Hacker News Reader

Comment by bunnymancer | Hacker News Reader

Yet people find it hard to understand why some people might be somewhat offended by a shirt with scantily clad women during a press conference.

Things do not happen in a vacuum and pretending like nothing is wrong isn't going to help anyone get anywhere.

View on HN

The guy wore the shirt to a celebration after working with those co-workers for 10 years. It wasn't intended to look "professional" and I'm pretty sure none of those co-workers were offended. The reason the shirt was a bad idea is that it was easily misinterpreted by people watching the press conference.

Edit: I didn't see it at the time, but this article exactly reflects my perspective on the thing. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/why-a-sh...

Edit2: I agree with bunnymancer's comment as far as it goes. But I don't think the shirt is a very big problem. It would be almost insignificant if it weren't interacting with the big problem we already have.

A shirt that depicts women as objects or objectized women is just plain wrong. I do not care about the celebration.

It's art. The shirt was also made by a woman, for what it's worth.

Nude paintings are also art, but if you hang a couple in your office, you'll have a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Really? I would fight that lawsuit tooth and nail. Neo-puritanism makes my blood boil.

That is also one kind of lawsuit where your personal assets will be on the line if you lose.

Regardless of what you think of Puritanism, don't sexualize the workplace.

Nabokov's Lolita is also art. Lester the molester is also art. Invalid argument.

Have you actually read Lolita.

Yes, I found it quite interesting but deeply disturbing. You can rest assured that I'm not the only one: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2005/12/lolita_at_5... https://101books.net/2011/12/15/lolita-inside-the-mind-of-a-...

You do realise the shirt was given to him by a female colleague/friend right?

So what?

If a black friend gives me a shirt with the N-word on it, that doesn't mean I should wear it at work.

Context is key. I haven't followed this shirt brouhaha in any serious depth but I assume that all of his colleagues and management saw him wearing the shirt before he delivered his talk. AFAIK it became a problem afterwards. So, if you (not me) want to equate a shirt with female characters on it to a shirt with the N-word on it then, yes, if the workplace context was right why not wear it at work (e.g. I'm thinking an indie record label or similar environment with black, white, whatever people working together as a tight team and a black friend of a white guy bought him said t-shirt).

Ultimately, it's up to the guy wearing the t-shirt to make a judgement call as to whether doing so would offend or not offend his friends and colleagues. So: context, relationship with everyone else at the place he works at, balanced sensitivity etc.

If he honestly (not deliberately) makes the wrong call, he should apologise and everyone should move on. Work is a place for adults, not children on a lynching party.

If you're white, and your black friend gives you a shirt with the N-word on it, they aren't your friend.

These guys are probably friends.

http://realfunny.net/picture-3097-these-two-friends-wearing-...

They probably don't wear the shirts to work.

It was a friend, rather than a colleague, that made and gave him the shirt so they may well be unaware of how it would be percieved by his colleagues when worn in this context.

> so they may well be unaware of how it would be percieved by his colleagues when worn in this context.

Wasn't the controversy more about how the shirt was perceived by randos on twitter, not by his colleagues?

Yes, rando astrophysicists on twitter:

https://twitter.com/astrokatie/status/532509765989965824

Was that person his colleague?

You do realise that a woman can be wrong about women's rights, right?

This is an under-recognized point. Women can definitely undermine women's interests.

Do you find it wrong in general or wrong in a professional setting?

In general. Women should not be shown as objects, prices, decoration, etc... It is bad for all the women and puts us the men in a false superior position.

That's interesting. What do you think woman who do this or desire to be viewed like this?

I don't think you're going to convince anyone by just stating what your view is. Give some reasons or something.

I have to give a reasons to why a shirt that depicts naked women is wrong?

Well, yeah. (Also they're not naked.) Heck, there are Bibles that have pictures of naked women in them. Are you saying women aren't allowed to be naked, or no one is allowed to make pictures of them, or they should only be photographs and not fantasies, or what exactly?

Objectification doesn't really apply to a still image. The whole trope was initially about women in media being the object of the male character's conquest. Essentially the women were turned into nothing more than props.

A t-shirt depicting scantily clad women may be in poor taste and likely isn't professional, but doesn't really contribute to the objectification of women. Women are allowed to be sexualised (just as men are), the line is drawn when women are subjugated to only that role (which, again, we witness in some media, games, movies, TV, rarely books).

You're just moralising right and wrong and then using objectification as some kind of trump card, no matter how little it applies. Men are allowed to wear t-shirts with half naked women on them, it isn't inherently sexist, just tacky and unprofessional (in my opinion).

The view that you, as an individual, bring to the world, is exactly what makes the world the way it is. That's why a shirt is a reflection of a reality. Now it is a shirt, tomorrow it is a perfume advertising image. The next day it is a man who thinks that the woman he is married to is his belonging.

That's actually the view academics such as philosopher Martha Nussbaum bring to the world.

See their definition of objectification here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification#Definitions

As you can see, doesn't apply. A static t-shirt image of any sort is always an object but never objectification, because it lacks the context it would need to be more.

Objectification was never about naked Vs. clothed. It was about how women are treated and viewed as individuals. It is about autonomy and being more than a 2D prop for male character's use.

You can be naked and still have a great deal of personality, story importance, and be respected by both male characters within the medium and the writers. See Game of Thrones. There is an absolute ton of nudity in that, and yes, there is objectification (e.g. background sex) but the show gets a pass because female leads are given a great deal of importance, autonomy, and respect. They're nobody's props or objects.

Sexual objectification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification#Sexual_...

> Objectification doesn't really apply to a still image.

What the what? Care to elaborate on how that works?

An image is literally an object. It's not a woman. Objectifying an actual woman would be more clearly immoral. Objectifying a shirt - which he literally, legally owns - is not necessarily a problem.

> Care to elaborate on how that works?

A fully clothed women in a still image still has no personality, no interactions, no lines, no inherent character. A still image is within itself a prop or an object.

So criticising a still image for objectifying women is inherently both true but also completely redundant. Everything in a still image is static, it is an object, plants, animals, women, men, naked, fully clothed, they're all objects.

The term "objectifying women" (as a negative) originated from turning women into objects or props in situations where they wouldn't otherwise be so. So for example, you take a female character, you remove all of her lines, put her in sexy clothing, then have the male characters stand around and talk about how sexy she is. That's objectification, they've literally turned that women into an object or prop for male character's use.

Calling all sexual images of women "objectification" is simply an overreach. It also doesn't make rational sense when applied to women who couldn't have dialog, personalities, or interactions such as a still image on a t-shirt. It is pretty hard to have ANY women or man on a t-shirt who isn't an object.

You can call it "distasteful" (likely true) or "inappropriate" (again, likely true for work) but you didn't, you called it objectification which it objectively is not.

There is a problem with only thinking logically about such issues. Humans are messy and not entirely rational creatures. We're constantly seeking dominance over one another and weird emotional games come into this. No one wants to be reduced to an emblem. No one wants to be subject to a stereotype, even a positive one. In the end, we all want to be genuinely related to as people.

Strong signals of dominance, emotion, and sexuality should be experienced consensually. The reason why the "bro" stereotype is so annoying, is the apparent insistence on the others around them to feel or act a certain way. The reason why politics and political discussions are so unpleasant is that dominance instincts are brought to the fore by necessity.

I think a truly consensual society should be without the feeling of witch-hunts. I'm not sure if that's possible for human beings, though. Maybe Mao was right, and "All power comes from the end of a gun." In the end it's all the hegemony of one "tribe" over another.

I think brudgers's advice is excellent, and I would encourage you again to take it. I hope this doesn't sound too pushy, it's just a suggestion.

It is an excellent advice. Made by someone who writes for a living. However, the comment system is not made to make us all agree about everything. My concern is about the restriction you put in a unconscious way to your opinions when there is dissent. Is this a kind of censorship? A very sofisticate one?

I don't see the point in expressing your opinions on this forum if you don't care whether anyone agrees with you. If you're not interested in connecting with the readers and influencing them, why not just keep it to yourself? What are you accomplishing by posting here?

I really do care if the 'audience' agrees with me. What I'm trying to understand is why I have to restrain myself just because I think that I might not be under the most popular line of thought or going to arise some controversy. No one deserves downvoting for expressing its line of thought even if it is an unpopular one. I would never downvote anyone for expressing its beliefs in a proper manner.

In a more general note about the downvotes about sexism: https://medium.com/@sh4ka/sexism-and-hacker-news-6678897fccc...

Demonstrates that context is everything.

Do most of the people reading this thread think it is sexist?

There is no excuse for these type of behaviour, none.

I do not know much about their workplace but I think you are assuming too much when you say you are sure his co-workers were just fine with it. I worked in academia and startups all my life so I am used to seeing casual shirts being worn but that was way too much. We do not hang that kind of pictures around the office. We do not want people to look at that kind of pictures in the office. Not just in the office also in any work related function. How can you claim that nobody in his workplace was offended when he is walking around with pictures that would be offensive in any other form?

I'm not positive. But that would be between them and their employer. I think it's odd that I can't find a quote from any of his co-workers (men or women) about the issue. They are the only ones who would have standing to complain on a normal day without news cameras around.

Edit: found the video I was looking for. NASA made this one two years earlier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KnTpm9Y77E So, still speculation, but we do have some idea of attitudes at NASA.

After reading the OP's linked article, do you see why his female coworkers may have been reluctant to openly and publicly complain about his shirt? "Mia" isn't the woman's real name. She talks about the threats of backlash to her career she has received.

The stupid shirt controversy trivializes real issues. This article is about actual cases of sexual harassment and even assault. People don't take it as seriously because now sexism now mostly means people getting offended at silly shirts.

I clicked on the article honestly expecting it to be something trivial like that, and was alarmed at the seriousness of it.

That was the first thing I thought of when seeing this article's title, too.

Here, for reference: https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pic...

In a forum dominated by men, under-socialized men because they have few female co workers, there is a lack of understanding and sympathy for anything less than groping. Last time I was on here, HN users defended their right to make dick jokes in the work place.

Dick jokes in the workplace are ok. Serious question, why wouldn't they be?

They aren't if someone has a problem with them.

Because there are plenty of jokes you can tell that don't refer to genitalia?

While generally I would tend to avoid dick jokes in the workplace, primarily because they're not particularly professional, it's a poor argument that they are not appropriate because 'someone has a problem with them.'

In a large workplace, 'someone' will have a problem with any joke about any topic.

Which is a great reason for why you should keep edgy humour out of the office. In the US, we value the right to make a living in a hostility-free work environment more then the right to say whatever you want at work.

So long as the joke isn't putting down someone (could be bullying), any joke is ok IMO.

I agree with you when you say that any joke is ok. When you choose the right environment it is ok to make a funeral joke, but not in you grandpa's funeral, you see where I'm going? You can not make jokes about different sexes in your workplace. You have to draw this line. It is very innapropriate. (This is said by a particular who believes that the only line in humour should be traced by oneself)

Because they tend to give the message to women that "You're an outsider here."

I think keeping jokes about genitalia and other sexually explicit topics out of the workplace is a pretty reasonable line to draw. The problem isn't that dick jokes are categorically offensive, rather, the problem arises because, when this type of behavior is permitted, there is always someone lacking social intelligence or boundaries who takes it way too far and creates a complicated ambiguity regarding what type of dick jokes take it too far. The office isn't the place to tease out the nuance of what is appropriate comedy.

Personally, as a straight male, I'd be pretty uncomfortable if my boss was making jokes about his dick. Just sayin'

I never really liked the the logic that the rest of us can't do a certian thing because there are some other people can't be trusted. Here's a thought, instead of messing with every guy or girl for an innocent joke, just you know, deal with the person who takes it too far?

My point is that determining what constitutes "too far" is fraught with ambiguous subjective analysis. Who is the arbiter of what is too far in terms of comedy? Pretty much nobody has an issue with "an innocent joke" by definition, but sexually explicit comedy often tows the line of "innocent" (which is usually what makes it funny), and attempting to disentangle the clever sexual comedy from the inappropriate sexual comedy is a pandora's box not worth opening in the workplace. Just keep sexual jokes and commentary to yourself in the office.

> My point is that determining what constitutes "too far" is fraught with ambiguous subjective analysis.

Well true, but I think we have a massive problem with getting outraged for the sake of being outraged. I actually can't fathom why so many people were able to find themselves getting upset over the floppy disk comment. I suspect that we're mostly just sticking up for "someone else" because it's the right thing to do when in reality, the someone else doesn't actually exist.

> Just keep sexual jokes and commentary to yourself in the office.

I'm Scottish and asking me to behave myself is culturally insensitive. ;)

Make this a rule : "no dick jokes at work",

Watch as the scope of what constitutes 'work' creep.

Well, it is personal experience but the most sexual jokes I've heard in person in the workplace came from women. And I found them rather funny.

But to each their own I guess.

Do you understand the difference between women making sexual jokes and men making them?

Something along the lines of:

“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

? i.e. the context of men doing it is different, because men are violent/threatening/etc.

If so, I can assure you many consider this line of reasoning as unfairly demonising men. If not, can you explain to me the difference?

And now you lost me.

Why is it different?

>> Do you understand the difference between women making sexual jokes and men making them?

No, I don't think in sexist terms.

Women aren't excluded. And environments with no women in them aren't excluded either. An employer can be held liable if they don't take action to prevent an environment where employees are getting offended all the time. So a single joke probably isn't a legal issue, but a workplace that is "intimidating, hostile, or offensive" can get you sued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_work_environment

Under-socialized men? Sorry, but who are you to judge exactly? Super-socialised I assume?

> Last time I was on here, HN users defended their right to make dick jokes in the work place.

So, the place isn't an echo chamber of your own opinions? "HN users" differ in their opinions, all healthy online communities should.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com