Does not work with girls. When they say "No" - that usually means "Yes, but later" or "Yes, but you'll have to work on it". So I would not take "No" for an answer here too ;)
The replies to this post are hilarious and sickening at the same time. Whenever the social/cultural accepted image of women is questioned, everyone gets into this mode of "must defend women!". Just look at the amount of replies and rage this reply has caused. Any other undesired reply would have simply been downmodded, but when WOMEN are being slandered, (oh the humanity,) you just can't leave it alone (and of course, rape is brought up).
Not only are you not simply downmodding a comment that you feel is inappropriate and then leaving the post alone, a civilized debate is apparently also out of the question. If the post said something like "we should legalize guns in country x", we would not see a reply saying "delete your post, it's inappropriate" (it might've started an argument, it would probably just be downmodded). On any other topic a different opinion would be accepted, but on this subject you're just not allowed to even joke about it, let alone have a conflicting view. The White Knight in Shining Armour mentality is so deeply ingrained that all politeness, reason, and guidelines go overboard when the socially acceptable image of women is questioned, even on the supposedly enlightened board that is Hackernews.
Next time when a reply like this comes up, no need to get out your horse and armour, just downmod. If you feel the need to feel all Just and Righteous in defending the Female Honour, please start your Round Table elsewhere. These replies have done more to derail the thread than isalmon's original comment.
So "no means no" does not mean you have to take no for an answer even there. It does not even mean women want no to be taken for an answer. It just means certain specific limits are to be accepted.
Fun fact of the day! Literature and movies are, in fact, not the same as real life!
For the record, that particular love story cliche did actually work out for me personally, as the guy. Maybe it's not common, but it's not ridiculously unrealistic.
When I decided I wanted to get into this industry, I was a teenager in highschool who figured it all seemed fun and exciting. Creating stuff for a living was awesome, and I wanted to be apart of it.
Fast forward a highschool and college diploma, 10 years in the future. I have gotten where I wanted to be, and it is pretty great. Only now though is something else about this industry really starting to sink in for me: the stereotypes. Not the nice "those guys make a lot of money" stereotypes, but rather the vicious kind. I am talking about stereotypes portrayed in media and and embraced by society that suggest anyone who interacts with computers for a living has bad hygiene, long hair, likes fantasy and sci-fi a little too much, is rude or otherwise lacks social skills, etc. A lot of them don't even make any sense; I still can't figure out if all programmers are supposed to be drinking mountain dew all day, or beers. Even the stereotypes that are not seemingly contradictory rarely apply to any particular programmer. I like to think few if any apply to myself...
This is just how stereotypes work I guess, and I am learning to deal with it. I can't say it is easy though, and I have altered my behaviour in many cases to distance myself from it. When people at parties ask me, "What do you do?", I no longer actually answer the question. Instead of saying that I am a computer programmer or that I work with computers, I say, "Oh, I work for [company name]". They still know what I really do (if they give it a little thought at least) but the reactions I get are noticeably better.
This is all more or less inconsequential though. These are not great hardships; these are "First World problems". What is an issue though are certain very particular stereotypes that our industry has acquired: sexism/misogyny. I don't think it is really important how deserved or not these labels are; but what I do know is that these labels are social kryptonite. They are the things that can end friendships and careers.
We hear about these issues in our industry a lot, particularly here on HN. Usually the poster of the story makes it clear that they think these are issues that the industry only has because a few men act this way. Everyone is not guilty, except perhaps so far as they turn a blind eye to it. The apparent idea behind raising awareness for this issue is to get people to speak up when they see it. I understand that, and I understand why it is necessary. I don't like having these labels anywhere near me, that they are applied to my industry at all makes me uncomfortable, but I understand it is important.
So what then am I supposed to do when I see comments like the one by isalmon above? I am pretty certain he meant nothing untold by it, I am sure his intentions were all decent. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there. Even so, I can absolutely see how a comment like that could be read as being rather offensive and could help solidify the sexism/misogyny complaints that have been levelled against our industry. It should not be hard to imagine a blog post making it to the top of HNs about a comment exactly like that being overheard at a tech conference. I don't want to burn isalmon for something I am sure he did not mean to do, but I feel that I must do something.
So what am I supposed to do?
"How are you?", "Nice weather", and "What do you do?" are typically throw away interactions. Most people aren't expecting a conversation thread to fork at that point. However, if you want to inject a little energy/entropy into the conversation say something that reveals your own real interests
For example: "I am a programmer. Yeah, it's geeky but I like being able to craft stuff for a living - I'm very luck to be able to build something that other people can use - though sometimes it requires a sledgehammer to bang stuff into shape. However, what I really like doing is drawing caricatures. It's taken a while to get to the point where I can actually make it look like the person...in less than a day. How about you, what do you enjoy doing?"
> So what am I supposed to do?
Like dinner parties in France, the best conferences/meetings are the ones that have more than a minority of either sex represented.
If you really want to do something, you can't just write a blog post or a comment. Organize some sort of hacker/meetup and actively reach out to the minority population (this can involve women, urban youth, heck - even senior citizens) - do it and then write about it. Or you can write about it to challenge people (before doing it), as this person has (below).
> Which is where this conference thing gets interesting. Rather than throw up your hands and say it’s the nature of the business, you can embrace this challenge. You can read about what other people have done in this realm, and you can apply your considerable problem-solving skills to come up with new solutions that will benefit us all.
http://www.dogsandshoes.com/2012/06/getting-women-and-other-...
Both mekoka and TazeTSchnitzel did just that, and I do it when people make stupid racist comments, too, for instance (I live in South Africa and sadly this still happens more often than I'd like).
It's a non-confrontational way of dealing with the difference in opinion, and critically, gives people an opportunity to move forward while saving face.
Some people don't think giving a diplomatic exit is appropriate in -ism scenarios, but I prefer giving people an opportunity to change their opinions - and the reality is that if you try to tell someone they are sexist or are racist you will never get through to them because their ego defences will kick in, but if you point out, with sensitivity, that their statement is unfair in some way they 'seem' to have missed, you give them an opportunity to grow because you didn't involve their ego.
Remember that most people's opinions are handed down from friends/family/social programming and seldom subject to introspection; they may be just embarrassed by what they've said as you are, but most people lack the self esteem to admit they're wrong openly. If you give them some sense of self respect despite their gaffe they often appreciate it.
In my experience most people pick up that if they don't deal fairly with reality as you propose then they'll have to admit they are sexist/racist/etc. and they quickly learn to revise their statements. Of course some people really are sexist or racist and don't care, but then at least you won't have to worry about misinterpretation once they freely acknowledge that.
I doubt it but even if one charitably assumes that the OP meant professional interactions with women, isn't your reply assuming that the isalmon's assertion is a valid one? What reason do you have to believe that women don't mean no when they say "no", especially in a professional context? Do you really subscribe to the (IMHO rather sexist) view that women say no but don't mean (with the implied subtext saying that men don't do this)?
It doesn't mean "if I tell you I don't want to go out for coffee, don't ever ask me again." And there is no way that asking a woman for a date 100 times and getting rejected is the same as so-called "rape culture." (scare quotes because the term really is over-used. I have no problem with the term applied to some idea that mixed signals means "yes right now" but mixed signals are an inherent part of generating sexual tension and both men and women do this a lot. )
But which seems likelier to you: that the poster is reflecting on women playing hard to get--something that most straight guys experience frequently--or that he at best finds rape funny and at worst is advocating it?
When a woman says No, it means Maybe. Maybe means Yes, and a woman never says Yes.
When a politician says Yes, it means Maybe. Maybe means No, and a politician never says No.
unless he's absolutely sure that his mates aren't around.
Also, do you only know three people?
When someone says no, they mean no at that instant, but of course they may change their mind later, or be somewhat unsure.
Which is why a no can later become a yes, in some cases.
The internet desensitizes people in that respect because nothing is ever said, it's just written.
That's what happened with me & my wife.
We went to a co-ed camp, and she was one of (if not) the 'hottest' girls at camp. Being pursued by many potential suitors and I had a leg up. One of her new 'girlfriends' was a long time 'girl friend' of mine. So my friend was telling me that she thinks she likes me, even though she would ask her and she would say 'No'.
She (my wife) was giving me subtle signals here and there - but she was giving everyone else no signals at all.
She was telling everyone that she didn't like me though, and many other girls actually tried to actively discourage me from pursuing her.
I was 15, and relatively innocent at the time - so I wasn't pressuring her from a sexual perspective. It was all innocent.
Suffice it to say, after coming back from that weeklong camp, we started dating about a week later.
As of tomorrow, we will be married for 7 years and together for 13 years, with 2 kids and 1 on the way...and we're both still happy.
So, in short...know when to hold them, know when to fold em.
"No means no" means "everyone gets veto power over actual contact." It does not mean "no" applies to anything more than the present moment. Otherwise every aspect of courtship on both sides (men and women) goes out the window.
That suggests that it is not actually meant that way at least a significant portion of the time, correct?
The problem of sexual harassment though is that it is usually something that is going to hit the employer (or public accommodations provider) before it hits the individual engaging in the offending behavior (because of standards like "severe" and "pervasive" which often involve multiple actors to prove). So it is not usually a personal cause of action although that may vary in some states.
No, it merely suggests that it is sometimes not actually meant that way, anywhere between a single occurrence and always. Extrapolation into actual numbers is both difficult and meaningless. Even if 99/100 people never actually mean "no" it would not make it okay to harass the 1/100.
> The problem of sexual harassment [...]
This entire paragraph seems to be written from the perspective that harassment is only a problem if you are actually held legally liable which is both wrong and a dangerously horrific place to come from so I hope I am misinterpreting what you say.
So you think that sometimes but not a significant portion? Not enough to pay attention to?
This entire paragraph seems to be written from the perspective that harassment is only a problem if you are actually held legally liable which is both wrong and a dangerously horrific place to come from so I hope I am misinterpreting what you say.
Well, you have a problem. Yes, harassment generally is a bad thing. Most people you would hope wouldn't keep asking someone out on a date after getting shot down a bunch of times. That's not necessarily harassment though. It could be socially clueless or stupid, or whatever. Moreover at a bare minimum such behavior smacks of the sort of failure that builds on itself.
But being afraid of committing harassment is as big a danger (or perhaps even larger) as actually harassing someone. You can't have the confidence that people find attractive if you are always afraid of crossing lines. Sexy men are unafraid of sexual harassment lines. They don't need to be. It will never become sufficiently severe or pervasive because there are always greener pastures and one isn't going to waste time with the uninterested.
If "no means no" means you don't get to ask again for a date even if it is not made crystal clear that no means never, then if you are ever turned down by your spouse for sex, I guess you have to get a divorce if sex is important to the marriage. Nobody believes that. And between those extremes it is impossible to draw articulable lines.
It's like these recent cybercrime laws that makes it a crime to knowingly cause offence or embarrassment. Sometimes people should be offended or embarrassed. As Eugene Volokh has pointed out these on their face criminalize on-line complaining about cheating significant others.....
In the Jacksonville Shipyards case, there was a real sexual harassment problem. This included some pretty vile behavior including male workers opening up a female co-workers tookbox and placing pornographic images there. The behavior was vile, included real trespasses of personal space (the toolbox) and was pervasive. She rightfully won her case.
However because the judgement ordered Jacksonville Shipyards to have a policy banning pornographic images in the workplace (reasonable even given 1st Amendment issues in the context of the specific behavior at issue), everyone has cited this case as an authority that presence of pornographic images in the workplace equals sexual harassment, in part because the standards are so vague that lawyers can't give any bright lines aside from "ban all behavior that anyone might find offensive." But this flies in the face of logic. In a nation where porn consumption is rapidly approaching gender parity no such rule makes objective sense. This gets even worse when looking at hostile public accommodation harassment because there have been cases where businesses have been held accountable for customer actions. Perhaps someone should sue reddit over the fact that they have subreddits that are for porn? After all, reddit is a public accommodation, right? But that would be silly and it would not be ok first-amendment-wise, would it?
Also I think your post fails to realize that semantic systems really do require negotiating possibilities. If "no" may or may not mean "never" I think you have to give people any benefit of the doubt, and require that the person wishing to establish any no-further-contact rule be absolutely clear. Otherwise rules no longer rule, and whoever takes the greatest offense gets the most power. Such a subjective approach is wholely unacceptable any view that people should have reasonable opportunity to stay within rules defined ahead of time. Otherwise where do you stop?
"No means no" means everyone has a right to control bodily contact. It does not make asking a girl out for coffee the 100th time and getting shot down the equivalent of rape. It does not mean taking that as "try harder" (however stupid that may seem to be in context) to be the equivalent of rape. It is only when non-consented bodily contact is at issue that any equivalence can be drawn.
"No means no" means "everyone gets a veto power over actual contact." That's all it means. it means you can't say "mixed signals mean yes." All it means is that the specific line, over contact, is one where people retain a (legal as well as social) veto power over.