Hacker News Reader

I've never understood how it's possible to be offended on someone else's behalf, particularly on a perpetual basis, as your tone leads me to believe you must be.

Your pejorative reading of "complicated" is far out of proportion to the original comment. Like it or not, gender differences extend beyond just having different sex organs. Men and women differ in lots of ways, including in typical emotional response. It's entirely reasonable to point out that women may respond differently to visual depictions of nudity in the same way that it's reasonable to point out that they tend to be less hairy.

> I've never understood how it's possible to be offended on someone else's behalf . . .

This may be true (that you don't understand), but I doubt it. If you have ever taken a stance on the wellbeing of people other than yourself, particularly a political stance, or if you have ever defended a friend or family member against an accuser, or any number of other normal human social interactions, then you do understand what it feels like, although perhaps to a different degree than me in this case.

And, I also have to point out that whether you understand why I argue about this has precisely nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.

> It's entirely reasonable to point out that women may respond differently to visual depictions of nudity

Only if it's backed up by evidence and relevant. It is neither in this case. Observing that women are less hairy is a fact, provable, and does not play a role in the argument at hand. Observing that women react differently to nudity than men is wrong on two fronts. First, it may not even be true. Second, in the context of a woman making a political statement about the depiction of her gender, it is a rhetorical device based on a premise of unknown veracity whose primary purpose is to discredit her beliefs to a male audience. It's a variant of "women are irrational, so we don't need to listen to them," albeit less transparently foolish.

The legal system here in Denmark requires you to be directly involved if you want to bring charges against someone, ie. you can't accuse someone of making racist comments unless they were about you. The law often has flaws and it does not translate directly to being emotionally offended, but it does politically. Disclaimer: IANAL.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You believe that in order to be emotionally or rationally involved in a political debate, it is required that it affect you directly. Is that what you are trying to say?

So is it your belief that, for example, politicians in Denmark only involve themselves in matters that concern them directly? They do not debate over or attempt to alter the fate of the poor, the sick, or the disenfranchised? Do authority figures of various kinds not intervene when they see a chance to prevent an injustice or correct a false belief? I must say, from your description Denmark sounds like a very unique place on this Earth. Far more unusual than I had been led to believe by the people I know who come from there or have visited the place.

Also, could you explain what connection you think Denmark's legal standards of evidence have to the correct behavior of a person in political debate? Specifically, how is it relevant that Denmark's laws require civil complaints to be brought by the affected party?

I'm going to get offended on behalf of jamesaguilar. Why is he getting so many downvotes? Comments shouldn't be downvoted because you disgaree with them, they should be downvoted because they're thoughtless or unconstructive.

Since the above post was neither, I'm going to assume that some people need to reread the below:

http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

99% of the posts and comments here on HN have nothing to do with the readers directly, or, if they do, have no moral connotation one way or another. This does, and it's really uncomfortable to learn about the fact that you are part of a privileged group. You see exactly how unbiased people can be about which comments are worth reading when discussing this topic and others like it. Historically, I've found the answer to be, "Not very."

> I've never understood how it's possible to be offended on someone else's behalf, particularly on a perpetual basis, as your tone leads me to believe you must be.

I'm not the person you are replying to, so this is from me: It doesn't take "being offended" to hold very little tolerance for sexists.

> I've never understood how it's possible to be offended on someone else's behalf

I can think of one possibility. I have a female friend who is studying massage therapy. The association of massage therapy with prostitution makes it very difficult for her to get people to take massage seriously. I am offended when someone makes this association and usually on my friend's behalf because it makes her job more difficult.

The logic is simple. I'm offended because someone else is causing harm to someone I care about. Granted, this is a specific example. I'm not really offended on the behalf of all massage therapists but I'm fairly sure my friend is.

If you worked with women who have emotional problems due to the way society devalues them it's perfectly reasonable to become offended on their behalf. (Stereotyping devalues everyone involved, there is no excuse for it.)

Being offended on behalf of someone becomes a problem with you either: A. Don't understand the problem or B. Don't have any real connection to it.

This is not a feminist issue. It's an issue with the reputation of massage. Addressing it through gender is not just incorrect, but divisive and counterproductive.

I was addressing how it was possible to be offended for someone else. Massage was merely an example I am familiar with. My second example dealing with women is also an example with no relation to massage.

On a level, referring to the role of a mother as a "sex object, baby producer, domestic slave" is pretty flawed

where along the way did we lose respect for women who stay at home to raise a family??

also using hollywood movies as a litmus test is pretty flawed...the modern male hardly comes out unscathed either as they're either bumbling, asshole fathers or will do anything for sex.

There's nothing wrong with women who want to stay at home. The problem comes in when a woman is not appreciated for anything else.

No I think it's a problem when women aren't allowed to do anything else.

You and I have different standards for egalitarian society. Depiction has an effect on permission.

Well said!

Guys, if you don't want to give the wrong impression when you're talking about stuff like this, it's a good idea to reread your posts to see if you're projecting your own experiences (and privilege) in situations where it doesn't apply -- or implying that the way men approach things is better than how women do.

That's exactly what's being done by women too, in articles like the one posted, and it hasn't stopped anyone from sympathizing or the collective hypocritic outcry of the masses that are offended by public displays of parts of the human body.

Try reading the article again. She was explicitly writing from her own experiences, not projecting them on others. And her primary point was that Wired doesn't feature women on its cover.

No, don't fall into that trap. She was projecting her experiences onto a cover which could be received in many different ways. The way she rejected it as sexist is the result of this underlying process.

Ironically, by stating that "usefulness as a sex object, baby producer, and/or domestic slave" is somehow inferior (ok, let's skip the slave), you actually cement the classic world view. Men are usually only appreciated as "providers", and it seems in your world view that is also the only worthy way to be a human being. Good job.

This. This, this this. That is all.