Hacker News Reader

Comment by SolarNet | Hacker News Reader

> Could you elaborate on this?

I've seen yoga, weights, and those things you compress, basically stuff to get the blood flowing again. Hoola hooping is probably a bit more admittedly, but not that extreme. Especially since it sounds like it was happening outside.

> I don't think it's a person's right to hula hoop in an office and then be upset when they attract the attention of the rest of the office, regardless of sex on both sides. It's an unusual thing to do, so it will draw eyes.

You are missing the point. Horvath wasn't the one hoola hooping. She was a bystander, and the gawking was making her feel uncomfortable because it implies a work environment where it is ok to sexually objectify your co-workers (or that seems to be how she took it). But this is an(other) HR failure.

View on HN

> it implies a work environment where it is ok to sexually objectify your co-workers (or that seems to be how she took it)

What? This is a case where two people did something unusual in a work environment and garnered the attention of their coworkers. That's expected. It's unexpected that you think it necessarily implies sexual objectification.

Go stand in the middle of your office tomorrow and hoola hoop. Whatever sex you are, and whatever sex your coworkers are, I promise you'll get looks for long enough to be considered gawking :) If you choose to complain to HR that you were sexually objectified, well, that's up to you.

I'm not saying it Wasn't sexual objectification, just that to gawk at something unusual in the office doesn't necessarily imply sexual objectification.

> This is a case where two people did something unusual in a work environment and garnered the attention of their coworkers. That's expected.

Did this ever say it was in their office? All it said was they were hula-hooping to some music and the response from the bench-full of male employees was embarrassing. If it were outdoors, it wouldn't be unusual.

Either way, in what world do you see something out of the ordinary — but not strange — happening at work and line up to gawk at it?

> It's unexpected that you think it necessarily implies sexual objectification.

It's certainly possible for a bench-full of 20-something programmers to sexually objectify someone. Julie was made to feel uncomfortable, and since she's the best eye witness to the event we've got, there's no reason to doubt her testimony.

Not everything needs to be picked apart. Sometimes, if a bunch of guys are gawking at women, that's what they're doing. You don't need to stick up for them.

> Julie was made to feel uncomfortable, and since she's the best eye witness to the event we've got, there's no reason to doubt her testimony.

Yes, but that testifies only to her personal feelings at that moment, which are not the definitive measure stick for anything.

> Either way, in what world do you see something out of the ordinary — but not strange — happening at work and line up to gawk at it?

Congratulations, you've decided to not look at out of the ordinary things for fear of implications of sexual objectification.

But me -- if weird stuff happens in or outside of my office, I'm gonna watch.

> It's certainly possible for a bench-full of 20-something programmers to sexually objectify someone

My last comment said "I'm not saying it Wasn't sexual objectification,"

> Julie was made to feel uncomfortable, and since she's the best eye witness to the event we've got, there's no reason to doubt her testimony

The number of witnesses has no bearing on the truth, validity or bias of the statement given by one witness.

> You don't need to stick up for them

I'm not. I'm saying it's too early for those of you championing Julie to get your pitchforks out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com