4 ms·

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 t

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?
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    > 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) That is because the advertisers want to show something that will immediately capture the attention of their target audience. You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (or even specifically) men. A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad. I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all. It's human nature to be attracted to the opposite sex, and the most available factor is external appearance. > 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. I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an issue". I am equally (un)comfortable showing this to a female developer as I am to a male developer. I find it childish and might be a bit embarrassed, not because of the gender of the new hire, but because it's a childish and unprofessional thing to have in code. I am not sure how comfortable the female developer would be, I assume she'd laugh it off, but that's projecting my own feelings onto hers. If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically.
    - georgefox 14y ago
      > You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (or even specifically) men. That's simply not true. See http://www.genderads.com/page5/sexobject/sexobject.html http://www.genderads.com/page5/sexobject/sexobject.html for plenty of counter-examples. > A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad. Right, of course not. As I mentioned earlier, advertising is not the only medium in which this sort of objectification is prevalent. > I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all. Again, I don't think you can simply swap genders and call it a fair analogy. Additionally, at least in my experience, the number of advertisements, music videos, etc. that use the sex appeal of female body parts for commercial purposes far outweighs the number of equivalent things using tan, muscular, and similarly exposed men for commercial purposes. > I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an issue". When confronted with criticism, arguing that the subject at hand is not a big deal is defense, is it not? I'm not saying anyone's promoting more use of 0xB16B00B5 in code, but there seem to be several commenters in here saying it's fine. > If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically. It's actually not moot. I was interested in how you thought a woman might react—a question only you can answer. The actual reactions of women would vary quite widely from one to the next, of course. I'm sure some would laugh it off; I'm sure some would be offended. Personally, I'd be afraid that more women than men would be uncomfortable in this situation, and I don't like the idea of a development culture that makes women feel less comfortable or welcome than men. That's why I personally find it offensive. If you think women would be just as comfortable with this as men, then I would understand why you would not find it offensive.
pwny 14y ago
Then fight the people that are truly objectifying women and harassing them. This kind of overblown press coverage for an hex value that is not degrading in itself serves only one purpose: making the sexist males take this issue even less seriously than they did before. Try and imagine for a moment someone that truly degrades/objectifies/discriminates against women. This hypothetical person will not read this article and go "Oh I was wrong, I'll be nicer to women from now on". They think to themselves how ridiculous this is, perceive women as weaker (as is often the reason they have this attitude towards them in the first place) and go on their merry way.
gizmo686 14y ago
So there is no problem with the hex string, there is a problem with the culture. I know, lets fix the hex string. Introducing new gender discrimination, regardless of intentions, generally causes more gender discrimination. Also, doing it as a matter of policy could leave you open to a lawsuit.

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?
- StavrosK 14y ago
  > 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) That is because the advertisers want to show something that will immediately capture the attention of their target audience. You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (or even specifically) men. A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad. I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all. It's human nature to be attracted to the opposite sex, and the most available factor is external appearance. > 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. I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an issue". I am equally (un)comfortable showing this to a female developer as I am to a male developer. I find it childish and might be a bit embarrassed, not because of the gender of the new hire, but because it's a childish and unprofessional thing to have in code. I am not sure how comfortable the female developer would be, I assume she'd laugh it off, but that's projecting my own feelings onto hers. If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically.
  - georgefox 14y ago
    > You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (or even specifically) men. That's simply not true. See http://www.genderads.com/page5/sexobject/sexobject.html http://www.genderads.com/page5/sexobject/sexobject.html for plenty of counter-examples. > A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad. Right, of course not. As I mentioned earlier, advertising is not the only medium in which this sort of objectification is prevalent. > I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all. Again, I don't think you can simply swap genders and call it a fair analogy. Additionally, at least in my experience, the number of advertisements, music videos, etc. that use the sex appeal of female body parts for commercial purposes far outweighs the number of equivalent things using tan, muscular, and similarly exposed men for commercial purposes. > I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an issue". When confronted with criticism, arguing that the subject at hand is not a big deal is defense, is it not? I'm not saying anyone's promoting more use of 0xB16B00B5 in code, but there seem to be several commenters in here saying it's fine. > If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically. It's actually not moot. I was interested in how you thought a woman might react—a question only you can answer. The actual reactions of women would vary quite widely from one to the next, of course. I'm sure some would laugh it off; I'm sure some would be offended. Personally, I'd be afraid that more women than men would be uncomfortable in this situation, and I don't like the idea of a development culture that makes women feel less comfortable or welcome than men. That's why I personally find it offensive. If you think women would be just as comfortable with this as men, then I would understand why you would not find it offensive.

pwny 14y ago

Then fight the people that are truly objectifying women and harassing them. This kind of overblown press coverage for an hex value that is not degrading in itself serves only one purpose: making the sexist males take this issue even less seriously than they did before. Try and imagine for a moment someone that truly degrades/objectifies/discriminates against women. This hypothetical person will not read this article and go "Oh I was wrong, I'll be nicer to women from now on". They think to themselves how ridiculous this is, perceive women as weaker (as is often the reason they have this attitude towards them in the first place) and go on their merry way.

gizmo686 14y ago

So there is no problem with the hex string, there is a problem with the culture. I know, lets fix the hex string. Introducing new gender discrimination, regardless of intentions, generally causes more gender discrimination. Also, doing it as a matter of policy could leave you open to a lawsuit.