4 ms·

Actually of all of these the last one is the only one I think your counter is flat out wrong (all the others seem plausible enough). Why? Because gawking at oth

Actually of all of these the last one is the only one I think your counter is flat out wrong (all the others seem plausible enough). Why? Because gawking at other co-workers (regardless of genders) in a casual environment is not ok. In a casual work environment people often do light exercise, and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex objects. I would hope the men in question have enough self control to ignore women moving their bodies around. You are basically using the same logic as countries that require burqas in public. This has already been covered by feminist movements in this country. It is seriously a sign of how backwards the tech industry is in regards to social equality that this sort of basic stuff is missing from general knowledge.

curiousgeorgio 13y ago
I wasn't trying to say that "gawking" is acceptable (sorry if that's the way it came across). My point is that one person's description of people "gawking" may very well have been simply the other people acknowledging their presence. It's pretty hard to prove one way or the other.
- SolarNet 13y ago
  That's fair, and Horvath's description is vague: "What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them" But it's important to remember these could go the other way as well. Horvath may still feel some loyalty to github and be sugar coating these events. Or you could be right and she is blowing them out of proportion.
sockgrant 13y ago
> In a casual work environment people often do light exercise Could you elaborate on this? In the work environments I've been in, people go to the gym or outside to work out. I've never been in a work environment where it's acceptable to do your exercising in the office space. What are you talking about -- yoga, bicep curls, jogging, jumping jacks? I've worked at extremely liberal companies but that kind of stuff doesn't happen.. > and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex objects I don't think it's a person's right to hula hoop in an office and then be upset when they attract the attention of the rest of the office, regardless of sex on both sides. It's an unusual thing to do, so it will draw eyes.
- balls187 13y ago
  Definitely. I think Julie should have spoken to both groups, telling the guys it's not cool to gawk at women, and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it some place more private.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    > and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it some place more private. Indeed. And just in case men still gawked at them, she could have brought some free niqab to work for them to wear. http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2013-09-18.png http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2013-09-18.png
    - balls187 13y ago
      Eh, I think you missed my point. The point of talking to the women isn't to help the men exercise better restraint (which extrapolated to an extreme would require a niqab). It's that if the women are doing something in the office, out in the open that people stopping to watch would make other people feel uncomfortable, then perhaps it shouldn't be done out in plain view of everyone. Like, if you are trying to have a private conversation with your Dr on the phone about your recent herpes outbreak, don't talk in the lunchroom and get pissed that I listened in. We can come up with counter examples, and/or take things to the extreme, however my point is that exercising some restraint and a little professionalism would make situations like this non existent.
      - duncan_bayne 13y ago
        No, I got your point quite clearly. If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable, that's unfortunate, but also totally your problem. Ditto breastfeeding and suchlike.
        balls187 13y ago
        Clearly you did not. > If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable It wasn't women hula hooping made someone feel uncomfortable. It was men "gawking" at the women hula hooping, that made Julie Horvath feel uncomfortable. I hope you understand the difference. > If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable, that's unfortunate, but also totally your problem. Ditto breastfeeding and suchlike. Tangentially related--another key point you're missing, this is an office. No one should have to feel uncomfortable at the workplace, because the office is for people to work and be productive, not hula hoop. Things like hula hooping (I'm guessing), yoga, tai chi, Zumba, etc, are there to improve worker productivity. If these programs run counter to that and actually hinder productivity by making some employees feel uncomfortable, then those programs may not be the right fit for the workplace.
balls187 13y ago
What if they weren't gawking, but instead watching? If you are hula hooping out in the open, I don't think it's fair to expect people to look away, no more than it is to expect people to look away if you were playing the hula hoop minigame in Wii Fit. Gawking and making people feel uncomfortable = bad. Watching coworkers make fools of themselves = priceless. > You are basically advocating the position of countries that require burqas in public. Slippery Slope My Friend, Slippery Slope.
- SolarNet 13y ago
  Your first point is valid. It depends on what actually happened. But the OP's comment: "As for the hula hooping... you're telling me that two women hula hooping to music in the workplace is perfectly appropriate, but when the other people nearby (who are going to be mostly males if the majority of employees are male - go figure) suddenly notice, that's the inappropriate part? Really?". Is the part that bothered me, they are implying that the inappropriate part is the women hoola hooping. The logic there that I have a problem with is that it's the women's fault for being attractive, and that the man isn't at as much fault for being attracted to it because the women are doing something attractive. Which is the same logic used to enforce burqa laws. I'm not saying the OP's thinking will lead to burqas or anything, merely that it's the same axiomatic view of the world. Basically, I never invoked a slippery slope, I was drawing a parallel in axioms. As an example on an actual slippery slope, to argue against gay marriage and say then people will marry dogs! It's implying that because we are going to change marriages definition it will just change to anything. When in actuality we have a specific argument based off of axioms of equality that lead us to the conclusion that marriage should be between two consenting adults. An argument similar to the one I made would be: "The same logic that lets different races marry also means we should let similar genders marry".
  - balls187 13y ago
    > The logic there that I have a problem with is that it's the women's fault for being attractive, and that the man isn't at as much fault for being attracted to it because the women are doing something attractive. I totally agree with this. It's akin to people saying things like "...asked to be assaulted because she was at the club/dressed provacatively/is a flirt." What isn't clear is if the hulahoopers felt uncomfortable, or was it just Horvath. Again speculating wildly, I wonder if she is more sensitive to gender issues (perhaps even classified as overly sensitive)?
Karn 13y ago
Hula hooping in a non-private space is equivalent to screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" If people are hula hooping, regardless of whether they are male or female, people are going to look. If the women were working on a laptop, or having a quiet conversation, and THEN men were gawping, that would be unacceptable. Want to hula hoop without being looked at? Do it in a private space. > You are basically using the same logic as countries that require burqas in public. Of course, because saying that "if you do attention-attracting activities in public, people are going to look, deal with it" is the same as saying "women must cover themselves head to toe in public."
- SolarNet 13y ago
  It's not that people were looking, it was that they were gawking. It's not that they glanced at it, or watched for a few seconds. It's that they spent a prolonged time watching it.
  - Karn 13y ago
    And I'm saying it's perfectly OK to "spend a prolonged time watching it". If women are doing something that involves a lot of pelvic gyrations, then yes, it is absolutely understandable AND acceptable that men will stare. It's not the men turning them into "sex objects" or whatever, the women already did that. And it's healthy, and normal, and most red-blooded men and women not only find it acceptable, they enjoy it. If you have the mindset that if women are dancing a man may only glance at it for a few seconds, I pity you and whatever caused you to turn out that way. And this was at a party. If someone is so repressed that watching men stare at dancing women at a party makes them uncomfortable, they should stay home. Or move to a burqa-wearing country.
    - SolarNet 13y ago
      Do you have a source for the "at a party" part? The majority of my comments have been predicated that this was in a work environment. The Horvath techcrunch article states "at the office". More to the point: Yes because women moving their hips means they automatically want to be considered for their sexual characteristics. /sarcasm Admittedly, if this was at a party and they were hula hooping then sure no problem at all. But just because a person moves their body around in an office doesn't mean they are looking for sexual partners! It's not that "a man may only glance at it for a few seconds". It's that in some environments (like office ones) they should have the self control to not care what other people are doing with their bodies.
tomp 13y ago
> You are basically using the same logic as countries that require burqas in public. Noone is saying that women shouldn't be hula-hooping, we're just saying that it's not wrong for others (men included) to watch them if they do. You, on the other hand, are saying that men should avert their gazes to avoid making women uncomfortable, which is much closer to the burqa logic, albeit with genders reversed.
- SolarNet 13y ago
  I'm not saying it's wrong for them to watch. I'm saying it's wrong for them to gawk, to such an extent that other employees don't feel safe in the work environment. Admittedly we only have Horvath's version, and to be fair she was dealing with two (three?) other people who were apparently completely out of line. I'm saying both genders should be to do some hoola hooping with no one feeling like anyone is being sexually objectified. There are comments in this little subthread about how people think this whole little episode is ridiculous regardless of genders. Those are the people who work in environments where they feel safe to do these things, the fact that Horvath apparently didn't is a problem, whether caused by github in general, or specific people with in it, the jury is still out. But my point was that this event can not be marginalized due to the logic that it's not the men's fault because the women were being seductive. It can be subject to scrutiny because of the personal feelings involved.

curiousgeorgio 13y ago

I wasn't trying to say that "gawking" is acceptable (sorry if that's the way it came across). My point is that one person's description of people "gawking" may very well have been simply the other people acknowledging their presence. It's pretty hard to prove one way or the other.

SolarNet 13y ago
That's fair, and Horvath's description is vague: "What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them" But it's important to remember these could go the other way as well. Horvath may still feel some loyalty to github and be sugar coating these events. Or you could be right and she is blowing them out of proportion.

sockgrant 13y ago

> In a casual work environment people often do light exercise Could you elaborate on this? In the work environments I've been in, people go to the gym or outside to work out. I've never been in a work environment where it's acceptable to do your exercising in the office space. What are you talking about -- yoga, bicep curls, jogging, jumping jacks? I've worked at extremely liberal companies but that kind of stuff doesn't happen.. > and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex objects I don't think it's a person's right to hula hoop in an office and then be upset when they attract the attention of the rest of the office, regardless of sex on both sides. It's an unusual thing to do, so it will draw eyes.

balls187 13y ago
Definitely. I think Julie should have spoken to both groups, telling the guys it's not cool to gawk at women, and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it some place more private.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  > and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it some place more private. Indeed. And just in case men still gawked at them, she could have brought some free niqab to work for them to wear. http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2013-09-18.png http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2013-09-18.png
  - balls187 13y ago
    Eh, I think you missed my point. The point of talking to the women isn't to help the men exercise better restraint (which extrapolated to an extreme would require a niqab). It's that if the women are doing something in the office, out in the open that people stopping to watch would make other people feel uncomfortable, then perhaps it shouldn't be done out in plain view of everyone. Like, if you are trying to have a private conversation with your Dr on the phone about your recent herpes outbreak, don't talk in the lunchroom and get pissed that I listened in. We can come up with counter examples, and/or take things to the extreme, however my point is that exercising some restraint and a little professionalism would make situations like this non existent.
    - duncan_bayne 13y ago
      No, I got your point quite clearly. If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable, that's unfortunate, but also totally your problem. Ditto breastfeeding and suchlike.
      - balls187 13y ago
        Clearly you did not. > If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable It wasn't women hula hooping made someone feel uncomfortable. It was men "gawking" at the women hula hooping, that made Julie Horvath feel uncomfortable. I hope you understand the difference. > If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable, that's unfortunate, but also totally your problem. Ditto breastfeeding and suchlike. Tangentially related--another key point you're missing, this is an office. No one should have to feel uncomfortable at the workplace, because the office is for people to work and be productive, not hula hoop. Things like hula hooping (I'm guessing), yoga, tai chi, Zumba, etc, are there to improve worker productivity. If these programs run counter to that and actually hinder productivity by making some employees feel uncomfortable, then those programs may not be the right fit for the workplace.

balls187 13y ago

What if they weren't gawking, but instead watching? If you are hula hooping out in the open, I don't think it's fair to expect people to look away, no more than it is to expect people to look away if you were playing the hula hoop minigame in Wii Fit. Gawking and making people feel uncomfortable = bad. Watching coworkers make fools of themselves = priceless. > You are basically advocating the position of countries that require burqas in public. Slippery Slope My Friend, Slippery Slope.

SolarNet 13y ago
Your first point is valid. It depends on what actually happened. But the OP's comment: "As for the hula hooping... you're telling me that two women hula hooping to music in the workplace is perfectly appropriate, but when the other people nearby (who are going to be mostly males if the majority of employees are male - go figure) suddenly notice, that's the inappropriate part? Really?". Is the part that bothered me, they are implying that the inappropriate part is the women hoola hooping. The logic there that I have a problem with is that it's the women's fault for being attractive, and that the man isn't at as much fault for being attracted to it because the women are doing something attractive. Which is the same logic used to enforce burqa laws. I'm not saying the OP's thinking will lead to burqas or anything, merely that it's the same axiomatic view of the world. Basically, I never invoked a slippery slope, I was drawing a parallel in axioms. As an example on an actual slippery slope, to argue against gay marriage and say then people will marry dogs! It's implying that because we are going to change marriages definition it will just change to anything. When in actuality we have a specific argument based off of axioms of equality that lead us to the conclusion that marriage should be between two consenting adults. An argument similar to the one I made would be: "The same logic that lets different races marry also means we should let similar genders marry".
- balls187 13y ago
  > The logic there that I have a problem with is that it's the women's fault for being attractive, and that the man isn't at as much fault for being attracted to it because the women are doing something attractive. I totally agree with this. It's akin to people saying things like "...asked to be assaulted because she was at the club/dressed provacatively/is a flirt." What isn't clear is if the hulahoopers felt uncomfortable, or was it just Horvath. Again speculating wildly, I wonder if she is more sensitive to gender issues (perhaps even classified as overly sensitive)?

Karn 13y ago

Hula hooping in a non-private space is equivalent to screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" If people are hula hooping, regardless of whether they are male or female, people are going to look. If the women were working on a laptop, or having a quiet conversation, and THEN men were gawping, that would be unacceptable. Want to hula hoop without being looked at? Do it in a private space. > You are basically using the same logic as countries that require burqas in public. Of course, because saying that "if you do attention-attracting activities in public, people are going to look, deal with it" is the same as saying "women must cover themselves head to toe in public."

SolarNet 13y ago
It's not that people were looking, it was that they were gawking. It's not that they glanced at it, or watched for a few seconds. It's that they spent a prolonged time watching it.
- Karn 13y ago
  And I'm saying it's perfectly OK to "spend a prolonged time watching it". If women are doing something that involves a lot of pelvic gyrations, then yes, it is absolutely understandable AND acceptable that men will stare. It's not the men turning them into "sex objects" or whatever, the women already did that. And it's healthy, and normal, and most red-blooded men and women not only find it acceptable, they enjoy it. If you have the mindset that if women are dancing a man may only glance at it for a few seconds, I pity you and whatever caused you to turn out that way. And this was at a party. If someone is so repressed that watching men stare at dancing women at a party makes them uncomfortable, they should stay home. Or move to a burqa-wearing country.
  - SolarNet 13y ago
    Do you have a source for the "at a party" part? The majority of my comments have been predicated that this was in a work environment. The Horvath techcrunch article states "at the office". More to the point: Yes because women moving their hips means they automatically want to be considered for their sexual characteristics. /sarcasm Admittedly, if this was at a party and they were hula hooping then sure no problem at all. But just because a person moves their body around in an office doesn't mean they are looking for sexual partners! It's not that "a man may only glance at it for a few seconds". It's that in some environments (like office ones) they should have the self control to not care what other people are doing with their bodies.

tomp 13y ago

> You are basically using the same logic as countries that require burqas in public. Noone is saying that women shouldn't be hula-hooping, we're just saying that it's not wrong for others (men included) to watch them if they do. You, on the other hand, are saying that men should avert their gazes to avoid making women uncomfortable, which is much closer to the burqa logic, albeit with genders reversed.

SolarNet 13y ago
I'm not saying it's wrong for them to watch. I'm saying it's wrong for them to gawk, to such an extent that other employees don't feel safe in the work environment. Admittedly we only have Horvath's version, and to be fair she was dealing with two (three?) other people who were apparently completely out of line. I'm saying both genders should be to do some hoola hooping with no one feeling like anyone is being sexually objectified. There are comments in this little subthread about how people think this whole little episode is ridiculous regardless of genders. Those are the people who work in environments where they feel safe to do these things, the fact that Horvath apparently didn't is a problem, whether caused by github in general, or specific people with in it, the jury is still out. But my point was that this event can not be marginalized due to the logic that it's not the men's fault because the women were being seductive. It can be subject to scrutiny because of the personal feelings involved.