LOL - this is my fav comment on this thread.
I feel like I have seen a shift in the comments on women in tech related articles on HN over the past few weeks. 2 weeks ago I had a really hard time reading the comments because they seemed either hate-filled or ignorant (like the comment above is mocking) but I feel like lately the discussion has become more intelligent. Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?
What the author did was clever and interesting, and the reaction of this highest-ranked thread has been to steal the discussion from, say, the general application of a female hacker's idea and instead to focus on the psychological contusions of a group of guys we don't know, scarcely care about, and will probably never meet. And yet we are not even talking about how to convince them not to react like this: we have all established that their reaction is problematic, would someone mind suggesting a way to change it?
At least the problem is no longer sexism but laziness: changing people is hard, complaining about them is easy. Back to work! Jeez.
Good point. I was aiming, with my comment, to pre-empt a lot of the responses which usually show up in a discussion like this. I don't think what I said was a derail: The biggest obstacle in these discussions is simply that people don't realize this is a problem. Nobody wants to be sexist, and nobody responds well to suggestions that their behaviors were unintentionally sexist, especially if they don't immediately see the connection to sexism themselves.
What we need is transparency and awareness. The more people realize that their actions might have unintentional and unpleasant consequences, the better they'll be at checking their behavior and making adjustments. It was an incredible series of community discussions on MetaFilter that made me reconsider my own behavior – just two years ago, I'd be the one arguing that this sort of reaction was unnecessary – so I know firsthand how useful simply talking about these issues can be.
Those threads, by the way, are http://metatalk.metafilter.com/15281/Discussion-Point and http://www.metafilter.com/85667/Hi-Whatcha-reading, and each branches out into a thread or two more. They're very long – I spent a good week reading them – but they're fascinating conversations that took place in a community quite similar to this one, in which every possible argument is brought up and some incredibly eloquent comments are made by women who are affected personally by issues like this. (The first thread takes a little while to steer towards that conversation, but that was the one which enthralled me.)
How is it okay for you to respond to every comment in this thread decrying men for being unaware of the horrifying effect these comments have on women, and also make the exact same joke that caused the original complaint?
Er, the poster who replied to you (wpietri) is a different account from the one you replied to (unalone).
Also, now you're engaging in vacuous sophistry - you've made an assertion of wrongdoing without backing it up, and yet neither of them could reply here to defend themselves without seeming to dig deeper into the hole you insist they're in, because "oh look more 'rational' arguments".
I thought my joke was lighthearted enough, and metatextual enough, that it wouldn't offend anybody or make anybody feel uncomfortable. If my joke made anyone feel like their voice wasn't welcome in this conversation, then I apologize, and I'd like you to tell me so that I don't make this mistake in the future.
My apology does not extend to you, eaten_by_a_grue, because you're not complaining about my joke, you're calling me a hypocrite. I neither apologize for my thinking "that's what she said" jokes are potentially offensive nor for trying to make a funny, inoffensive variation.
Not only are you a hypocrite for earlier claiming that all such instances of the joke are inherently objectifying women;
> Remember that sexism is about the reinforcement of cultural stereotypes, rather than being just about gross bigotry or discrimination. What's sexist is that people assume, in a workplace, that jokes about what women say in bed are acceptable. Those jokes make me a little uncomfortable even in a casual environment; it's kind of gross that people are okay with them at work. The sexism isn't one person consciously thinking "Oh man let's women the butt of jokes about sex!", it's that women-as-sex-objects is such a pervasive trope that we don't notice it unless somebody like Jessamyn points it out to us.
What was it you said, again? Oh, right;
> "that's what she said" will always be a joke the brunt of which is the faceless fuck-object woman.
So if it's so heinous a joke, what is your meta-joke? Oh I thought about thinking about a faceless fuck-object woman? And you consider that harmless?
And you sure do feel free to address anyone that dissents with you as trivializing the issue or telling women to "lighten up." Once a woman has decided something referring to women is sexist we cannot say otherwise lest we be branded sexist ourselves? I agree that TWSS is a stupid joke and I wouldn't want to see it at work and Jessamyn was all of more mature, rationally trying to solve her complaint, and clever. But I will never agree that it is inherently sexist.
You imagining the joke in the way you want to and then claiming that everyone else feels the same. But then when you feel free to re-use it in a slightly different manner you are unequivocally being a hypocrite.
If you wish to engage in civil debate, you need to add the ability to identify and understand the concepts of context, nuance, and satire to your social toolbox. As it is, you are simply lashing out angrily at what you don't understand, contributing nothing of value.
That's an excellent argument. Using it you can win any discussion and prove anybody wrong, whatever is the issue - just declare anything rational the opponent says from this point on is said because he knows he's wrong and tries to rationalize it - and kaboom! you win. Nicely done.
