3 ms·

> Your talk of "equality" requires a lot of clarification. If you are advocating different standards for people depending on membership in arbitrary groups, the

> Your talk of "equality" requires a lot of clarification. If you are advocating different standards for people depending on membership in arbitrary groups, then you (or the feminists you are speaking of) are explicitly advocating against equality of individual humans. So what sort of equality are you advocating for? Assuming you mean that not insulting people's identity and equality conflict: Is it really so hard to not insult people's identities when you talk that the words you would use when you talk to other people would merely insult other identity groups? Perhaps you can talk to and about people without insulting anyone's identities? > I've certainly never heard feminists advocate greater freedom for men to clearly say "sorry, you aren't smart enough for me to work with. But damn girl what an ass - wanna go out?" Probably because you are sexually objectifying someone? And someone's appearance has nothing to do with work? To clarify, I meant that brutal honesty thing in reference to work. But if you want to say those things to people in public, feel free to do that (although I doubt many women enjoy being treated like sexual objects and called stupid in the same sentence, but there is nothing wrong with saying that). But if at work you wanted to say, perhaps, "This code is wrong, your understanding of how this works is wrong, go read up on it", then that's the work environment you have, and there is still nothing wrong with that. But commenting on someone's sexual attractiveness or identity at work isn't honesty related to work it's you being a nympho or a bigot. So saying: "sorry, you aren't smart enough for me to work with." is fine at work. And saying: "But damn girl what an ass - wanna go out?" is fine in public (if women who respond to that are your type). So while saying both in public would be strange, saying both in a workplace is unacceptable.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
You explicitly said "equality means you have to stop insulting people's identities, especially when you are part of the privileged group". If membership in a privileged group plays any role, then you are not advocating for equality of individuals. If it plays no role, I guess bringing it up was a mistake on your part? ...saying both in a workplace is unacceptable. Let me see if I understand. It's ok to not want to work with someone (beyond whatever is imposed by your supervisor). It's also ok to ask someone out at work (or are you completely opposed to all workplace relationships, e.g. Horvath's?). But once you decide you don't want to work with someone, it's no longer ok to ask them out? I'm not following the reasoning here.
- kaybe 13y ago
  I'd consider it very offensive. This person openly thinks I'm stupid and still wants to date? There are so many negative feelings there; I cannot even begin do describe them all.
- SolarNet 13y ago
  Ah, stupid phrasing: I meant that if you are going to ask someone out, from work, don't do it at work. And definitely don't combine work related stuff (like "you're fired") and personal stuff (like "you wanna date"). Don't contaminate the work place with personal romantic problems. The gray zone is a result of personal romantic problems: you can't talk to and work with a person because they are attractive? Grow a pair. (and the only reason I'm using that is because you used it ;p.)
shawn-furyan 13y ago
>saying both in a workplace is unacceptable. I feel like you[1] are missing the point to an extent (or at least taking away something different from the comment than I did). I don't think that yf was asking for permission to say this him[almost certainly]-self. But was demonstrating that as long as men in power think these thoughts, but can't express them, the grey-zone and its associated problems will exist. The blog post introduces the issue, and yf demonstrates it (all the more by causing so many HNers to bristle at his comment). I'm not necessarily saying that men in power should start blurting these thoughts out, and they would run great personal risk at doing so. But the situation of the unexpressed existence of these thoughts, perversely hurts women of potential power much, much more than it hurts the men with the thoughts. I think political correctness is the Nash equilibrium in most remotely similar situations, but that leaves the problems presented in the post, and so... Ultimately, I think that dismissing the hypothetical thoughts-cum-pronouncements as "unacceptable" is counterproductive with regards to lowering the barriers to power for women insofar as we are willing to accept the thesis of the original blog post[2]. OK, now to backtrack a little... I'm not saying that they are acceptable, but I read the hypothetical comments as intentionally built to be considered unacceptable. Under that reading, it's not particularly productive to give them that label and then call it a day. They were, in a way, the unspoken background to the blog post made explicit in a feather-ruffling HN comment, and uncomfortable as it is to consider, putting their existence out there makes it possible to push the conversation forward. But not if we just shame such untoward behavior out of hand. Doing that promotes the status quo. We all get to feel good about ourselves, that we're publicly fighting for the cause, but ultimately nothing gets resolved. Sorry, I know that that reads as a personal attack. That is not the spirit in which I mean the comment. I think that the urge to suppress or ignore uncomfortable truths is one of the feedback loops that makes discussions on this topic so virulent. It's not meant to be directed at the person that conducts the SolarNet account, but at us all, the community that struggles with the difficult subject of inequity among us. It often feels better to jump to the defense of honor or decorum than to really dig into the ugly truths behind the issues that cause us harm. But when we follow that instinct, we often leave the infection there under the surface to fester. I think that this particular issue is tricky and damaging enough to the community to warrant some leeway on decorum when discussing it. In the interest of commiseration, I'll admit that I found that I bristled at the comment as well. I'm not endorsing it, but I think that if looked at in the right light, it is a very useful comment. Really, it does nobody any good to try to shame yf (and honestly, judging by this comment alone, I'm not sure that yf is easily shamed). But it is useful to acknowledge the existence of thoughts of this kind (as well as their tamer brethren) since if we fail to do so, we'll be incapable of identifying their role in the problem. [1] Along with many others commenting on this indelicate comment [2] I for one find the thesis rather compelling

yummyfajitas 13y ago

You explicitly said "equality means you have to stop insulting people's identities, especially when you are part of the privileged group". If membership in a privileged group plays any role, then you are not advocating for equality of individuals. If it plays no role, I guess bringing it up was a mistake on your part? ...saying both in a workplace is unacceptable. Let me see if I understand. It's ok to not want to work with someone (beyond whatever is imposed by your supervisor). It's also ok to ask someone out at work (or are you completely opposed to all workplace relationships, e.g. Horvath's?). But once you decide you don't want to work with someone, it's no longer ok to ask them out? I'm not following the reasoning here.

kaybe 13y ago
I'd consider it very offensive. This person openly thinks I'm stupid and still wants to date? There are so many negative feelings there; I cannot even begin do describe them all.
SolarNet 13y ago
Ah, stupid phrasing: I meant that if you are going to ask someone out, from work, don't do it at work. And definitely don't combine work related stuff (like "you're fired") and personal stuff (like "you wanna date"). Don't contaminate the work place with personal romantic problems. The gray zone is a result of personal romantic problems: you can't talk to and work with a person because they are attractive? Grow a pair. (and the only reason I'm using that is because you used it ;p.)

shawn-furyan 13y ago

>saying both in a workplace is unacceptable. I feel like you[1] are missing the point to an extent (or at least taking away something different from the comment than I did). I don't think that yf was asking for permission to say this him[almost certainly]-self. But was demonstrating that as long as men in power think these thoughts, but can't express them, the grey-zone and its associated problems will exist. The blog post introduces the issue, and yf demonstrates it (all the more by causing so many HNers to bristle at his comment). I'm not necessarily saying that men in power should start blurting these thoughts out, and they would run great personal risk at doing so. But the situation of the unexpressed existence of these thoughts, perversely hurts women of potential power much, much more than it hurts the men with the thoughts. I think political correctness is the Nash equilibrium in most remotely similar situations, but that leaves the problems presented in the post, and so... Ultimately, I think that dismissing the hypothetical thoughts-cum-pronouncements as "unacceptable" is counterproductive with regards to lowering the barriers to power for women insofar as we are willing to accept the thesis of the original blog post[2]. OK, now to backtrack a little... I'm not saying that they are acceptable, but I read the hypothetical comments as intentionally built to be considered unacceptable. Under that reading, it's not particularly productive to give them that label and then call it a day. They were, in a way, the unspoken background to the blog post made explicit in a feather-ruffling HN comment, and uncomfortable as it is to consider, putting their existence out there makes it possible to push the conversation forward. But not if we just shame such untoward behavior out of hand. Doing that promotes the status quo. We all get to feel good about ourselves, that we're publicly fighting for the cause, but ultimately nothing gets resolved. Sorry, I know that that reads as a personal attack. That is not the spirit in which I mean the comment. I think that the urge to suppress or ignore uncomfortable truths is one of the feedback loops that makes discussions on this topic so virulent. It's not meant to be directed at the person that conducts the SolarNet account, but at us all, the community that struggles with the difficult subject of inequity among us. It often feels better to jump to the defense of honor or decorum than to really dig into the ugly truths behind the issues that cause us harm. But when we follow that instinct, we often leave the infection there under the surface to fester. I think that this particular issue is tricky and damaging enough to the community to warrant some leeway on decorum when discussing it. In the interest of commiseration, I'll admit that I found that I bristled at the comment as well. I'm not endorsing it, but I think that if looked at in the right light, it is a very useful comment. Really, it does nobody any good to try to shame yf (and honestly, judging by this comment alone, I'm not sure that yf is easily shamed). But it is useful to acknowledge the existence of thoughts of this kind (as well as their tamer brethren) since if we fail to do so, we'll be incapable of identifying their role in the problem. [1] Along with many others commenting on this indelicate comment [2] I for one find the thesis rather compelling