4 ms·

Please describe to me how your argument doesn't boil down to "she deserved it because of what she was wearing"? > Blizzard guys met her at her level, with equa

Please describe to me how your argument doesn't boil down to "she deserved it because of what she was wearing"? > Blizzard guys met her at her level, with equal levels of dubious professionalism. This is wildly charitable to blizzard guys. She's wearing a punny tshirt and asking about a job. They're responding by asking how often she's been penetrated, and whether she knows literally anything about csec. She isn't fucking hitting on them at a bar, and they're there as professionals looking to fucking hire people. I don't think this really adds nuance. It attempts to excuse unprofessional (maybe can be interpreted as questionably okay in this context) and sexist (not okay, fucking period) actions. They're getting paid by Blizzard to be there. You don't say shit like that and expect to have a job the next day, regardless of the context. > I think the 'large central mass' of regular people are really, really open to change and looking at things differently, and in hearing legit stories, but as soon as they're misrepresented, the window of general empathy closes. Which is why FUD still works, because muddying the waters makes people excuse unacceptable, unprofessional and downright wrong language allows otherwise "open" people to say "well I guess we'll never know." which preserves the status quo.

ta392828 5y ago
> she deserved it because of what she was wearing I see their argument being more like she initiated the tone of the interaction by her choice of wording on her clothing?
jollybean 5y ago
"Please describe to me how your argument doesn't boil down to "she deserved it because of what she was wearing"?" A person, whatever they are wearing, is not overly engaging in sexualized interaction. But if someone writes something overtly sexual on their t-shirt, they are engaging in a communication. That someone responded to the t-shirt shouldn't be surprising, even if it's unprofessional. --- "I don't think it adds nuance" It adds nuance because the men, engaging in discussion about 'penetration' without incitement, is something clearly different then the men commenting on the pun that is on another person's shirt. --- "Which is why FUD still works, because muddying the waters " It's not muddying the waters if you accept that the woman initiated a level of discourse by her own accord. Consider what would happen if one of your male co-workers wore a t-shirt with an overtly crude, sexual double-etendre about 'penetration' to the office? "Have you ever been PENETRATED? (wink wink!)" Surely you'd be outraged that this would be exactly the kind of 'frat boy' culture you're condemning. I'm certain that I would be told to 'change shirts' immediately, at least at my office. So how do we then contemplate that a women, who wears such a is not directly engaging in this bad behaviour? If you wear a t-shirt that says: "Suck My Banana!" to the office, and someone says to you "Ok, I'll Suck Your Banana!" - then who is really 'at fault' of being crude and sexist? I don't think that Banana has much of a legitimate claim.

ta392828 5y ago

> she deserved it because of what she was wearing I see their argument being more like she initiated the tone of the interaction by her choice of wording on her clothing?

jollybean 5y ago

"Please describe to me how your argument doesn't boil down to "she deserved it because of what she was wearing"?" A person, whatever they are wearing, is not overly engaging in sexualized interaction. But if someone writes something overtly sexual on their t-shirt, they are engaging in a communication. That someone responded to the t-shirt shouldn't be surprising, even if it's unprofessional. --- "I don't think it adds nuance" It adds nuance because the men, engaging in discussion about 'penetration' without incitement, is something clearly different then the men commenting on the pun that is on another person's shirt. --- "Which is why FUD still works, because muddying the waters " It's not muddying the waters if you accept that the woman initiated a level of discourse by her own accord. Consider what would happen if one of your male co-workers wore a t-shirt with an overtly crude, sexual double-etendre about 'penetration' to the office? "Have you ever been PENETRATED? (wink wink!)" Surely you'd be outraged that this would be exactly the kind of 'frat boy' culture you're condemning. I'm certain that I would be told to 'change shirts' immediately, at least at my office. So how do we then contemplate that a women, who wears such a is not directly engaging in this bad behaviour? If you wear a t-shirt that says: "Suck My Banana!" to the office, and someone says to you "Ok, I'll Suck Your Banana!" - then who is really 'at fault' of being crude and sexist? I don't think that Banana has much of a legitimate claim.