Hacker News Reader

Comment by rauljara | Hacker News Reader

The marketing material assumed that the people reading it would be heterosexual men, and gave no consideration to the idea that a woman might actually want to attend an event. Finding women attractive is not a sin. Assuming the whole world should revolve around what you find attractive without giving any consideration to the other half of the world's population is sexist. Not "I hate women" sexist. Just "women don't really qualify as people the same way men do in my mind, and no I've never really thought very hard about it" sexist.

View on HN

In addition, the marketing material assumed that the people reading it would be drinkers, and gave no consideration to the idea that a non-drinker might actually want to attend.

In addition to sexism, the marketers seem to believe that "teetotalers don't really qualify as people in the same way drinkers do, and no I've never really thought very hard about it".

(They also seem to feel the same way about people who don't like massages, people who don't work out, and people who don't like cupcakes.)

There are people alive today who were alive when women were not able to eligible in the USA.

There are no people alive today who were alive when cupcake haters were not eligible to vote in the USA.

It would help if you explained your logic a little further. Why this fact is relevant? If this fact changes (e.g., once the last suffragist dies), will the conclusion change?

Note that if the conclusion doesn't change upon the death of the last suffragist, the fact is irrelevant, and you bringing it up is a red herring.

> Note that if the conclusion doesn't change upon the death of the last suffragist, the fact is irrelevant, and you bringing it up is a red herring.

The fact highlights how recent this level of discrimination is in our history, and why "being a woman" and "disliking cupcakes" are significantly different characteristics when you're discussing power dynamics and discrimination.

I'm not disputing the existence of differences between the groups "cupcake lovers" and "woman lovers". I'm asking for a logical explanation of how those differences matter w.r.t. the points rauljara and I made.

The objection is more about equating women with cupcakes, I should think.

That isn't rauljara's stated objection:

"The marketing material assumed that the people reading it would be heterosexual men...Assuming the whole world should revolve around what you find attractive..."

Expressing outrage at "sexists in tech" is an important signaling ritual on Hacker News, as evidenced by the 50 million other threads interchangeable with this one.

>> gave no consideration to the idea that a woman might >> actually want to attend an event

Spent about 5 minutes assuming that they were encouraging /women/ programmers to enjoy the female staff, and assuming all women in attendance were /lesbians/ ("Women: Need another beer?").

Like, "pff, not ALL women programmers are lesbians, you guys! ... ... ... oh wait. Oh ... "

Tech population =! world population.

To not recognize that the tech population is dominated by men is to put your head in the sand.

I like to code, I like to look at scantily clad women, and I fully believe they're just as equal as men.

EDIT: Downvote away. You don't have to believe in fact for it to exist.

> To not recognize that the tech population is dominated by men is to put your head in the sand.

To not recognize that advertising tech events that female programmers do not feel comfortable attending because they do not want to be treated like subservient beer-wenches is partially responsible for the continued decline of women in the tech industry is to put your head in the sand.

That's what people are taking issue with here. No one is putting you on trial for liking to look at scantily clad women. Trying to make yourself into some kind of martyr for "finding women attractive" movement misses the point so thoroughly as to defy belief.

So, the tech industry is dominated by men, and this announcement was intended for the tech industry, so it's fine by you that it was addressed exclusively to men? It's OK that any techy woman reading it might stay clear so that they are not mistaken for being a server and/or don't have to put up with sexism like this?

In what other situations do you not feel that the minority do not have rights?

Yes, because you clearly have no rights if you're mistaken for an employee at an event.

How does offering to have women bring you beer at an event take away your rights? Shall we be boycotting Oktoberfest next?

Their right to be treated as equal. How would you like it if a predominantly female group was told there would be men serving drinks? Predominantly racist group told there would be blacks serving drinks?

Some people might see it as a poor attempt at humor and not demeaning to women, but I'm sure others saw it as a reinforcement of their beliefs that women are for serving beer. When everyone laughs along, because they know nobody 'really means it' it sends these people the message that their views are OK and widely accepted.

I'm completely OK with a predominately female group being told men would be there serving drinks? African americans serving racists? That's a totally different ballgame.

OK, so how about blacks serving a predominantly white group? I think my other race metaphor went too far, but this one works. There's nothing wrong with a black person working as a server/waiter. They're still considered by most people to be completely equal, and blacks are welcome to participate in the event alongside whites, it just so happens that their drinks will be brought by blacks.

If you don't think it's fair to compare racism and sexism, I suggest reading this Person Paper: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

Do you think that the overtly sexist nature of these little frat-parties come hack-a-thons might have any bearing on the lack of women in the tech industry?

Last I checked, women generally don't like being treated like perks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com