I doubt that removing the specific magic number in this case really helps much, though. Rather, I think that it is important to establish a standard that this kind of thing is not in keeping with professional standards or with human decency towards one's colleagues. Given that most people really do seem to mean well, having that awareness and empathy about the direct and indirect effects of seemingly innocuous choices like this can only help make programming a better career choice for all involved.
[1]: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/freethoughtblogs/butterfliesa...
Body parts are objects. I don't expect my broad shoulders to be able to hold a reasoned debate for long. What do you mean by objectification? If the fact that someone is attracted to "big boobs" and putting it in some source code is anathema, does the same thing happen with "intelligence is hot"? If not, why is one acceptable and the other not?
Granted, I haven't thought about these issues long, so my mind can easily be changed if someone demonstrates errors, but it seems to me that we went from "some men need to stop being creeps and hit on women at least during work hours" to "any mention of any attraction ever is forbidden".
I don't think this isn't even a matter of stating attraction to "big boobs." This is merely saying "big boobs" for laughs. It's the kind of stuff young children do (see also: the penis game), so I'm not sure why anyone's rushing to defend this sort of behavior.
Let me ask you this, though. Suppose you work as a developer (as you likely do), and you're tasked with welcoming a new female developer to the team and bringing her up to speed on the system she'll be working on. While opening up the source code and explaining one particularly peculiar section, you come across this constant:
BIGBOOBS = 0xB16B00B5;
That is because the advertisers want to show something that will immediately capture the attention of their target audience. You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (or even specifically) men.
A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad. I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all. It's human nature to be attracted to the opposite sex, and the most available factor is external appearance.
> This is merely saying "big boobs" for laughs. It's the kind of stuff young children do (see also: the penis game), so I'm not sure why anyone's rushing to defend this sort of behavior.
I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an issue".
I am equally (un)comfortable showing this to a female developer as I am to a male developer. I find it childish and might be a bit embarrassed, not because of the gender of the new hire, but because it's a childish and unprofessional thing to have in code.
I am not sure how comfortable the female developer would be, I assume she'd laugh it off, but that's projecting my own feelings onto hers. If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically.
That's simply not true. See http://www.genderads.com/page5/sexobject/sexobject.html for plenty of counter-examples.
> A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad.
Right, of course not. As I mentioned earlier, advertising is not the only medium in which this sort of objectification is prevalent.
> I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all.
Again, I don't think you can simply swap genders and call it a fair analogy. Additionally, at least in my experience, the number of advertisements, music videos, etc. that use the sex appeal of female body parts for commercial purposes far outweighs the number of equivalent things using tan, muscular, and similarly exposed men for commercial purposes.
> I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an issue".
When confronted with criticism, arguing that the subject at hand is not a big deal is defense, is it not? I'm not saying anyone's promoting more use of 0xB16B00B5 in code, but there seem to be several commenters in here saying it's fine.
> If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically.
It's actually not moot. I was interested in how you thought a woman might react—a question only you can answer. The actual reactions of women would vary quite widely from one to the next, of course. I'm sure some would laugh it off; I'm sure some would be offended. Personally, I'd be afraid that more women than men would be uncomfortable in this situation, and I don't like the idea of a development culture that makes women feel less comfortable or welcome than men. That's why I personally find it offensive. If you think women would be just as comfortable with this as men, then I would understand why you would not find it offensive.
Hmm, the page of counterexamples you listed seems to be about making women feel "sexy" (it's on the ad for many of them), so it makes sense they would show "sexy" women, just like selling clothes and other items that would make men feel masculine would show buff men.
> As I mentioned earlier, advertising is not the only medium in which this sort of objectification is prevalent.
Hmm, which other media is it prevalent in that could display other qualities of a woman for the same purpose instead?
> Again, I don't think you can simply swap genders and call it a fair analogy.
I will concede that.
> When confronted with criticism, arguing that the subject at hand is not a big deal is defense, is it not?
I am not sure about this. "It's right and you shouldn't be offended" isn't the same as "it's wrong for different reasons and isn't a big deal anyway".
> It's actually not moot. I was interested in how you thought a woman might react—a question only you can answer.
Ah, okay. I answered that above, then.
> That's why I personally find it offensive. If you think women would be just as comfortable with this as men, then I would understand why you would not find it offensive.
I think this is the crux of the issue. I think women wouldn't have a problem with it, so that's why I don't have a problem with it. Maybe it's societal, though, as we can't assume the US technology sector culture is universal and the same as in other countries (I live in Greece).
That's true. Many of those examples are for products designed to make women more sexy, but I'd argue that advertisements like this are much more common than advertisements with buff men that are supposed to make men feel more sexy. I think many people would agree that, at least in American culture, there's more pressure on women to be sexy than there is on men. This is part of the problem, if you ask me.
> Hmm, which other media is it prevalent in that could display other qualities of a woman for the same purpose instead?
You see this in pretty much any sort of pop culture. Music videos (whether the performers are male or female) are generally littered with imagery of young women as sex objects. Even 24-hour news stations have been criticized for using news anchors in risque clothing—something that doesn't happen with male anchors. Several tabloids employ the concept of the "Page 3 girl." I'm not aware of such a thing with men (certainly not with the same prevalence).
Outside of media, you see the same issues reflected in culture. I'm having difficulty finding statistics on these, but stripping and prostitution are at least perceived (and portrayed in media) as predominantly female industries with male clientele. The concept of the woman as a sex object is practically everywhere.
> I am not sure about this. "It's right and you shouldn't be offended" isn't the same as "it's wrong for different reasons and isn't a big deal anyway".
True. That said, there do seem to be some comments here that imply no offense should be taken as well as many that merely downplay the issue as not a big deal.
> I think this is the crux of the issue. I think women wouldn't have a problem with it, so that's why I don't have a problem with it. Maybe it's societal, though, as we can't assume the US technology sector culture is universal and the same as in other countries (I live in Greece).
I agree: this is the crux of the issue. I plead total ignorance on Greek culture and can only make guesses as to the hypothetical reactions of American women. Nevertheless, I think it's best to err on the side of sensitivity, especially in a field so criticized for its gender gap.
Maybe women are just a larger market. I can't comment.
> I think many people would agree that, at least in American culture, there's more pressure on women to be sexy than there is on men.
Again, maybe the causation is the other way. I can't comment.
> I'm not aware of such a thing with men (certainly not with the same prevalence).
I'll give you that. This is, again, probably addressing the fact that the target market are men.
> stripping and prostitution are at least perceived (and portrayed in media) as predominantly female industries with male clientele. The concept of the woman as a sex object is practically everywhere.
I'm not sure this follows. They're perceived as predominantly female because men are more overt about (or more open to) paying for sex. Women aren't as interested in that, for whatever reason. Male strippers/prostitutes do exist, after all.
This isssue is too complicated to discuss on HN, sadly. I did greatly enjoy the discussion, however!
This kind of overblown press coverage for an hex value that is not degrading in itself serves only one purpose: making the sexist males take this issue even less seriously than they did before.
Try and imagine for a moment someone that truly degrades/objectifies/discriminates against women. This hypothetical person will not read this article and go "Oh I was wrong, I'll be nicer to women from now on". They think to themselves how ridiculous this is, perceive women as weaker (as is often the reason they have this attitude towards them in the first place) and go on their merry way.
Introducing new gender discrimination, regardless of intentions, generally causes more gender discrimination. Also, doing it as a matter of policy could leave you open to a lawsuit.
Sarcasm aside, we ARE facing an issue in the tech world. People that objectify women, discriminate against them or even so little as treat them differently in the workplace should be shamed. However, this crossed the line (imo). Statistics suggest that this was written by a man but I can see a lot of my female friends (if they programmed) be comfortable enough with what they are to use 0xB16B00B5 themselves.
Heck, I'd use 0xB1GD1CK in my code if I could.
I mean, surely, if you reverse the sexes and this is okay, it should be okay as-is, too. The enviroment that makes women not want to be in tech would also not be okay if the roles were reversed, but this isn't an instance of that, as far as I can tell.
"Death by a thousand cuts", and yes, it's very real, and yes, this (and the resulting discussion around it, even moreso) is very much a "cut".
Honestly though, I'm not a woman or programmer, at least not by trade, I have no idea how a woman would interpret this, so please enlighten me.