6 ms·
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 hoopin
by 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)?
- brazzy 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. How about it's nobody's fault because there is nothing fucking wrong about people doing something in public and others watching them???
- SolarNet 13y agoThat's fine, but that's not the logic the OP used to counter Horvath's feelings of a problem. The OP instead seemed to imply that the women were more at fault for causing the men to gawk (not just watch). However emotionally charged the event may have been for Horvath due to the situation other Github employees (and their significant others) placed her in to make it feel to her that it was gawking, the logic the OP was using was flawed.
- theorique 13y agoThe way the TechCrunch article read, this wasn't a very big incident at all. Certainly, none of the women involved are said to have been upset or complained about being watched by their coworkers as they performed. However, because Horvath was already in a very upset emotional state about man-woman issues at GitHub and her own situation at the company, she was in a position to read a lot of meaning into this situation that most people wouldn't.
- Myrmornis 13y agoIs 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. What are you even talking about? People find each other attractive. Most commonly between sexes. It happens in workplaces. Get over it.