6 ms·

It's a bit bigger of an issue than that. There's nothing wrong with easter eggs, but the big issue here is that it is a sexist remark at a time when women are h

It's a bit bigger of an issue than that. There's nothing wrong with easter eggs, but the big issue here is that it is a sexist remark at a time when women are having a difficult time making it in many STEM fields, specifically software development, directly because of the actions like this that affect them in the workplace.

donall 14y ago
I doubt there was any sexist intent (regardless of perception). The fact is that there are a limited number of intelligible strings that can be made out of 8 hex chars and this is one of them that brought a smile to somebody's face. If we seriously consider that guy to be some sort of misogynist, then should we also consider OxDEADBEEF to be a radical vegan statement?
- cgranade 14y ago
  The fact that it was without intent indicates to me how poorly many people understand the effects of comments that objectify women's bodies. If there wasn't already a pre-existing culture in which women expect to find themselves judged for their bodies more than for their aptitude at their jobs, then 0xBI6B00B5 wouldn't matter so much. As it is, it serves to reinforce the existing perception (and unfortunately, the existing reality) that women are judged by different criteria from their male colleagues. Combine this with stereotype threat [1], and you get that the effects are decidedly harmful, even in the absence of sexist intent. I doubt that removing the specific magic number in this case really helps much, though. Rather, I think that it is important to establish a standard that this kind of thing is not in keeping with professional standards or with human decency towards one's colleagues. Given that most people really do seem to mean well, having that awareness and empathy about the direct and indirect effects of seemingly innocuous choices like this can only help make programming a better career choice for all involved. [1]: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/freethoughtblogs/butterfliesandwheels/~3/BHPheQ6mois/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/freethoughtblogs/butterfliesa...
StavrosK 14y ago
Goddamnit, I don't know what's sexist and what isn't any more. What if the message was 0xB1GD1CK (okay, there's no K in hex). Should men be offended?
- georgefox 14y ago
  Although I obviously understand how you formed your analogy, I just don't see how it's actually analogous. Software development is a male-dominated field, and the objectification of body parts is much more prevalent with women's breasts than with male genitalia. If we lived in a world where males felt uncomfortable working in software development environments due to repeated sexual harassment by their predominantly female co-workers and where billboards and music videos were filled with gratuitous imagery of male genitals, then this might be analogous. But that kind of hypothetical is way beyond my imagination.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    That's fair. However, I don't understand what "objectification of body parts is". Men are attracted to big breasts, small waists and large hips, women are attracted to broad shoulders and big arms (or so I am led to believe). Body parts are objects. I don't expect my broad shoulders to be able to hold a reasoned debate for long. What do you mean by objectification? If the fact that someone is attracted to "big boobs" and putting it in some source code is anathema, does the same thing happen with "intelligence is hot"? If not, why is one acceptable and the other not? Granted, I haven't thought about these issues long, so my mind can easily be changed if someone demonstrates errors, but it seems to me that we went from "some men need to stop being creeps and hit on women at least during work hours" to "any mention of any attraction ever is forbidden".
    - georgefox 14y ago
      "Objectification of body parts" was poor phrasing on my part. The issue is the sexual objectification of women, in this case reducing them to their component body parts (e.g., "big boobs"). A woman is more than a set of breasts—she's a human—yet you often see well endowed women used in advertising as nothing more than highly sexualized decoration with a disproportionate focus on their breasts (or other parts). This is the sort of objectification I'm talking about (and it happens in more forms than this and in more than just advertising). I don't think this isn't even a matter of stating attraction to "big boobs." This is merely saying "big boobs" for laughs. It's the kind of stuff young children do (see also: the penis game), so I'm not sure why anyone's rushing to defend this sort of behavior. Let me ask you this, though. Suppose you work as a developer (as you likely do), and you're tasked with welcoming a new female developer to the team and bringing her up to speed on the system she'll be working on. While opening up the source code and explaining one particularly peculiar section, you come across this constant: BIGBOOBS = 0xB16B00B5; How comfortable are you showing off this bit of code to the new developer? How comfortable do you think the new female developer would be in this situation?
TwiztidK 14y ago
I'm seroiusly having difficult time figuring out how this is a "sexist" statement. It definitely is sexual, but I can't see how it would convey that women are inferior or that they don't belong. Honestly though, I'm not a woman or programmer, at least not by trade, I have no idea how a woman would interpret this, so please enlighten me.
waldo2k2 14y ago
I don't believe that sexual harassment is the only reason more women aren't in the field. The same level and types of harassment are found in any field. The problem is with the picture society paints of anti-social, acne-ridden males dwelling underground with only faint green light for illumination as the "computer geek". There are many other reasons as well including the lack of exposure to the field during education, the same goes for Engineering.

donall 14y ago

I doubt there was any sexist intent (regardless of perception). The fact is that there are a limited number of intelligible strings that can be made out of 8 hex chars and this is one of them that brought a smile to somebody's face. If we seriously consider that guy to be some sort of misogynist, then should we also consider OxDEADBEEF to be a radical vegan statement?

cgranade 14y ago
The fact that it was without intent indicates to me how poorly many people understand the effects of comments that objectify women's bodies. If there wasn't already a pre-existing culture in which women expect to find themselves judged for their bodies more than for their aptitude at their jobs, then 0xBI6B00B5 wouldn't matter so much. As it is, it serves to reinforce the existing perception (and unfortunately, the existing reality) that women are judged by different criteria from their male colleagues. Combine this with stereotype threat [1], and you get that the effects are decidedly harmful, even in the absence of sexist intent. I doubt that removing the specific magic number in this case really helps much, though. Rather, I think that it is important to establish a standard that this kind of thing is not in keeping with professional standards or with human decency towards one's colleagues. Given that most people really do seem to mean well, having that awareness and empathy about the direct and indirect effects of seemingly innocuous choices like this can only help make programming a better career choice for all involved. [1]: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/freethoughtblogs/butterfliesandwheels/~3/BHPheQ6mois/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/freethoughtblogs/butterfliesa...

StavrosK 14y ago

Goddamnit, I don't know what's sexist and what isn't any more. What if the message was 0xB1GD1CK (okay, there's no K in hex). Should men be offended?

georgefox 14y ago
Although I obviously understand how you formed your analogy, I just don't see how it's actually analogous. Software development is a male-dominated field, and the objectification of body parts is much more prevalent with women's breasts than with male genitalia. If we lived in a world where males felt uncomfortable working in software development environments due to repeated sexual harassment by their predominantly female co-workers and where billboards and music videos were filled with gratuitous imagery of male genitals, then this might be analogous. But that kind of hypothetical is way beyond my imagination.
- StavrosK 14y ago
  That's fair. However, I don't understand what "objectification of body parts is". Men are attracted to big breasts, small waists and large hips, women are attracted to broad shoulders and big arms (or so I am led to believe). Body parts are objects. I don't expect my broad shoulders to be able to hold a reasoned debate for long. What do you mean by objectification? If the fact that someone is attracted to "big boobs" and putting it in some source code is anathema, does the same thing happen with "intelligence is hot"? If not, why is one acceptable and the other not? Granted, I haven't thought about these issues long, so my mind can easily be changed if someone demonstrates errors, but it seems to me that we went from "some men need to stop being creeps and hit on women at least during work hours" to "any mention of any attraction ever is forbidden".
  - georgefox 14y ago
    "Objectification of body parts" was poor phrasing on my part. The issue is the sexual objectification of women, in this case reducing them to their component body parts (e.g., "big boobs"). A woman is more than a set of breasts—she's a human—yet you often see well endowed women used in advertising as nothing more than highly sexualized decoration with a disproportionate focus on their breasts (or other parts). This is the sort of objectification I'm talking about (and it happens in more forms than this and in more than just advertising). I don't think this isn't even a matter of stating attraction to "big boobs." This is merely saying "big boobs" for laughs. It's the kind of stuff young children do (see also: the penis game), so I'm not sure why anyone's rushing to defend this sort of behavior. Let me ask you this, though. Suppose you work as a developer (as you likely do), and you're tasked with welcoming a new female developer to the team and bringing her up to speed on the system she'll be working on. While opening up the source code and explaining one particularly peculiar section, you come across this constant: BIGBOOBS = 0xB16B00B5; How comfortable are you showing off this bit of code to the new developer? How comfortable do you think the new female developer would be in this situation?

TwiztidK 14y ago

I'm seroiusly having difficult time figuring out how this is a "sexist" statement. It definitely is sexual, but I can't see how it would convey that women are inferior or that they don't belong. Honestly though, I'm not a woman or programmer, at least not by trade, I have no idea how a woman would interpret this, so please enlighten me.

waldo2k2 14y ago

I don't believe that sexual harassment is the only reason more women aren't in the field. The same level and types of harassment are found in any field. The problem is with the picture society paints of anti-social, acne-ridden males dwelling underground with only faint green light for illumination as the "computer geek". There are many other reasons as well including the lack of exposure to the field during education, the same goes for Engineering.