What is the big deal. People get way to offended this day in age. It's almost as if people are waiting for someone to say something offensive just so they can jump on it acting all high and mighty.
And as said elsewhere, just because you say shitty things about everyone doesn't mean that it's okay to say shitty things.
Is that the point of contention, that people feel that serving someone is demeaning?
> And as said elsewhere, just because you say shitty things about everyone doesn't mean that it's okay to say shitty things.
So you agree that the comment wasn't slighting women? Or are you just generally offended by all the possible interpretations?
As a female coder, I'd rather not be offered as a perk to male coders. So, yeah, this is belittling.
"Hey lonely geeks: you will have the chance to meet women there because our catering staff is female."
Did you interpret it as though they were planning to force the female attendees to serve the male attendees beer?
Deleted comment
Saying that women will be serving beer has nothing to do with the act of sex. If you think so, then you're reading way too far into it.
I'm not sure why you say that other women were not being offered.
Here's the item in the list of perks.
"Women: Need another beer? Let one of our friendly (female) staff get that for you.""
It would be like men getting angry that there are entire trade shows that exclude men, such as this one - http://peters.patch.com/articles/annual-fashion-show-benefit...
You're right, sex wasn't being offered. I was trying to show how specifically mentioning the sex of the servers, in a list of perks, was a shoddy move. It plays to traditional stereotypes of male programmers as lonely losers, and it puts women firmly in the role of subservient to men; not good enough to be there as participants. It's lazy and stupid. It's not as if "treat people with respect"; "don't discriminate against people based on their age, sex, sexual preference, race, or ability"[1] are new concepts.
You mention a mixer, where men and women can meet. (We'll assume "people can meet" because we're not being hetero-normative.) With your mixer it's going to be a social function. Men turn up, women turn up, people meet and talk. There'll be other people working there. People serving the drinks, for example. So, you have one group (the people meeting each other, who are different sexes but on an equal[2] footing) and the people serving (who are different sexes, and who are on an equal footing with their colleagues; subservient to the meeting group, but because they are employees and not because they are women.)
You can see that it's different for work or for professional situations. When you're working in an industry that's trying to attract a more diverse workforce you need to try harder not to exclude people.
You mention an event that excludes men. Ignoring the male children that will be helped by that function, you're right, it does seem aimed only at women. But no-one is saying that there are not enough men working in the fashion industry. And there are strong socio-economic factors that mean women with children are more likely to need help than men. (Although I do hope that group considers changing their mandate to include "men and children" too.)
You mention places like "Hooters". In my opinion these places are horrific. I'd feel very uncomfortable if I had a daughter and she worked somewhere like that. But, they are legal, and if people are able to make an informed choice to work there and people are happy to pay money to go there then who am I to judge them or stop them? These are specialised services; they are a niche. There's a big difference between Hooters (who aim at that market; they don't care if women are not customers) and a daily deal API firm who should be proud to be part of the modern inclusive world.
Finally, you say:
> this is an absolute over-reaction and a projection of women's general frustration onto a non-issue.
The over-reaction comes because some people just don't get it. It's the 21st century; suffragettes were campaigning for equality more than a hundred years ago. It's definitely an issue - the wording was clumsy and lazy and stupid. The fact that they got jumped on so hard is a good thing - it shows that people actually care about this stuff.
You mention women's general frustration. That's a really important point. Josie Long (she's an English comedian) says it well here. She talks about the general everyday grind of stuff that she has to put up with, just because she's a women, that her male colleagues don't.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1oXIZVLthw)
[1] In theory you should have religion in there too.
[2] Dating sucks. It sucks for very different reasons for men and women. I understand men who are annoyed or angry or bitter or frustrated at their dating experiences, and I'd probably agree if they said that men and women are not on an equal footing when it comes to dating. I'm handwaving over it.
I disagree. I don't see anything wrong with it for the same reason that there's nothing wrong with advertising that scantily clad women will be walking around at a comics convention.
" It plays to traditional stereotypes of male programmers as lonely losers, and it puts women firmly in the role of subservient to men..."
In your opinion... and you only have that opinion if you actively work to extrapolate that meaning from what was actually said.
"It's lazy and stupid. It's not as if "treat people with respect"; "don't discriminate against people based on their age, sex, sexual preference, race, or ability"[1] are new concepts."
The problem is that in reality, there are differences between men and women, races/cultures and people with differing levels of ability. That you can't accept those differences and are offended by anyone else that addresses them is where the problem comes in.
That you think women are not being treated with respect here is a fault in your own understanding. There's simply nothing wrong with targeted advertising.
"She talks about the general everyday grind of stuff that she has to put up with, just because she's a women, that her male colleagues don't."
Right, but projecting those frustrations onto something completely harmless is still wrong.
I don't hear men complaining about always being targeted for this kind of work. I'm not complaining either, I just happened to remember our conversation as I was lugging our office stuff around. I really don't mind it when a woman says "Oh, I need a big strong guy like you to do X", even when the woman in question could probably handle it herself if she really tried.
Complaining about something like that would just be a waste of time and emotional energy, besides the fact that there's really no need to complain at all if you acknowledge that "equality" is a fiction.
If I advertise a mixer where men and women can meet each other, does anyone have a problem with that? I don't think so.
Should we all get mad at Hooters or Chipendales next?
(EDIT: Seriously, do you really think that men should be offended that Chipendales exists? Why?)
The women were not being offered as chattel. There's nothing wrong with sex.
You really have to work to be offended by this one. Well, maybe you don't, but it certainly defies logic unless you read into it, which you are most certainly doing because the words themselves don't really back you up.
@rmc: Do you honestly believe that Sqoot is sexist because of that one joke? That they look down on women, and think they shouldn't be working in the industry? Really?
EDIT: I reread it, and I think the major issue was listing 'women' as a perk, instead of something like 'beer'. Definitely out of line, but again, they should be allowed to make up for it.
> From the original press release it sounded like you were just trying to throw a party with "hot waitresses serving drinks"
I'm not rmc and I won't answer for him, but I'll answer your queries from my own point of view.
Do I believe that they're sexist because of that one statement? Yes, I do, absolutely, but: does that imply that I think that "they look down on women, and think they shouldn't be working in the industry?" No, I don't believe their sexism is of that sort.
I think that most sexism in the US today is significantly more subtle than an outright looking down on women. In this case, its subtlety makes it all the more pernicious: it's harder to spot (even in one's self), it's harder to call out, it's easier to excuse. Saying women are trash will make you into a pariah, and no one will patronize your business. But what does a much smaller objectification of women, like this case, do? It has a chilling effect and it normalizes similar behavior; it contributes to the culture of sexism.
Are statements ("jokes") with such negative effects acceptable? It's hard to argue that they are, and so it seems to me that the argument in defense must be that the statement doesn't have those effects. And I think from the backlash, well written comments on the apology, etc--I think that's a steep hill to climb.
As for them personally: I don't think it should be judged that they're bad people. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I don't know. Are they sexist? I said they were, absolutely, because their behavior was, which they're culpable for. So they're sexist even if only partially and unconsciously. I'll give them that benefit of the doubt, so it's an offense, but it's a forgivable offense. There's a lot of sexism around. I've been guilty of sexist behavior in the past, and I'm sure I'll be guilty of it in the future.
That's what happens when it's ingrained in culture and remains normal behavior. And that's what happens when statements like this are allowed to slide. We do things without knowing their full weight, meaning, and impact. And then we learn, and we adjust. And most importantly, through adjusting our behavior we introspect to the causes, and so learn more about ourselves and our world, and what makes it all tick, so that we can eliminate that which doesn't live up to our ideals.
Again, I definitely do see what you mean by it contributing to the culture of sexist, and that simply isn't acceptable. However, I feel like the sponsors, etc should have given Sqoot a chance to fix things before they resorted to the moves they did.
The question is should they be this way, and if they should not be, what can we do to make things the way we want them to be like.
Things can be funny and sexist at the same time. Humour doesn't exclude any and all behaviour that someone wants it to. Sometimes the fact that it's funny is the sexist part, as in, the fact that 'humour' is used an excuse can be a symptom of sexism. It would be rare and mostly unacceptable for a bigwig businessman to do a black face show (à la an episode of Mad Men) and then claim "hey I was only being funny".
A thing might be funny for some people (e.g. straight male hackers), and be off-putting for others. If the others are the people who you think should be participating more (e.g. women hackers), then you might have found the reason why the world isn't the way we want it to be (i.e. this might be why hackathons are male dominated).
One can be cognizant of the real issues and want to find solutions to them, without worshiping at the altar of Political Correctness.