Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikemaccana | Hacker News Reader

My standard for sexism is: would it be OK to do it if the situations were reversed?

So imagine a woman on stage, picture of some dude with a blot over his face and 'BASTARD' written on it.

- Sexist? Not sure it would indicate the speaker hates all men per se, just this one.

- But lame, like the speaker couldn't control themselves over their anger at someone and had to bring it on stage for some kind of pathetic vindication? Sure.

I'd advise not doing this not because it's sexist, but because it makes the speaker look like an angry, sad individual.

PS. If the hot sauce was glass, that's obviously even worse. Lesson: stupid drama (like throwing some ex girlfriend on an unrelated talk) invites more stupid drama (like throwing bottles at someone rather than using words as a first resort).

View on HN

That doesn't work in situations where there is a power imbalance. For example, let's use our time machine and travel back to 1978. Consider the words "Nigger" and "Honky" in a presentation. Nigger was way more offensive, to the point that there really wasn't an equivalent slur you could apply to so-called white people.

It's the same thing with "bitch." There is a power imbalance such that there isn't an equivalent slur you can apply to men. "Bastard" doesn't even come close to capturing the degrading implications of "bitch" today. Maybe it did in the Middle Ages, but not today.

The terms 'nigger' and 'honky' are inherently discriminatory because they are frequently used to describe membership of an entire group of people. They're not looking at individuals based on their own character, but judging them based on their group. These terms are occasionally used for individuals, but less commonly so.

'bitch' and 'bastard' are more commonly used for individuals, though they are occasionally applied to entire genders.

If you use general-audience television/movies and the speech of the young as an indicator, 'bitch' oddly seems to be becoming more acceptable over time. I'm not sure if this is a rise of sexism, or simply a weakening of the word's 'degrading implications'. (It might even be a indication of falling sexism; the word becoming less seen as a uniquely-gendered slur, and no worse than calling someone a 'dick' or 'pig'.)

A poll of usage and attitudes by age might be interesting.

On my ride to the office I had the thought that the launch of MTV may have something to do with it. Just as my parents' generation made "fuck" an everyday word, the MTV generation seem to have a different view of the words "nigger" and "bitch," possibly in part because of the glamorization of hip hop culture.

Perhaps, but also: quasi-feminist efforts to reclaim the word and imbue it with some positive qualities, of which a few examples would be:

• 'Bitch', Oakland- and then Portland-based feminist magazine, launched 1996

• Meredith Brooks' 2000 hit pop single, 'Bitch'

• a boomlet of books with 'Bitch' in the title, ranging from Elizabeth Wurtzel's 'Bitch: in Praise of Difficult Women' (1999) to Helena Andrews' 'Bitch is the New Black' this year

That is, I don't think it's just hip-hop or glamorization of misogyny that's the popularizing/de-taboo-ifying factor here.

Well, that's interesting. I certainly have seen tee shirts proclaiming the wearer to be a "Babe In Total Control of Herself."

I agree with you about the power imbalance problem.

But to the extent that there is an equivalent slur toward men, I think it would be something like "dick" or "prick" rather than "bastard". Those are words that are derogatory in a gender-specific way, specifically directed at males.

"My standard for sexism is: would it be OK to do it if the situations were reversed?"

This might not actually be a good test because, as a society, we have different social standards for men and women. While Kagan's actions could be considered "masculine", most likely if a woman did something similar it would be considered "bitchy".

Because we use different words and standards, it's really hard to truly reverse the situation.

By the way, your example indicates that you're confusing sexism and misogyny -- you could debate whether his position is misogynistic (expresses a hatred for women) but it seems fairly likely that it's sexist (makes some women feel uncomfortable in a situation because of their gender).

This is such bullshit. Why would it be "masculine" to insult women? Discussions of this kind (gender issues) quickly seem to deteriorate into complete fantasy land.

To be sure there are probably circles of men who think it is cool to insult women. Likewise there are circles of women who think it is cool to insult men. That doesn't generalize to the whole population, though. For example, I am male and I don't think it is cool to insult women. Why don't you generalize from me to the whole male population of planet earth, rather than generalizing from some bonehead?

There are all sorts of fucked up people, in fact. To generalize from them is just useless.

If I had been to that particular talk, I would just have made a mental note to avoid that speaker in the future. I probably would have left early, too - what is the point in sitting through a crappy presentation? Maybe even send a note to the organizers so that they can adjust their speaker line up for the next conference.

Having one man insult women doesn't necessarily generalize to the entire male population, but what is damning is when a man insults women in a public setting under the assumption that nobody will criticize him for it (implicit acceptance).

I don't think it is implicit acceptance. People probably leave during the speech, they nod off, or they avoid the speaker in the future. Maybe they should immediately jump onto their chairs and shout "foul", but I am not really sure that would be desirable.

Frankly, I want to have a choice if I go to such a conference to concern myself with topics that interest me. Maybe some other time I'll go to a conference about women's rights. At any milliseconds there are a zillion unfair things going on in the world, we can not deal with them all.

In this particular situation, for example, I wouldn't see anybody who was hurt directly. Like if I saw somebody beating up somebody else on stage, I might be moved to step in and stop the beating. But here - even if some women's feelings were hurt, I figure they could just leave the room without my assistance. So it doesn't seem worth the trouble to make a fuss about it.

Realistically, I probably would have the same reaction, but just as a thought experiment, what if it was something similar with an off-color (not necessarily outright offensive) slide regarding someone's ethnicity or sexual orientation? I feel like it would be comparable.

Thinking you are never sexist is like thinking you never have boogers hanging out of your nose.

Sure, you never see it... that's makes it easy to pretend it's not happening. But anyone with eyes below your nose level (most likely women) definitely sees it.

And your only defense is developing good rapport with those people, and giving them reason to believe that you'll respond graciously when they point it out.

Give an example. I must admit I am at a loss for words. What should I feel guilty for, and to whose benefit?

Everybody faces prejudice. For example I face prejudice because I work with computers. I don't think that warrants inflicting a huge guilt trip on the rest of the world.

> it's sexist (makes some women feel uncomfortable in a situation because of their gender).

We have a different definition of sexism. If a person feels uncomfortable, it does not necessarily mean they are being discriminated against.

Let's turn it around to the best of our ability (by looking for something that has a similar social effect and not merely the same behavior) and test that definition: A lot of men feel extremely uncomfortable because of their gender when women mention menstruation or menopause. Are women who talk about those topics sexist?

(I'm not saying it's a good thing to talk the way Noah did. But I don't feel that "momentarily inconsiderate of others' feelings" is the same thing as "sexist." One is a bad behavior that could come from any number of reasons and the other is a deep-seated mindset.)

I assumed it was the same brand of hot sauce shown in the picture -- a plastic bottle with a rooster on it that around here is colloquially known as "cock sauce."

"Cock sauce" with friends, "rooster sauce" at work. Giving a talk at an industry conference is definitely a "rooster sauce" situation.

Good post. I found the author of the post was overly sensitive. He wasn't calling her a bitch or all women bitches, just some random stranger. A pretty pointless and immature thing to put in a slide show to be sure, but sexist? The guy was right to answer "no" when she asked if he wanted to understand what happened.

Strangely, he didn't lob the sauce bottle towards her like he did for other attendants. May it be because she was a girl, and girl are notoriously bad at ball games?

If we're going to jump out there with wild speculations do we also have to pick the most cynical ones [1]? I mean, from what I've read, this guy does indeed sound like a douche bag but that doesn't mean his every thought and action is sexist in nature.

If nothing else, didn't she still have the phone in her hand? Or maybe she was in a difficult spot to place a good throw. I mean she couldn't get the bottle to him, maybe he didn't think he could get it to her? Did the author say that he never did it again? Rather then this horrible kind of arm-chair sleuthing it's probably just easier to ask him why.

[1] funny enough, you suggesting this makes it more apparent that you think this way. I mean, this never occurred to me.

Just because you can understand someone's line of thinking doesn't mean you think like that.

The poster was making a joke based on a period when women were not considered capable of playing sports (among other things). The fact that that is no longer true and thinking like that is anachronistic is why the joke is funny (or is a joke at all). I can laugh at a joke that puts someone or a group down and still not be a bigot.

I think people who don't adjust their definitions of words/idioms to reflect modern connotations should stop holding grudges (or whatever the appropriate term is) and move on. That's obviously too simple a solution to work since it causes words to be less offensive over time and thus some parts of what they represent may become acceptable. For example, the word rape might be a bad one to get desensitized to because it might also lead to desensitization to the act of rape.

>Just because you can understand someone's line of thinking doesn't mean you think like that.

But when you make assumptions about what someone is thinking based on one action then you are not "understanding someone's link of thinking", you are projecting.

>The poster was making a joke based on a period when women were not considered capable of playing sports

If it was a joke then obviously I overreacted. The usual clues and context ("how does the parent usually talk/joke?") are missing in text, so it's easier to miss.

> I can laugh at a joke that puts someone or a group down and still not be a bigot.

Totally agree. Somethings are funny precisely because they're ridiculous.

>I think people who don't adjust their definitions of words/idioms to reflect modern connotations should stop holding grudges (or whatever the appropriate term is) and move on.

Not sure what you're addressing here.

> If we're going to jump out there with wild speculations do we also have to pick the most cynical ones [1]?

Of course we have to. Cynical sarcasm is way funnier than, say, throwing around hot sauce.

Totally missed that you were joking here. Touché.

Actually, I suspect he realized why she was taking the picture, wanted to make a gesture indicating he respected her viewpoint, was distracted by - you know - giving a talk, thought "hey, a bottle of hot sauce! oh wait, throwing it might be misconstrued", and passed it over. Hilarity then ensued.

Replace "bitch" with an ethnic slur. Do you still feel the same way?

"Bitch" can be a loaded word. Sometimes it's used as the female version of "asshole" or "dickhead." Sometimes it feels more hateful of women in general, like an ethnic slur. Because it's so sensitive to context like that, I think reasonable people should not use it with so little context in a professional presentation.

>Replace "bitch" with an ethnic slur. Do you still feel the same way?

No, because it's not the same thing. Saying a woman is a bitch is a far cry from saying all women are (though granted, his choice of having a generic woman with a blanked out face was bad).

>I think reasonable people should not use it with so little context in a professional presentation.

I never said the presenter was reasonable, in fact I said the opposite. But that's a problem with him and the proper response is to assume he's not very mature. A random woman in the audience getting offended is silly and useless. He wasn't talking to or about her specifically.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say: in some contexts, "bitch" does have that connotation towards the group. It's not a simple word to use.

Surely the world would at least need to be "bitches" to have group connotations?

> A random woman in the audience getting offended is silly and useless.

I don't think this is how "getting offended" works.

She felt angry and offended, not because it served a purpose, but because that's how she felt. Are you only offended when it's useful? I think I'd have been pretty irritated by the presentation as well (and I'm a guy), which suggests to me that her reaction wasn't some personal idiosyncrasy. Kagan should, in fact, pay some attention to what happened here & why, if he wants to be invited to give more important talks.

And if he does or has been thinking about that, that would be useful, after all.

Kagan's mistake here wasn't that it was offensive. I don't think there was a rational reason for anyone besides his ex-girlfriends to get offended about this and there's no point in bothering with people who look for reasons to be offended.

His mistake was that this made him look petty and childish ("Oh look at me, I'm in front of people so now I can call people I'm mad at names!") while serving no positive purpose.

Actually, words like 'bitch' and 'ho' ('whore') are very common gender slurs among some groups, unlike 'bastard' or 'asshole', so it's hard to find a 'reverse' situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitch_(insult)#Hip_hop_culture

> unlike 'bastard'

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=all+men+are+bastards

I think context matters. If you had some relevant story where it mattered, I may not consider it sexist, but would always think of it as juvenile.

IMO, it's analogous to a comic whose schtick involves screaming the f-bomb or something similar. You get a few cheap laughs, but it gets old quickly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com