4 ms·

All of the people (edit: one of the people) who were interviewed admitted that there was sexist behavior at the company (Uh, a game where you grab a woman's tit

All of the people (edit: one of the people) who were interviewed admitted that there was sexist behavior at the company (Uh, a game where you grab a woman's tits? What?). But the women who worked there don't seem bothered by it. So the point of this whole situation should really be two questions. The first question would be: is sexism okay if nobody minds? The immediate, modern answer has become "No." A zero-tolerance policy is being adopted by most organizations in the world, due to mounting pressure to hold people accountable for unacceptable behavior. But it's clear that has not always been the case. If we rigidly judge all past behavior based on modern standards, we end up with cases like this. And maybe that's fine? Maybe we should judge all old actions based on modern standards, because we should continue to live by our current standards. But is this fair to the people who lived decades ago? Should we just say, they should have known better? This second question is how other controversies have developed recently, such as the tearing down of monuments depicting people who represent injustice. We are judging their former actions based on modern-day standards. And again: maybe this is fine. But I don't think our society has come to a definite conclusion. In any of these cases, a moderate person would perhaps try to find a common understanding and seek the best solution that weighs all the merits of each individual case. But society is not shaped by moderation. Emotional exuberance is how human society is guided, and the silent consent of the majority drives it forward. So expect more controversy for quite some time to come.

geofft 9y ago
> All of the people who were interviewed admitted that there was sexist behavior at the company ... But the women who worked there don't seem bothered by it. Yeah, that's what it sounds like the whole truth is - there were serious problems, and those who worked at the company weren't bothered by it. #NotNolan focuses on the former, Glasgow on the latter, but the whole truth is a combination of the two. (And the Kotaku article attempts to convey both of those.) So I'm particularly curious if there were women who weren't okay with the culture, felt uncomfortable or threatened, and left. Selecting for people who worked somewhere for a long time is naturally going to select for people who didn't have serious problems with the work culture / convinced themselves they were okay with it.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  > I'm particularly curious if there were women who weren't okay with the culture, felt uncomfortable or threatened, and left. Why? Assuming the answer is 'yes', what does this change? Assuming the answer is 'no', what does this change?
  - geofft 9y ago
    If the answer is "yes," it changes my belief in the narrative told in the Glasgow post, that everyone was okay with it and the only people who have problems are present-day outsiders trying to retrofit an agenda where it didn't fit. (In particular, it changes my opinion of the outsiders - if they were observing an actual problem that other people weren't noticing, and it holds up to scrutiny, that's now a credit to them.) If the answer is "no," that changes my belief about whether today's cultural norms against sexist workplaces are an objective good. (Both of these changes would be small but measurable updates.)
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > there were serious problems, and those who worked at the company weren't bothered by it Is something a problem, let alone a serious one, if it doesn't bother those who are affected by it?
  - geofft 9y ago
    As I wrote later in the comment, I'm curious if there were people affected by it who were bothered and responded by leaving quickly (or hearing rumors and not joining), in which case, yes, it's a serious problem.
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      > As I wrote later in the comment, I'm curious if there were people affected by it who were bothered and responded by leaving quickly (or hearing rumors and not joining), in which case, yes, it's a serious problem. Is it even possible to have a workplace that everyone will like? Because at the time there were no strong taboos about this and everyone seems to have been enjoying themselves. > it's a serious problem. What's with the present tense? This is ancient history.
Slansitartop 9y ago
> All of the people who were interviewed admitted that there was sexist behavior at the company What article did you read? Nothing linked says anything like that. Ctrl-F "sexist" in the article linked in the grandparent comment: no results and any quotes from any of the Atari women. Ctrl-F "sexism" in the article linked in the grandparent comment: one result: > Indeed, Loni Reeder and other former Atari employees recently worked on a spreadsheet in order to contradict the sexism claims being lobbed at Nolan Bushnell.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  I guess I misread the article. Only one woman who worked for Atari, who you didn't quote, mentioned sexist behavior in the workplace. Not that it matters, because, again, they made a game where you grab a woman's tits, and the CEO has made a big deal about the playboy environment for years.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    I'm guessing you're referring to this quote from the OP: > “There was a certain amount of sexism as far as ogling,” she said. “But that went both ways.” [emphasis mine] You'd make a shitty historian because you can't seem to help but impose your modern POV onto historical events. These people clearly had a very different perspective than you on all of this, and their perspective is, frankly, the more important one.
mturmon 9y ago
“the tearing down of monuments depicting people who represent injustice. We are judging their former actions based on modern-day standards...” If we’re talking about Confederate generals, it is worth saying that plenty of people at the time said their actions were wrong and they were defending an unjust system. Yet they did so anyway.
noobermin 9y ago
>The first question would be: is sexism okay if nobody minds? The immediate, modern answer has become "No." A zero-tolerance policy is being adopted by most organizations in the world, due to mounting pressure to hold people accountable for unacceptable behavior. I guess I understand this from the perspective of HR, but I'm actually not sure I'm comfortable with this either. The thing that separates rape from sex is consent. Arguably, the thing that determines whether any behavior that involves more than one person is okay or isn't is whether all parties consent. Why should a third party come in and decide for them whether behavior they consent to is acceptable? I don't feel comfortable regulating the behavior of consenting adults. That is too close to violating their human rights. Again, I get it if you're a company, and may be a large company that has to accommodate a number of people, some of whom might be new and might not be comfortable with these aspects of a company's culture, then it makes sense to regulate behavior for others. But it feels to me like this might bleed into other aspects of life.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  First off: consent is, by definition, simply an agreement. To have consent is to have an agreement. A lot of things in this world don't have a formal or even informal agreement, but happen anyway, and aren't immediately considered bad due to the lack of a prearranged agreement. Consent can become complicated because human interactions are often complicated. So it's not a good idea to generalize about consent, because it varies dramatically depending on circumstances. > The thing that separates rape from sex is consent. That's not true, but I'm sure a lot of people are trying to make that seem true. > Arguably, the thing that determines whether any behavior that involves more than one person is okay or isn't is whether all parties consent. What determines whether behavior is okay or isn't is society's moral standards. Consent is a part of this in some circumstances. You could argue that there are unwritten societal rules that we implicitly consent to as members of a society, but certainly not everything we do in society involves consent. For example, according to law, I do not need your consent to talk to you. But it would appear that saying hello to a stranger is not considered bad behavior. Perhaps I have implicit consent to say hello to strangers? Or perhaps we just didn't need consent? > Why should a third party come in and decide for them whether behavior they consent to is acceptable? A lot of reasons, again, depending on the circumstance. The concept of 'informed consent' in medicine requires that a person be fully informed of the risks and consequences of a procedure before they can legally be said to have consented. This is to protect the patient as well as the surgeon. There is no consenting for assault according to federal law, which is designed to prevent difficult legal situations where someone might be said to have invited an assault. And there is the concept of 'implicit consent' when you obtain a driver's license that you will submit yourself to a chemical test for driving under the influence if a police officer has cause. You don't really have human rights. You have human privileges.
m_mueller 9y ago
I have another question: Could it be that a dose of that early Atari‘s relaxed attitude towards gender and sex issues could be a positive thing? The way I read the article is that the culture there was of respect, mutual empowerment and a relaxed attitude toward human nature in all its aspects. Maybe by erecting walls between genders the baby was thrown out with the bathwater?
- glhaynes 9y ago
  "Erecting walls between genders" is extremely loaded phrasing here. Would women like to return to a workplace atmosphere like early Atari's? I don't have a poll (and I hate to speak for them) but I would be very surprised if more than a small percentage of the women I know would say "yes".
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  I'm not so sure. The problem when the only "wall between genders" that's "erected" is consent, you often find out too late that it's not strong enough of a wall. It seems like at Atari in the 1970's it was fine, but there are easily identifiable places it was not, like most of Hollywood in the current decade. I'm guessing something else about Atari's culture prevented the kind of problems that can crop up when you have a relaxed sexual attitude, but it isn't as easy to identify.
  - m_mueller 9y ago
    Here's my take on it: From the way it is described, 70s Atari allowed both men and women to make passes at each other. For some reason it seems to have mostly worked in that people respected a simple 'no' - there were enough ways out for everyone to keep face. Meanwhile today it appears to me that this courtesy is only allowed one-way today (i.e. for men it's generally verboten outside the accepted dating arena). The egregious offenders like Weinstein are still out there and they seem to find ways to get around these issues, but for everyone who isn't in a completely lob-sided power relationship or who has normal levels of decency this is out of the question. My point is: By not allowing it even in a respectful way, men get fearful of women in the workplace and would often rather just surround themselves with other men in order to not be exposed to any risks of being accused. Since men still hold most power positions this could have a chilling effect on women moving up. My hypothesis (and I do acknowledge here that it's only a hypothesis, but I would love to get some evidence either way) is that the two issues are related: Free love coupled with respect could be a strong enhancer of mobility in hierarchies, both for women in male dominated and men in female dominated fields.
derangedHorse 9y ago
How is designing controller around breasts sexist? And the game gotcha isn't inherently bad. At worst, it's about a guy playing a sexual game of tag with a woman. Even with today's standards, calling Nolan a sexist for the game or even sexist is a gross misrepresentation of what went on there.

geofft 9y ago

> All of the people who were interviewed admitted that there was sexist behavior at the company ... But the women who worked there don't seem bothered by it. Yeah, that's what it sounds like the whole truth is - there were serious problems, and those who worked at the company weren't bothered by it. #NotNolan focuses on the former, Glasgow on the latter, but the whole truth is a combination of the two. (And the Kotaku article attempts to convey both of those.) So I'm particularly curious if there were women who weren't okay with the culture, felt uncomfortable or threatened, and left. Selecting for people who worked somewhere for a long time is naturally going to select for people who didn't have serious problems with the work culture / convinced themselves they were okay with it.

peterwwillis 9y ago
> I'm particularly curious if there were women who weren't okay with the culture, felt uncomfortable or threatened, and left. Why? Assuming the answer is 'yes', what does this change? Assuming the answer is 'no', what does this change?
- geofft 9y ago
  If the answer is "yes," it changes my belief in the narrative told in the Glasgow post, that everyone was okay with it and the only people who have problems are present-day outsiders trying to retrofit an agenda where it didn't fit. (In particular, it changes my opinion of the outsiders - if they were observing an actual problem that other people weren't noticing, and it holds up to scrutiny, that's now a credit to them.) If the answer is "no," that changes my belief about whether today's cultural norms against sexist workplaces are an objective good. (Both of these changes would be small but measurable updates.)
Slansitartop 9y ago
> there were serious problems, and those who worked at the company weren't bothered by it Is something a problem, let alone a serious one, if it doesn't bother those who are affected by it?
- geofft 9y ago
  As I wrote later in the comment, I'm curious if there were people affected by it who were bothered and responded by leaving quickly (or hearing rumors and not joining), in which case, yes, it's a serious problem.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    > As I wrote later in the comment, I'm curious if there were people affected by it who were bothered and responded by leaving quickly (or hearing rumors and not joining), in which case, yes, it's a serious problem. Is it even possible to have a workplace that everyone will like? Because at the time there were no strong taboos about this and everyone seems to have been enjoying themselves. > it's a serious problem. What's with the present tense? This is ancient history.

Slansitartop 9y ago

> All of the people who were interviewed admitted that there was sexist behavior at the company What article did you read? Nothing linked says anything like that. Ctrl-F "sexist" in the article linked in the grandparent comment: no results and any quotes from any of the Atari women. Ctrl-F "sexism" in the article linked in the grandparent comment: one result: > Indeed, Loni Reeder and other former Atari employees recently worked on a spreadsheet in order to contradict the sexism claims being lobbed at Nolan Bushnell.

peterwwillis 9y ago
I guess I misread the article. Only one woman who worked for Atari, who you didn't quote, mentioned sexist behavior in the workplace. Not that it matters, because, again, they made a game where you grab a woman's tits, and the CEO has made a big deal about the playboy environment for years.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  I'm guessing you're referring to this quote from the OP: > “There was a certain amount of sexism as far as ogling,” she said. “But that went both ways.” [emphasis mine] You'd make a shitty historian because you can't seem to help but impose your modern POV onto historical events. These people clearly had a very different perspective than you on all of this, and their perspective is, frankly, the more important one.

mturmon 9y ago

“the tearing down of monuments depicting people who represent injustice. We are judging their former actions based on modern-day standards...” If we’re talking about Confederate generals, it is worth saying that plenty of people at the time said their actions were wrong and they were defending an unjust system. Yet they did so anyway.

noobermin 9y ago

>The first question would be: is sexism okay if nobody minds? The immediate, modern answer has become "No." A zero-tolerance policy is being adopted by most organizations in the world, due to mounting pressure to hold people accountable for unacceptable behavior. I guess I understand this from the perspective of HR, but I'm actually not sure I'm comfortable with this either. The thing that separates rape from sex is consent. Arguably, the thing that determines whether any behavior that involves more than one person is okay or isn't is whether all parties consent. Why should a third party come in and decide for them whether behavior they consent to is acceptable? I don't feel comfortable regulating the behavior of consenting adults. That is too close to violating their human rights. Again, I get it if you're a company, and may be a large company that has to accommodate a number of people, some of whom might be new and might not be comfortable with these aspects of a company's culture, then it makes sense to regulate behavior for others. But it feels to me like this might bleed into other aspects of life.

peterwwillis 9y ago
First off: consent is, by definition, simply an agreement. To have consent is to have an agreement. A lot of things in this world don't have a formal or even informal agreement, but happen anyway, and aren't immediately considered bad due to the lack of a prearranged agreement. Consent can become complicated because human interactions are often complicated. So it's not a good idea to generalize about consent, because it varies dramatically depending on circumstances. > The thing that separates rape from sex is consent. That's not true, but I'm sure a lot of people are trying to make that seem true. > Arguably, the thing that determines whether any behavior that involves more than one person is okay or isn't is whether all parties consent. What determines whether behavior is okay or isn't is society's moral standards. Consent is a part of this in some circumstances. You could argue that there are unwritten societal rules that we implicitly consent to as members of a society, but certainly not everything we do in society involves consent. For example, according to law, I do not need your consent to talk to you. But it would appear that saying hello to a stranger is not considered bad behavior. Perhaps I have implicit consent to say hello to strangers? Or perhaps we just didn't need consent? > Why should a third party come in and decide for them whether behavior they consent to is acceptable? A lot of reasons, again, depending on the circumstance. The concept of 'informed consent' in medicine requires that a person be fully informed of the risks and consequences of a procedure before they can legally be said to have consented. This is to protect the patient as well as the surgeon. There is no consenting for assault according to federal law, which is designed to prevent difficult legal situations where someone might be said to have invited an assault. And there is the concept of 'implicit consent' when you obtain a driver's license that you will submit yourself to a chemical test for driving under the influence if a police officer has cause. You don't really have human rights. You have human privileges.

m_mueller 9y ago

I have another question: Could it be that a dose of that early Atari‘s relaxed attitude towards gender and sex issues could be a positive thing? The way I read the article is that the culture there was of respect, mutual empowerment and a relaxed attitude toward human nature in all its aspects. Maybe by erecting walls between genders the baby was thrown out with the bathwater?

glhaynes 9y ago
"Erecting walls between genders" is extremely loaded phrasing here. Would women like to return to a workplace atmosphere like early Atari's? I don't have a poll (and I hate to speak for them) but I would be very surprised if more than a small percentage of the women I know would say "yes".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
thehardsphere 9y ago
I'm not so sure. The problem when the only "wall between genders" that's "erected" is consent, you often find out too late that it's not strong enough of a wall. It seems like at Atari in the 1970's it was fine, but there are easily identifiable places it was not, like most of Hollywood in the current decade. I'm guessing something else about Atari's culture prevented the kind of problems that can crop up when you have a relaxed sexual attitude, but it isn't as easy to identify.
- m_mueller 9y ago
  Here's my take on it: From the way it is described, 70s Atari allowed both men and women to make passes at each other. For some reason it seems to have mostly worked in that people respected a simple 'no' - there were enough ways out for everyone to keep face. Meanwhile today it appears to me that this courtesy is only allowed one-way today (i.e. for men it's generally verboten outside the accepted dating arena). The egregious offenders like Weinstein are still out there and they seem to find ways to get around these issues, but for everyone who isn't in a completely lob-sided power relationship or who has normal levels of decency this is out of the question. My point is: By not allowing it even in a respectful way, men get fearful of women in the workplace and would often rather just surround themselves with other men in order to not be exposed to any risks of being accused. Since men still hold most power positions this could have a chilling effect on women moving up. My hypothesis (and I do acknowledge here that it's only a hypothesis, but I would love to get some evidence either way) is that the two issues are related: Free love coupled with respect could be a strong enhancer of mobility in hierarchies, both for women in male dominated and men in female dominated fields.

derangedHorse 9y ago

How is designing controller around breasts sexist? And the game gotcha isn't inherently bad. At worst, it's about a guy playing a sexual game of tag with a woman. Even with today's standards, calling Nolan a sexist for the game or even sexist is a gross misrepresentation of what went on there.