Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

OK, I'm not usually like this -- perhaps this time is just because I didn't know who the "cupcake princess" is and had to Google it out of curiosity, and trust me, I think Google is the epitome of the power hungry, sinister, duplicitous corporation, that makes the robber barons look like no more than slightly annoyed kindergarten teachers -- but I think you're being sexist.

Anyway, I found this: "Mayer, a long-time Google executive dubbed the “cupcake princess” after she constructed detailed spreadsheets weighing up the benefits of various cupcake recipes". Now, compiling cupcake spreadsheets, is, uhhh, frivolous maybe? But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that male executives at software companies do the same for beer; or bikes; or Star Wars. I don't think they get such nicknames.

Anyway, there's an unpleasant bro scent to your comment. If we care about our freedom and independent agency, the Google corporation must be broken up, and sooner rather than later. But even the largest heap of banal evil in the known universe can be dealt with without unnecessary bigotry.

There was someone who was (is?) running a spreadsheet in which they attempted to "drink it all" - that is, try every possible drink in the microkitchens. Then they rated them.

I'd say "guess the gender", but given the company, you probably already know the answer.

The remark was not intended to be sexist. It was intended to reflect that I don't think Mayer was particularly easy to work with, that her elitist values were contrary to much of the Google culture.

(That being said: I think she is good CEO material. In fact, when she took over Yahoo! I bought stock in the company).

If you really can't imagine that it wasn't a sexist remark then I'm sorry for you: it must be hard to be so easily offended.

What does intention matter? No one is trying to tell you you're a bad person, just that you inadvertently said something destructive.

And please don't bring the concept of "offense" into this. No one is offended. I'm disappointed that you're hurting other people, and I'd like you to stop. But I'm not "offended". Taking offense to things is a waste of time.

> If you really can't imagine that it wasn't a sexist remark then I'm sorry for you: it must be hard to be so easily offended.

You're right. It must be that time of the month...

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=29555

Nonpology, followed by linking to a video of a straight, white, male comedian telling people why being offended at something is stupid?

Please, go back to reddit.

I take it you were offended?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unexplained_sounds

>> [..] but I think you're being sexist.

Things have really been getting out of hand here, lately it seems almost anything that even has the faintest trace of 'usually being associated with female gender' is interpreted as being sexist. Some people have been taking the good Samaritan attitude a little too far I think, are we supposed to restrict everything we say to gender-neutral language or what?

It is not a good samaritan attitude. It's simply pointing out when someone is being, probably subconsciously, sexist. I showed the original comment to my girlfriend, who said, "what's new about that? I get this kind of attitude from men every day".

If you call Donald Rumsfeld, "Rumsfeld", but Condoleezza Rice, "Condoleezza", or President Obama, "Obama", but Hillary Clinton "Hillary", then there's something going on. Sexism is so entrenched that we often don't even feel that we're being sexist; that doesn't mean that we're not (just like Google, that set out with the best of intentions and even explicitly adopted a motto of 'don't be evil' -- which is fascinating, and brilliant, on so many levels, BTW -- and yet unintentionally became the most privacy invading, soul-killing consumerist company in the history of mankind). So, the easiest litmus test in this case is to ask yourself, "would I have said the same thing (as often) about a man?" If the answer is no, then there's at least some soul-searching to do.

Donald is a common first name. Rice is a not so uncommon last name. I might seriously think of Jerry Rice first if you say "Rice" and I'm not a huge sports fan.

Aren't Michele Bachmann and Nancy Pelosi referenced by their last name as much as Donald Rumsfeld is?

I am just using anecdotes and select data after all so I don't think I'm definitely right or you're definitely wrong.

In Hillary Clinton's case, her supporters also call her Hillary, for the very sensible reason that someone else with the same last name is very famous and important in the same general sphere of endeavor.

Like President "Franklin", Senators "Ted" and "Bobby" and President "George W." (who was, that's true, on rare occasions nicknamed Dubya) you mean?

Hah. I was so sure you were exaggerating these claims. But in these examples I automatically complete the person's last name in my mind yet for Hillary Clinton, I don't.

Which Franklin? There are two. The one you are probably thinking about is usually referred to as "Roosevelt" or "FDR".

Yet men can be called with 'male nicknames' and nobody calls it sexist.

Usually men's nicknames have positive connotations.

You think the word 'princess' only has 'the faintest trace of usually being associated with female gender'?

It is absolutely sexist. It is meant to marginalize Mayer because she was analytical about recipes, despite the fact that we're all often analytical about a lot of ridiculous things. Ridiculous claims that it just coincidentally referred to her as a "princess" about "cupcakes" innocently shouldn't pass the smell test of anyone smart enough to navigate to HN.

Really the whole comment you replied to is just bellicose noise, and it's unfortunate that HN would be a place where that would sit as a top comment. Though I suppose in some way it's a selectivity bias because everyone with a grudge about Google+ (predominately people who don't use it, as an aside, but who seem to feel really passionate about not using it, though I suppose the same happens among many non-Facebookers) is highly likely to look at this submission.

> It is meant to marginalize Mayer because she was > analytical about recipes, despite the fact that we're > all often analytical about a lot of ridiculous things.

I love how you tell me why I called her Cupcake Princess.

I don't get what's so weird about making a spreadsheet as part of the recipe refining process. I've made lots of recipe spreadsheets. Honestly, I don't know how you'd track the large number of variations required to make a great recipe without a spreadsheet.

I understand where you are coming from but we really need to focus on the bigger picture. Let us all just get back to hating Google for being the most evil company that has ever existed and live in peace.

I hereby dub you, "Beer Prince". ;p edit: "Scotch Prince". There, fixed.

I'm more of a scotch guy, really :)

It was not sexist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com