Hacker News Reader

we also don't need to be overly sensitive to prudish sensibilities and people who can't have a laugh.

You slipped in an unfounded claim. It is possible to disapprove of showing T&A on a slide without being prudish. I also like human bodies and spent part of my upbringing in a clothing-optional environment. I don't self-identify as a prude, I self identify as someone who has empathy for other people.

I'm comfortable discussing sexuality when sexuality is the topic. Sexuality is not the topic in a programming conference or forum. We bring other topics in as metaphors or similes to illustrate a technical point by choice. And it's our responsibility to consider all of the ramifications of our choice when we make it.

You know about "Godwin's Law," which has evolved into a dictum that comparing something to National Socialism ends the argument. As a responsible adult, I think about that before I compare anything to National Socialism.

In the case of women's bodies and sexuality, bringing this up in a professional setting is wrong. Not because we aren't sexual beings, but because we're supposed to be able to rise above that when circumstances demand. In the case of sexuality, the male-centric stuff being discussed by the OP creates an environment where many women feel that their sexuality is a distraction to their contribution as colleagues.

If you walk up to a woman at work and say that sexuality is a big part of life and part of what makes it worth living, you are creating a poisoned workplace environment. Donny, what does any of that have to do with Vietnam?

Finally, who are you or I to say what should or shouldn't discourage women from doing anything? That is blame the victim thinking writ large. It is enough for me that it does discourage some women.

Is the freedom to be juvenile more valuable than the contributions of those who don't want to be a part of a community that disregards their feelings?

> who are you or I to say what should or shouldn't discourage women from doing anything?

Those who are truly motivated are not discouraged by minor indirect impediments. The cage of political correctness and over-sensitivity is far more stifling to innovation than the minority of folks who are discouraged from entering a profession by this sort of thing. It is the source of bureaucracy, drones, intrusive HR, politics, and all the other things we love to hate about big corporations where no one can say what they think.

I agree that personalized sexuality can be a serious distraction and should be generally avoided in the workplace, however general bantering and references to sexuality are just that.

Do you espouse the same views with respect to colour and religion? Am I being overly sensitive if I quit a job where people routinely draw attention to the natural fact that some people, myself included, are not "White?"

There is a difference between being singled out for being different on a regular basis, and someone bringing up basic facts of life.

One situation where I might quit - an overly religious environment. I would not like constant references to Jesus and religious judgement around me, however it's not my choice whether my co-workers want that. I can ignore it, fight it, or quit. If I am not a good fit for the company culture, I need to figure out how to deal with it. Same if the company is obsessed with sports betting, video games, soap operas, or any of the other things I prefer not to be around me.

Showing a nice ass on a slide is not a sign of male privilege.

I strongly disagree. Seeing that image immediately tells any straight women or gay mean in the room that she or he is not the expected audience for the talk. The ideal audience for a Ruby talk is "people who are interested in Ruby," not "people who enjoy looking at pictures of near-naked women." The former is mostly, but not completely, made up of the latter.

I'm not the only one who disagrees with you. Here's an entry from the first hit on Google for "male privilege":

41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

BTW, if anyone's interested in the whole topic of privilege, I strongly recommend taking a look at the "Helpful Resources" section over at the Border House:

http://borderhouseblog.com/?page_id=54

I tick pretty much every privilege box there is (I'm a white, straight, middle-class male from western Europe), but I like to think I'm pro-equality. Reading some of the articles there challenged a lot of my assumptions and behaviours.

Ughh.

A gay man with a presentation throwing up a sculpted chest to make a point would not tell me that I'm not the expected audience. Again, the impediment is in your head, not the presenter.

Does a Python programmer using a slide of Python at a Ruby conference insult the audience? Give me a break.

Just because there are lots of people who love to be offended, blog about it, organize around it, and generally make a life of it, doesn't mean it's right.

A gay man with a presentation throwing up a sculpted chest to make a point would not tell me that I'm not the expected audience.

What if you were the only straight person in the room? Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable attending a Ruby talk full of homosexual innuendo in such a situation?

No, not really. Why would I?

No, homosexual innuendo is hilarious. It gives license to participate via another role or character.

If you feel uncomfortable when surrounded by homosexuals that's your prerogative.

No. I wouldn't.

I've been dancing in gay bars quite a few times, which is a much more challenging situation for a straight guy (brought there by girl friends, or gay friends.) I only feel uncomfortable when I get hit on heavily or fondled, all of which has happened many times, but even then, it's not a big deal.

I'm straight and I enjoy homosexual innuendo. Like all innuendo, I find it amusing more than I find it titillating.

"I strongly disagree. Seeing that image immediately tells any straight women or gay mean in the room that she or he is not the expected audience for the talk."

It does something else as well, especially in a male-dominated conference or profession - it makes women or gay men in the audience feel like the Other, rather than a like-minded colleague/member of the group/just another conference attendee.

Their attention shifts from the topic of the conference to, in women's case, preparing to fend off diverting, unwanted advances, and in gay guys' case... well that I'm not sure.

It changes the entire group dynamic for the rest of the conference for them, but the straight guys doing it are usually totally oblivious to it. The 'Others' leave the conference with their perception of that community as a group to which they will always be an outsider.

It does another thing too that you allude to in #41 - it offends straight men who know there's a time and a place for such stuff, that a programming conference is neither (at least not during the sessions or as part of a presentation), and that see cheap 'sex sells' strategies of manipulation for what they are - lazy, boorish, non-intellectually stimulating excuses for a lack of a truly good presentation.

Some of those are really lame.

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.

I don't know where the author came from, but I don't think thats true. Maybe in the black community (oh look, now I'm a racist as well...), but definitely not where I grew up. Any father who wasn't involved in the raising of their children was seen as a bit of a deadbeat.

Yeah, that is a pretty damned racist thing to suggest.

This response will probably be downvoted, as I'm guessing I have less respect (should I say more disdain?) for political correctness than most HN'ers.

Congratulations, you're a contrarian! How's being the smartest guy in the room working out?

A contrarian takes the opposite position whenever possible. I think my record of comments does not expose me as a contrarian, however contrary opinions are often the most interesting ones and worth expressing.

And I'm quite sure I'm not the smartest guy on Hacker News.

Also, not really sure what point you're making.

It's too bad you ended your comment by telling me to get a life. It's a bit of an insult to suggest that people who disagree with you aren't living, isn't it?

I will respond to your main argument in another comment.

A prime example of the type of over-sensitivity I refer to.

First - It's a jab, because I do think those who constantly make a point of being offended need to get a life. We all do it sometimes, but we need to recognize it as a flaw instead of making excuses and complaining.

Second - I'm not sure how it was directed at you personally.

Third - It most likely struck you because you fear there is some truth to it - if you knew it was untrue, it would not even begin to bother you - you probably wouldn't even notice. I find most of the time, when someone is offended, myself included, the cause more within the offended person, than the offender.

You dilute your message when you resort to namecalling. You don't have to be personally offended by it, or even disagree with it, to recognize it as lowering the level of discourse.

#getalife is awesome, we aren't in debate school, it's an informal discussion and getalife sums up the sentiment well.

Keep going and keep ignoring #overly-sensitive.

I know you are getting down voted for these comments (these threads are a magnet for the overly sensitive), so I've decided to go through your comment history and up vote others where appropriate.

Being offended on behalf of another group is the new chivalry.

edit: w00t, at zero, keep the downvotes coming. can i get a neg 4?

Thanks buddy. I'm here with you in the coalition of #peoplewhocanrollwiththepunches.

Speaking of which, aren't entrepreneurs supposed to be the people who can take a beating and bounce back up instead of complaining? Isn't every good idea shouted down from day one? Doesn't every great leader meet resistance and naysayers.

Getting beat up on a bit gives you the skills to deal with the real world. Being coddled by sensitivity yields weak spirits. Adversity breeds strength. That's what sport is all about. It's what freedom is about. #braveheart

First, the difference between a jab and an insult escapes me. But here's what I have to say to you: If you are being offensive, that's wrong, period. You can't go around being offensive and then dismiss your critics as being easily offended, that just doesn't wash. It's an ad hominem.

If you need an example, try calling me a nigger. I won't be offended, however I will tell you that you're being offensive, even if nobody who hears it takes offense.

Elsewhere you have tried to defend your point, and that is the correct line to take. If your point is valid, it is irrelevant whether your critics are easily offended. They are wrong. And if your point is invalid, again your critics don't enter into it.

Second, I don't care if an insult or jab is directed at me personally. Ad hominems poison the HN community. They create an environment where ideas take a back seat to things that may well be the staff of life outside the office, but are irrelevant to the business at hand. They create an environment where people who disagree with you expect to be insulted for their trouble. They may fear the insults, or they may simply prefer not to lower themselves into a mud-slinging match. Either way, the community loses their voice if they turn away from comments that contain insults or "jabs."

Therefore, I choose not to shrug and say "How rude, but since he wasn't talking to me personally, no biggie."

Your third point is not worth a direct response, except to suggest that having reached the rock bottom of rhetoric, your comments have begun to dig. If your points have substance, make them and defend them. Discussing the psychology or motivation of your critics is the age-old misdirection of playing the man and not the ball.

See how I respond to your words without making suggestions about what kind of person you are or why you write what you write? You defend your ideas without belittling your detractors elsewhere in this discussion and it is far more credible.

I stand by my point. Those who scream offense should more often look within themselves. This is especially true of people offended by sexuality because we are a culture so ridden by sexual guilt that most of us are confused and repressed.

That is not "ad hominum." It is not directed at anyone here. It is as true for me as it is for the author of this post and yourself, and it is a philosophy I practice myself and from which I have learned a great deal.

I am not discussing the psychology of my critics any more than myself. This entire conversation is about psychology, so it's a difficult subject to avoid. If you feel the conversation is about you personally, it is not my intention.

I came into this knowing full well my opinions are not politically correct. For better or worse, I simply don't agree that we should all tiptoe around each other's sensitivities.

As far as I can deduce that comment was not directed at you. I don't quite know why you'd take such a personal offense to it either.

In my opinion this response is an example of what aneth is referring to in thier comment.

I said it was an insult and that I thought it devalued a comment that was otherwise worth discussion. That isn't exactly the same as suggesting I take offense whether personally or as part of a group.

I have a number of minor free libraries on the go, two children, and I'm heading out to do some very technical mountain biking in the morning. I have what I consider to be a life, although I accept that others may consider all of that worthless if I don't agree with their perspective on what is and isn't appropriate in a professional setting.

Therefore, telling me personally to get a life--which the author may or may not have done--isn't even an insult, it's simply wrong.

> "to me, sexuality is a big part of life and part of what makes it worth living."

Me too.

But I would prefer if people did not make my sexuality, or the sexuality of those around me, into an issue when it shouldn't be. This isn't a matter of jealousy, "not getting any", political correctness, or being uncomfortable discussing sex; it's a matter of being uncomfortable with sexuality being brought to the forefront and kept there when I'm trying to talk databases or do other professional work. At best, it's a distraction, but as raganwald said, it can create a poisoned work environment, especially if it's part of an ongoing pattern. You describe it as a "minor impediment" elsewhere; note that it can become a major impediment either due to increased severity or increased frequency.

I don't disagree with this.

However I also think being overly sensitive, and taking yourself too seriously, is poisonous. Like bringing up politics or religion, there is a gray area. Nobody wants to hear a talk about ruby laden with penis jokes (actually I'm not so sure about that,) however a few jokes or sexual references can lighten things up and "keep it real."

I'd put jokes and sexual references in similar categories - distracting, but also helpful.