit to your gender, etc. Stop defending sexism. If your behavior is indistinguishable from sexism save for intent, it is sexism. Period.
    - MadSax 9y ago
      Step 2: The parent absolutely did not blame the victim for simply being there. Step 3: You're assuming the victim would necessarily feel shame by trying to help them deal with assholes, and you're also assuming that shame was the intended outcome of telling them to stand up/call out idiots in the midst of their idiocy.
      - KirinDave 9y ago
        Your first paragraph: the victim was blamed for not acting differently to a circumstance that they should NOT have had to deal with. Characterize this as you will, it doesn't change that fact. No accordance was offered for this. The response was deemed sub-optimal and later shamed. I cannot parse your second paragraph. Victim helps "them"? Also: I repeat. If your actions are indistinguishable from sexism they're sexism. Your intent doesn't matter. Your defense here is that you're reading the gp charitably.
        MadSax 9y ago
        By standing up for one's self it's possible to both respect yourself and form respect between two or more people who were once quarreling. By dragging in HR, parents or the state you are cultivating a draconian environment where nobody at the job will respect her and she will never respect them, no matter how much they eschew sexism. They'll hate her and she'll fear them, forever. Someone strong enough of character would be able to withstand the initial stupidity and confront the perpetrators and convince them to stop. Should she have to do that? No, but maybe her actions could lead them to be more mature and they'd all respect each other, and the next woman would have that much better of an environment to go into. By immediately coddling them, you are accomplishing the exact opposite of what you think are doing. I think that's what the OP was trying to say, but I can't read minds so who knows.
        KirinDave 9y ago
        Oh so, really your demand that we coddle that bunch of lousy and unprofessional folks in the workplace is in her best interests, because SHE shouldn't be coddled? This seems arbitrary. This is not some punishment game on reality TV. It's a workplace. Being professional with employees is the bare minimum. Even teenagers can do it. Why do you want to coddle these men?
- Klockan 9y ago
  > blame the victim of sexual harassment for being there and not finding a way to not be harassed. There were examples of sexism in the article but I didn't see anything about sexual harassment, they are very different things and shouldn't be mixed up.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Blatant sexism in the workplace typically creates a differentially-hostile environment based on sex, which is all that is necessary for sexual harassment (at least, in US law; legally speaking, the definition is obviously jurisdiction dependent.) (Lots of harassment stories are about unwanted advances or actual sexual assault, which also is, in the workplace, harassment but is not necessary for harassment.)
    - Klockan 9y ago
      I didn't say that we should ignore sexism, I said that we shouldn't cry "sexual harassment" when we mean sexism because they are different things. Edit: Ah, now I see, I think we read the story a bit differently. I read the following part as being said to everyone and not just her, if he had singled her out then it would be sexual harassment but to me this looks like it is directed at the entire group: > When this director arrived, we were all seating around a large table, on 2 benches. The first thing he said was "Move over, I need room for my big dick"
- TheLilHipster 9y ago
  I disagree with you, but I'll keep it short. The author is injecting their own narrative into the words of her colleagues and is already assuming intent as malicious. The whole racism/sexism view-point comes from a misunderstanding and attribution of malice to innocent parties, it's so god damn ironic. I will not and do not tolerate sexism and racism. But I will also not blindy accept claims of racism and sexism without intent, context and backstory. Logic and rationality > outrage and ignorance.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > The author is injecting their own narrative into the words of her colleagues and is already assuming intent as malicious. I'm sorry. In what professional work environment is "move over I need room for my big dick" an appropriate statement? In what environment is it appropriate to actively mock a team member for posting an article, to the point where they cry in the workplace? The range in which "intent" would have tipped the ever-sensitive scales of our judgement was somewhere well before, "This app is big like my dick." It's ironic that people strive to defend this sort of garbage as work appropriate, and pass it off as a norm. It was not, and only recently have some places allowed it to be. Places that open themselves up to justifiable lawsuits, reduce productivity, make tech work more expensive for everyone, and increase the sum of human misery in the world. > I will not and do not tolerate sexism and racism. Okay good but... > But I will also not blindy accept claims of racism and sexism without intent, context and backstory. I'm sorry, but ... what on earth are you talking about? What context would make this okay? What backstory would permit this behavior? To me, this reads as, "I will oppose it unless I feel like making decisions about unobservable phenomena. > Logic and rationality > outrage and ignorance. The cold hard logic is that actions indistinguishable from sexism by both third parties and the aggrieved party ARE sexism. Intent is immeasurable. Pleading intent is asking others to take on an act of faith in defiance of the facts.
    - xupybd 9y ago
      Do you think there is room for a little more empathy here? It's possible that this group of guys is more socially awkward than is apparent. It doesn't justify this sort of behaviour, but it really is possible they have no idea the impact they're having on this woman. It seems that any response other than total outrage gets shot down as heresy. I'm just not sure that's the most pragmatic approach to fixing this problem. Communicating to these guys, the level of hurt they're inflicting may actually bring a better resolution. While I'd never make comments like that around at work, I'm very conservative, I was not aware that someone would be as deeply hurt as the author was. I work in an environment where jokes like that are common and often come from the only woman in the office. So I simply had no idea that this could "destroy people". It's not the same as sexism, but there are often jokes and discussions that mock my deeply held religious beliefs. Again totally different, but I've always felt it was up to me to control my reaction. I can easily get hurt or offended, that they're rejecting me and that the work place is hostile to someone that believes as I do. But I work to avoid thinking along those lines as it will do me no good. I can't change the people around me but I can develop a resilience such that those things don't bother me.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
qb45 9y ago
> "Micro aggressions", rape, lives being "destroyed", "emoji-induced tears", and violence undermine the point of the article. Tragically comedic hyperbole. They aren't hyperbole. Women don't have balls and it's an open question if they ever will. I actually can believe that she really cried, which takes this to a whole new level of crazy. The problem is that feminists see responses like that, figure out that men obviously must be disbelieving them in order to protect patriarchy and they grow even more scared to stand up for themselves and cry wolf even more. So you get the opposite of what you want.

by ra1n85 9y ago

crsmithdev 9y ago

Thanks for providing yourself as a great example of the problem here.

KirinDave 9y ago

Step 1: immediately introduce straw men to knock down. Step 2: blame the victim of sexual harassment for being there and not finding a way to not be harassed. Step 3: Right after telling them to stand up for themselves, immediately shame them for talking about the experience. It might give them resources to actually follow the advice you patronizingly tossed out in step 2. This playbook is old. It's unacceptable. It's a way to try and shield men from the consequences illegal, unproessional, and immoral actions. It's an attempt to undermine anyone who notices. You're doing something awful. Stop it.

MadSax 9y ago
It's interesting how you decry the straw man but then set up your very own in Steps 2 and 3.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  >> Step 1: immediately introduce straw men to knock down. > "Micro aggressions", rape, lives being "destroyed", "emoji-induced tears", and violence > Tragically comedic hyperbole. >> Step 2: blame the victim of sexual harassment for being there and not finding a way to not be harassed. > The next time someone offends you, call them on it. Stand up for yourself >> Step 3: Right after telling them to stand up for themselves, immediately shame them for talking about the experience. It might give them resources to actually follow the advice you patronizingly tossed out in step 2. > We need more people talking and less "retreat and blog" There are no straw men here. Only classic deflect-and-gaslight tactics older than either of us. But hey, you go on misusing the phrase "straw man", champ. Credit to your gender, etc. Stop defending sexism. If your behavior is indistinguishable from sexism save for intent, it is sexism. Period.
  - MadSax 9y ago
    Step 2: The parent absolutely did not blame the victim for simply being there. Step 3: You're assuming the victim would necessarily feel shame by trying to help them deal with assholes, and you're also assuming that shame was the intended outcome of telling them to stand up/call out idiots in the midst of their idiocy.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      Your first paragraph: the victim was blamed for not acting differently to a circumstance that they should NOT have had to deal with. Characterize this as you will, it doesn't change that fact. No accordance was offered for this. The response was deemed sub-optimal and later shamed. I cannot parse your second paragraph. Victim helps "them"? Also: I repeat. If your actions are indistinguishable from sexism they're sexism. Your intent doesn't matter. Your defense here is that you're reading the gp charitably.
      - MadSax 9y ago
        By standing up for one's self it's possible to both respect yourself and form respect between two or more people who were once quarreling. By dragging in HR, parents or the state you are cultivating a draconian environment where nobody at the job will respect her and she will never respect them, no matter how much they eschew sexism. They'll hate her and she'll fear them, forever. Someone strong enough of character would be able to withstand the initial stupidity and confront the perpetrators and convince them to stop. Should she have to do that? No, but maybe her actions could lead them to be more mature and they'd all respect each other, and the next woman would have that much better of an environment to go into. By immediately coddling them, you are accomplishing the exact opposite of what you think are doing. I think that's what the OP was trying to say, but I can't read minds so who knows.
        KirinDave 9y ago
        Oh so, really your demand that we coddle that bunch of lousy and unprofessional folks in the workplace is in her best interests, because SHE shouldn't be coddled? This seems arbitrary. This is not some punishment game on reality TV. It's a workplace. Being professional with employees is the bare minimum. Even teenagers can do it. Why do you want to coddle these men?
Klockan 9y ago
> blame the victim of sexual harassment for being there and not finding a way to not be harassed. There were examples of sexism in the article but I didn't see anything about sexual harassment, they are very different things and shouldn't be mixed up.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Blatant sexism in the workplace typically creates a differentially-hostile environment based on sex, which is all that is necessary for sexual harassment (at least, in US law; legally speaking, the definition is obviously jurisdiction dependent.) (Lots of harassment stories are about unwanted advances or actual sexual assault, which also is, in the workplace, harassment but is not necessary for harassment.)
  - Klockan 9y ago
    I didn't say that we should ignore sexism, I said that we shouldn't cry "sexual harassment" when we mean sexism because they are different things. Edit: Ah, now I see, I think we read the story a bit differently. I read the following part as being said to everyone and not just her, if he had singled her out then it would be sexual harassment but to me this looks like it is directed at the entire group: > When this director arrived, we were all seating around a large table, on 2 benches. The first thing he said was "Move over, I need room for my big dick"
TheLilHipster 9y ago
I disagree with you, but I'll keep it short. The author is injecting their own narrative into the words of her colleagues and is already assuming intent as malicious. The whole racism/sexism view-point comes from a misunderstanding and attribution of malice to innocent parties, it's so god damn ironic. I will not and do not tolerate sexism and racism. But I will also not blindy accept claims of racism and sexism without intent, context and backstory. Logic and rationality > outrage and ignorance.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  > The author is injecting their own narrative into the words of her colleagues and is already assuming intent as malicious. I'm sorry. In what professional work environment is "move over I need room for my big dick" an appropriate statement? In what environment is it appropriate to actively mock a team member for posting an article, to the point where they cry in the workplace? The range in which "intent" would have tipped the ever-sensitive scales of our judgement was somewhere well before, "This app is big like my dick." It's ironic that people strive to defend this sort of garbage as work appropriate, and pass it off as a norm. It was not, and only recently have some places allowed it to be. Places that open themselves up to justifiable lawsuits, reduce productivity, make tech work more expensive for everyone, and increase the sum of human misery in the world. > I will not and do not tolerate sexism and racism. Okay good but... > But I will also not blindy accept claims of racism and sexism without intent, context and backstory. I'm sorry, but ... what on earth are you talking about? What context would make this okay? What backstory would permit this behavior? To me, this reads as, "I will oppose it unless I feel like making decisions about unobservable phenomena. > Logic and rationality > outrage and ignorance. The cold hard logic is that actions indistinguishable from sexism by both third parties and the aggrieved party ARE sexism. Intent is immeasurable. Pleading intent is asking others to take on an act of faith in defiance of the facts.
  - xupybd 9y ago
    Do you think there is room for a little more empathy here? It's possible that this group of guys is more socially awkward than is apparent. It doesn't justify this sort of behaviour, but it really is possible they have no idea the impact they're having on this woman. It seems that any response other than total outrage gets shot down as heresy. I'm just not sure that's the most pragmatic approach to fixing this problem. Communicating to these guys, the level of hurt they're inflicting may actually bring a better resolution. While I'd never make comments like that around at work, I'm very conservative, I was not aware that someone would be as deeply hurt as the author was. I work in an environment where jokes like that are common and often come from the only woman in the office. So I simply had no idea that this could "destroy people". It's not the same as sexism, but there are often jokes and discussions that mock my deeply held religious beliefs. Again totally different, but I've always felt it was up to me to control my reaction. I can easily get hurt or offended, that they're rejecting me and that the work place is hostile to someone that believes as I do. But I work to avoid thinking along those lines as it will do me no good. I can't change the people around me but I can develop a resilience such that those things don't bother me.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

qb45 9y ago

> "Micro aggressions", rape, lives being "destroyed", "emoji-induced tears", and violence undermine the point of the article. Tragically comedic hyperbole. They aren't hyperbole. Women don't have balls and it's an open question if they ever will. I actually can believe that she really cried, which takes this to a whole new level of crazy. The problem is that feminists see responses like that, figure out that men obviously must be disbelieving them in order to protect patriarchy and they grow even more scared to stand up for themselves and cry wolf even more. So you get the opposite of what you want.