Hacker News Reader

Comment by c0riander | Hacker News Reader

Some of these comments baffle me.

Look, it doesn't matter what someone said before or after they sexualized someone in a professional context. Here's why: human beings are smart. They know that things people say matter. Thus, if you are commenting on someone's appearance or sexiness in a professional context, that must matter to you.

Why is that important? It serves to undermine the person it's said about. Rather than being judged on their work, or their connections, or what not - they are now being judged for their appearance. And that steals credibility they may have had in other, legitimate arenas.

It says, I like you because you're attractive, not because you deserve it.

("Oh, Nancy's not a good lawyer - everyone just thinks she's pretty." "Well Bob got that promotion because he's so good-looking. He didn't really deserve it." Etc.)

And yes, in some contexts, we expect to be more casual and colloquial. But if you're in a professional setting, unprofessional remarks do insidious harm to the subject.

View on HN

>It says, I like you because you're attractive, not because you deserve it.

I don't think so. What if, instead of commenting about her physical appearance, the introducer commented about her sense of humor. Is that saying "I like you because you're funny, not because you deserve it"? Equally, no. It is simply a noticeable quality about the person.

To me, it's more like saying "I like this person, and just one of the things that make this person unique and remarkable is his/her appearance/humor/whatever." There is no "...not because you deserve it" part to that.

That said, it does seem out of place in a professional setting to remark on someone's appearance when there are more relevant things to comment on. That is, unless you don't know that parson particularly well; in that case, appearance may be the only thing you know how to comment on.

The point is relevance to the situation and context.

If someone is about to give a talk, then (depending on the venue) it may be appropriate to say "Stacy is very funny," because it has a clear implication for the situation at hand.

But imagine this. A woman walks by - your colleague Bob knows her and waves. You say, "Bob, who was that?" He says, "That's Stacy from Accounting. She has a great sense of humor." Do we think Stacy is great at her job? Probably not.

The point is that in a professional context (certain professions excluded), it is never relevant to comment on someone's appearance or sexualize them. Like many things related to sexual harassment, the waters can be murky, and many people don't realize they are undermining their colleagues (often people they do in fact greatly respect) by their words and behaviors.

And there is just no excuse for commenting on someone's appearance or sexualizing them in a professional context. Even if you don't know them well.

"But imagine this. A woman walks by - your colleague Bob knows her and waves. You say, "Bob, who was that?" He says, "That's Stacy from Accounting. She has a great sense of humor." Do we think Stacy is great at her job? Probably not."

I don't think that's quite fair. If I'm not in accounting, chances are I don't care if she's good at her job or not (hell, chances are Bob doesn't even have the knowledge to say if she is or is not). On the other hand, her personality is much more relevant.

If I'm in the same department, her boss or coworker, this of course changes.

I think the point is, we are in the same department, so to speak, and in the context we were specifically interested in her professional qualifications. But I agree that in the personal scenario above, when you just ask "who was that?", you likely don't know or care much about her professional qualifications. It was a bad analogy.

it doesn't matter what someone said before or after they sexualized someone in a professional context.

Why is the offensive part the only part that matters? It doesn't matter to you because you're not the one being denounced as sexist, but when it comes time to convict someone in the court of public opinion, it is important to give a comprehensive account of the events in question. This guy made some stupid and sexist comments, but the first half of his introduction mitigates the idea that he is blind to Lovell's accomplishments and only sees her as a sex object. No two ways about it - the comments were sexist and wrong - but the full context speaks to this guy's general regard for women (poor, but not vindictive, predatory or misogynistic).

If we are talking about whether or not sexism occurred, then it does not in fact matter what someone said before or after they said something sexist.

I'm not trying to convict anyone - in another comment I note that these situations are often unclear, and many very well-intentioned people may not even realize they are harming or undermining someone (and they probably think highly of that person, too!). To be honest, my primary impetus was to explain why a comment like this is actually sexist (there seemed to be some disagreement on that part) and why it is harmful. It's not always intuitive, since we often describe our friends as "attractive" or "sexy" without a second thought in a friendly/social context.

I'm not trying to say that the introducer was sexist - the behavior was.

Edit: From the downvotes, it seems that there is disagreement here - which part do people take issue with?

If we are talking about whether or not sexism occurred, then it does not in fact matter what someone said before or after they said something sexist.

It does not matter with regard to the assessment of his remarks as sexist, but it does matter with regard to his perceived attitude towards women and how that perception will impact his reputation. The author was right to call this guy out for his sexist comments, but it was not right for him to omit 50% of the transcript that shows this guy is actually a human being and not the paragon of male sexism and misogyny.

In short: Context. You might want to pretend it doesn't matter, but it does.

Sheesh. You'd think coders (of which we have many here) would understand the importance of context! ;)

I thought this discussion was about sexism in tech - what kind of comments are sexist and why that matters - not about convicting or even trying a particular individual in the court of public opinion.

Of course it matters to his reputation, but by definition if we're talking about the larger question of sexism in the industry, it doesn't seem relevant to me. In fact, I think it serves to excuse or ignore the question of sexism that was raised.

If someone leaves his browser open to furry porn (anthropomorphic animals), but only does this once, does your opinion of him go back to normal once he closes the page?

>Why is the offensive part the only part that matters?

How do you think the other women now feel? The ones who didn't get a generous helping of compliments? Women in that professional setting also have to consider if they fall in this sexy category which only applies to them. And for what? Some pointless filler? His intent is completely irrelevant.

You seem to be under the impression that the compliment offsets the objectification, as if it's some balance sheet.

When you start talking about women's bodies in a public setting you've now made their bodies part of the dialogue. This is something men can be completely blind to. It doesn't make those men bad people, but it does mean they should expend some more energy on empathy for others in the environment.

Say the introduction referenced her passion for the St. Louis Cardinals, weird attachment to the Cookie Monster, or insistence on always ordering pad thai. Such remarks would be equally irrelevant to her professional qualifications, easily understood as humorous and rounding out the person, and forgotten.

I listened to the remarks, they weren't particularly well thought out ("one of the smartest ladies i know"? that's an interesting sub-set) and so fell short of the courtesy I'd hope to offer. But they're just sloppy and clearly the introducer was quite enthusiastic about her credentials.

In this society, to be called "sexist" is pretty close to excommunication. So maybe we ought to be more careful about how we use the term.

> In this society, to be called "sexist" is pretty close to excommunication.

Nonsense. Larry Summers, Michael Arrington, and tons of other guys have done just fine after being called sexist.

> So maybe we ought to be more careful about how we use the term.

Or, maybe we ought to be more careful about saying sexist things!

Impressive zealotry, comrade.

  >> So maybe we ought to be more careful about
  >> how we use the term.
  >
  > Or, maybe we ought to be more careful about
  > saying sexist things!

Reworded in the context of McCarthyism:

  >> In this society, being labelled a "Communist"
  >> is pretty close to excommunication. So maybe we
  >> ought to be more careful about how we use the
  >> term.
  >
  > Or, maybe we ought to be more careful about saying
  > Communist things!

That's apples and oranges. There are lots of little things you bring up "attachement to Cookie Monster" etc., there is not a history of people being oppressed based on that. There is a not a bias against people who like pad thai. However there is a history of oppression against women. There are not enough women working in tech and start ups. We can rag on st-louis-cardinal fans all day and it probably won't affect things too much. But if we only judge women based on sexual reasons then that will drive women away. It's not the same.

In this society, to be called "sexist" is pretty close to excommunication.

Hardly. There is lots of sexism in the world and this society and people are doing fine.

So you've got a list of ideologically significant incidentals, and any reference to them is, necessarily and always, Thought Crime. If you want to damage your brain that way it's your business but don't expect me to do the same.

"But if we judge women based on sexual reasons then that will drive women away." WOW I DID NOT KNOW THAT. Listen, sanctimonious repetition of platitudes does not constitute an argument that any particular incident is a platitude violation.

There's only one thing I don't get, and I must really not get it because nobody else has mentioned it at all, on either side. The context of "recent marriage" seems like exactly the appropriate time to bring up someone's physical attractiveness. That's in some sense the whole goddamn point of sexiness in the first place! It's like he said she was funny before mentioning that she won a comedy award.

I mean, I am certainly not implying that attractiveness is central to marriage, which it obviously isn't, nor can a successful long-term relationship depend primarily on physical attraction. It is relevant, though, and that'll never change.

Her attractiveness may have to do with her recent marriage, but what did her recent marriage have to do with anything?

They weren't at her wedding reception, or at a private party, or in any other social situation where that topic might be appropriate. Instead, they were in a professional setting, about to discuss a professional topic, about which she had many credentials. Why is it at all appropriate to bring up her recent marriage?

For the same reason it's appropriate to bring up a recent child birth or something along those lines... It's a major life event and people like to congratulate them publicly for it. Had he said something like, "She just had a baby so congrats on being a new mother. You have a beautiful child..." or something it wouldn't be a big deal and everyone would cheer. His wording was off, but what if he had said, "Oh, and she just got married. Can her husband stand up? Congrats to you as well on marrying such a beautiful, intelligent woman"? I doubt anyone would be upset.

It depends. There's a long history of women only being seen as successful if they get married, and conversely women who choose not to get married (or have children etc.) are seen as unnatural. There are still people who think this way (to varying degrees). I personally think that's wrong. A woman should be viewed as a failure because she didn't get her MRS.

By bringing up the recent marriage of a woman, you are either promoting that idea in general, or signaling that you are the kind of person who thinks all women want to get married.

I agree that society's idea that marriage is the ultimately goal is complete BS and I hate that notion. In fact there was a discussion on reddit today about how society seems to think it ridiculous to even go out to dinner or to a movie by yourself; looking at that as pathetic... Again, another notion I disagree with.

However, while not all women may want to be married or be seen as "failures" by society if they don't, because this woman was married, it's clear that she wanted to and would be excited about it.

It's still a major life event that made her happy and deserves some congratulations or recognition. If the woman had, for some reason, been a huge WOW fan and just won a big national tournament or something, that could've been brought up and wouldn't have connotations along with it. It's still just as irrelevant, but once again, human beings usually seek to bring up and congratulate people publicly on major life events they find important.

Some of these comments baffle me.

You might be surprised to learn that 30 y/o virgins and other sexually frustrated nerds are resentful of women, and consequently, don't believe that sexism exists.

Let someone oppose this comment by asserting that the pristine, untouched nature of their junk is irrelevant to their point -- but the sexy attractiveness of a female speaker is fair game.

> 30 y/o virgins and other sexually frustrated nerds [...] the pristine, untouched nature of their junk

For someone who is offering a critique against inappropriate comments, what makes this ok?

You've just ridiculed an entire group of people for what can be a very painful life circumstance, many of whom would never make or defend the kinds of comments you are criticizing.

Would they actually (out loud, audibly) object to those comments, or would they just "never make or defend" them?

I ask because letting these things slide, or worse letting the comments seem approved-of by mass silence, is doing active harm.

It sounds like you're arguing that men have to "earn" not having their genitalia discussed or being mocked for their loneliness. Am I reading you right?

Fuck this. This situation is not a license to lash out at an entire group and say things that in any other circumstance would be offensive and inappropriate.

I would answer your question about objecting to those comments, but it seems pretty clear that there's an impossibly high standard for what a guy has to do to not be "guilty" for this crowd. Not even the guy who posted this blog entry objected "out loud, audibly" to this introduction at the time.

...it seems pretty clear that there's an impossibly high standard for what a guy has to do to not be "guilty" for this crowd.

Are you kidding me? Have you read the other 100+ comments on this thread? My own comment went from +11 to +4, so you have plenty of company. By "this crowd" you must mean the handful of people who aren't scrambling to sustain their invulnerable self-image by cobbling together some half-assed theory from the little bits of pop-psych they've read.

What is your big upset about? If someone introduced you at a conference as the "guy who has never been laid" instead of "the guy who did brilliant thing X," you'd have no problem seeing why that would be hurtful. Shit, at least not being laid is the result of your own (in)action, and therefore something you've arguably earned; being "sexy" is an artifact of an organism's constitution. Perhaps by hurting you, I've sidestepped the intellectualizing process that prevents you, or someone like you, from understanding that there are fundamental emotional wounds involved, not abstract intellectual concepts.

Unsolicited advice to any man who still doesn't get it: when someone says "that hurts me" don't come back with "no it doesn't, here's why..."

Unsolicited advice to you: when countering hurtful statements, don't throw more onto the pile.

Your response to "that's not sexist!" is "yes it is you bunch 'o lonely virgins!"

Is this HN or high school?

> My own comment went from +11 to +4

That says to me that your mean-spirited comment was plenty popular until I pointed out its hypocrisy.

> What is your big upset about? [...] when someone says "that hurts me" don't come back with "no it doesn't, here's why..."

But apparently you still don't see your own hypocrisy.

> Shit, at least not being laid is the result of your own (in)action, and therefore something you've arguably earned

And you still think it's ok to be mean for no reason, not to mention speaking of things you know absolutely nothing about.

> being "sexy" is an artifact of an organism's constitution.

Being "sexy" is also a compliment, however misguided or inappropriate it may have been in the situation in which it was given. Your comments on the other hand are intentionally mean.

I don't deny that some people inappropriately defend the "sexy" comment. But it's a chicken shit move to use that as a license to suspend the rules of civility to make your point.

I think the grandparent's post was important to this discussion because it makes the "inappropriate sex-related comments" issue thing slightly more relatable for those of us who have not had to deal with sexual harassment professionally.

This comment is of course in no way any more appropriate than the conference introduction.

I thought that was the point. Making a group of people who are usually dishing out this kind of thing think twice about how it feels to have the situation reversed.

I don't think that's the proper way to deal with it. We don't go around beating people up so they know what it feels either.

The point is, if behavior is wrong, it is _always_ wrong. It's not a good idea (in my book) to engage in this kind of behavior to make a point.

I am mostly on the same side of this debate as you, but I don't think debate is helped by insulting people and telling them that are unable to have an opinion due to the sexual history.

The connection between frustration and aggressiveness is largely false (1) , unless you can point to a reliable source. The nerds that I know are not at all as you describe, and I wonder why you choose such derisive words.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/349577

Some of these comments baffle me.

Not me... We work with a bunch of troglodytes...

I've worked in a place where I could locate the female programmer by where the flock of nerds were hovering.

And yet people are still surprised when teenage girls don't want to become programmers.

I'm a man. Personally I'd love to be judged by my sexy appearance, unfortunately I'm not sexy.

Also I don't get this line of thought. Many women (and men, but we are talking about women) love it when noticed for their appearance, that's why they dress well, that's why they put makeup on, that's why they color their hair and so on.

     I like you because you're attractive, not because you deserve it

Couldn't it be both?

And come on, at least the man's honest about it ... liking someone for their appearance and not saying it is a lot worse. If you're pretending that looks doesn't matter everywhere, then you must also believe in fairy tales (and I know that a lot of us, including me, believed in such meritocracy at some point).

And sorry, but I view these discussions themselves as sexists.

I'm afraid. Afraid I'm not smart enough or that I'm getting dumber or that I'm going to get dumber as I age. I hate it when people judge me by my intelligence because that's all anyone has ever done. It has the nasty side effect of tying my sense of self-worth to just one stupid thing that I really don't have that much control over. I would much rather have someone say that I was funny, or a good speaker, or well dressed or anything besides "smart".

Now look at it from a woman's point of view. If everyone tells you you're pretty or sexy and that's all you ever hear, that becomes what you think you're worth. And unlike intelligence you KNOW that beauty will fade and there's little you can do.

Yes, it's a compliment, but it's a compliment on something very transient that the subject has only a little control over.

Even if under certain circumstances it might be okay for that person from another company to say they find you very attractive, it is extremely inappropriate in a professional context and objectifies that person. Now rather than the audience focusing on the speaker's accomplishments and expertise, they are focusing on the speaker's physical appearance when they might not have before.

Sexism in the workplace can be really subtle, and the more that is let slide, the more hostile the environment becomes as a whole. A man or woman should not have to worry about dodging come-ons and propositions from their coworkers because of their physical attractiveness. It is extremely unpleasant and wears on a person over time.

Now if the gentleman giving the introduction was in the right environment, say a bar having drinks with said speaker, it is a lot more appropriate to let it slide that he finds her really attractive. But it is objectifying and belittling when given as an professional introduction to others.

And in what way are discussions about possible sexism in the workplace sexist, besides the fact that some commenters might say some pretty idiotic sexist things as counter-arguments? If this piece was written instead about racist remarks overheard in a professional setting, would you say addressing that racism with a blog post would be racist?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com