7 ms·

I watched the two presentations via the valleywag page others have cited. The problem I see with TechCrunch's apology is that they are mixing up terminology. I

by Amadou 13y ago

I watched the two presentations via the valleywag page others have cited. The problem I see with TechCrunch's apology is that they are mixing up terminology. I don't think either presentation was sexist and especially not misogynstic - what they were was sexual. Modern society has a similar problem distinguishing between racist humor and racial humor. While there certainly can be overlap between -ist and -ual humor, my general rule for distinguishing the two is that -ist humor stereotypes to get laughs while -ual humor laughs at the stereotyping. Lots of organizations think the line between the -ist and -ual is too fine and prefer to outright ban the acknowledgment of any issues at all. If we forbid discussion of race at all then you never have to think about whether a topic is racist or racial. Same with sex, if all mention of sex is forbidden then there is no chance of someone saying something sexist. If an organization wants to take such a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach that's their prerogative, but they should be clear about it. Don't say "any type of sexism will not be allowed" say "any mention of sex will not be allowed."

parennoob 13y ago
This. Ted Dziuba has mentioned the tech industry being extremely sex negative, and him being almost afraid to criticize it because of the inevitable massive backlash he would face. And this is being reinforced by the increasing "don't even mention anything related to sex in a prrrrrofesional setting" approach being taken by a lot of popular organizations these days. For example, just look at github's repository forking message. Before, it used to say the not-very-funny-but-would-still-bring-a-smile-to-your-face "Hardcore forking action". I'd bet good money this was changed to the unassuming dining table due to these same sex-negative, puritanical people who claimed it was somehow making them feel oppressed or uncomfortable. Sex is a biological need of humans. A lot of the tech industry has forward, progressive views on things such as gay marriage. Why retain these puritan, intolerant, purse-lipped attitudes towards sex-positivity?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tallio 13y ago
  >This. 4chan is that way >>> >Sex is a biological need of humans. A lot of the tech industry has forward, progressive views on things such as gay marriage. Why retain these puritan, intolerant, purse-lipped attitudes towards sex-positivity? Because feminism is invading. If you can't see this, you've probably not been a part of the tech industry for too long.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    Because feminism is invading. If you can't see this, you've probably not been a part of the tech industry for too long. You appear to be saying that feminism == puritanism. That's just completely wrong.
theorique 13y ago
You're right that it was "sexual". However, I'm not sure that the industry has enough average maturity to handle frank discussions of sexuality, especially in big, diverse groups. Given the demographics of the industry, I don't think it was an accident that it was "TitStare" rather than "DongStare" or "CockStare". I'm sure you could imagine that the nature of the app might make the women in the audience feel a bit odd, that the big punchline was an app about looking at their breasts. Especially since a lot of women feel like they are already struggling for legitimacy in this industry, which is considered by many to be dealing with a sexism problem
- parennoob 13y ago
  > Given the demographics of the industry, I don't think it was an accident that it was "TitStare" rather than "DongStare" or "CockStare". Translation from roundaboutspeak -> English: Yes, it was an app marketed at men (though remember that there are lesbians and bisexual men and women as well that like tits) that sexually objectified women. If sexual objectification was the sole reason that made women leave an industry, there should be no women working for Playboy or the porn industry. Last I checked, there were plenty of women working willingly in both.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    In general, sex workers choose their profession out of desperation.
    - parennoob 13y ago
      Playboy? Hollywood? Advertising?
    - MistahKoala 13y ago
      In general, it depends on where in the world they are, and in general (if we're framing this in terms of the same women for whom a hackathon might be accessible), they are driven by characteristic/ psychological factors (Sexually Transmitted Diseases:Volume 26(2)February 1999). That's also pretty demeaning to women whose choices deserve to be respected, rather than pitied ("poor, silly women!").

by Amadou 13y ago

parennoob 13y ago

This. Ted Dziuba has mentioned the tech industry being extremely sex negative, and him being almost afraid to criticize it because of the inevitable massive backlash he would face. And this is being reinforced by the increasing "don't even mention anything related to sex in a prrrrrofesional setting" approach being taken by a lot of popular organizations these days. For example, just look at github's repository forking message. Before, it used to say the not-very-funny-but-would-still-bring-a-smile-to-your-face "Hardcore forking action". I'd bet good money this was changed to the unassuming dining table due to these same sex-negative, puritanical people who claimed it was somehow making them feel oppressed or uncomfortable. Sex is a biological need of humans. A lot of the tech industry has forward, progressive views on things such as gay marriage. Why retain these puritan, intolerant, purse-lipped attitudes towards sex-positivity?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tallio 13y ago
>This. 4chan is that way >>> >Sex is a biological need of humans. A lot of the tech industry has forward, progressive views on things such as gay marriage. Why retain these puritan, intolerant, purse-lipped attitudes towards sex-positivity? Because feminism is invading. If you can't see this, you've probably not been a part of the tech industry for too long.
- Amadou 13y ago
  Because feminism is invading. If you can't see this, you've probably not been a part of the tech industry for too long. You appear to be saying that feminism == puritanism. That's just completely wrong.

theorique 13y ago

You're right that it was "sexual". However, I'm not sure that the industry has enough average maturity to handle frank discussions of sexuality, especially in big, diverse groups. Given the demographics of the industry, I don't think it was an accident that it was "TitStare" rather than "DongStare" or "CockStare". I'm sure you could imagine that the nature of the app might make the women in the audience feel a bit odd, that the big punchline was an app about looking at their breasts. Especially since a lot of women feel like they are already struggling for legitimacy in this industry, which is considered by many to be dealing with a sexism problem

parennoob 13y ago
> Given the demographics of the industry, I don't think it was an accident that it was "TitStare" rather than "DongStare" or "CockStare". Translation from roundaboutspeak -> English: Yes, it was an app marketed at men (though remember that there are lesbians and bisexual men and women as well that like tits) that sexually objectified women. If sexual objectification was the sole reason that made women leave an industry, there should be no women working for Playboy or the porn industry. Last I checked, there were plenty of women working willingly in both.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  In general, sex workers choose their profession out of desperation.
  - parennoob 13y ago
    Playboy? Hollywood? Advertising?
  - MistahKoala 13y ago
    In general, it depends on where in the world they are, and in general (if we're framing this in terms of the same women for whom a hackathon might be accessible), they are driven by characteristic/ psychological factors (Sexually Transmitted Diseases:Volume 26(2)February 1999). That's also pretty demeaning to women whose choices deserve to be respected, rather than pitied ("poor, silly women!").