Nothing But A Bunch of Boobs | Hacker News Reader

Nothing But A Bunch of Boobs

micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com

50 pointsMz38 comments

This will invite a lot of controversy for sure.

And it seems a lot of people haven't even read the whole thing and turned away in disgust after the first couple of paragraphs.

A lot of people fail to realize how hidden assumptions, stereotypes and beliefs affect their judgement.

Let's discount those who are openly misogynistic and are consciously aware of it. She calls some of those people "creeps". Let's assume they formed their wrong opinions and positions and are unwilling to change.

I think the article references a very large group of people who will consciously never admit even to themselves at being discriminatory, not liking women, not respecting, holding them to a different standard. This is most people in general, in a jury room, most bosses, most families and so on. It is probably very very hard to not be in this category. These attitudes and modes of thinking are baked in early in the childhood, they are reinforced by media, society and so on. One would have to grow up in a country that actively discourages it and has been doing it for a long time. Our society is not like that yet.

She is saying how these people will mean well but because of their existing and unconscious stereotypes they will make decisions. That lower salary or jury verdict will probably not come from a creep but from well meaning people.

It could take decades more before that is eradicated completely. In the meantime she offers a practical advice -- what one can do today, working in a broken society so to speak.

Anyway that is who I understand her point.

However another way to look at it, could it be this hidden brainwashing also affected her and maybe she has been brought up to believe that women should dress modestly or society will judge them? Maybe she is unconsciously promoting these stereotypes without realizing it, too. Kind of like talking about suicides even with a message of hope and encouragement, or just publishing a news item about has an effect of triggering suicides.

This whole thing is nuts.

  > Maybe in the future I can figure out how to keep my big
  > mouth shut and let women continue to wear their Daisy
  > Dukes with ass cleavage hanging out the bottom etc.
  > while they loudly proclaim themselves helpless victims
  > and pawns in a world where only men have power and
  > while they equally loudly proclaim that all men are
  > unrestrained asshats who can't keep their eyes, words,
  > or hands to themselves.

Good thing it's light on the hyperbole.

The author seems to think herself the arbiter of sexual appropriateness. Cross the line, show an ankle, and you have what's coming to you. Men and women should have the same dress code.

  > One of the things I get strongly criticized for saying
  > is that if you are the target of unwanted male
  > attention, it is in your best interest to dress
  > conservatively and make sure no one can construe your
  > manner of dress or demeanor as provocative or inviting
  > such attention.

So, be powerless?

She's being pragmatic. And I respect her for that.

That's a pretty colossal misinterpretation of what was written, and the reason why she put so many caveats and explanations in there (which were conveniently ignored).

What she is saying, is that women should dress conservatively (presumably for their entire life, or at least for the entire time that they do not want to have sex with any man who feels like it) so that when the time comes that they get raped, people are more likely to look favourably upon them, rather than on the rapist. That is absolutely nuts.

Not to mention the fact that studies show that there is no correlation between what a woman is wearing and her likelihood of being sexually assaulted. So dressing conservatively won't even help avoid bring raped, but it means that people might side with you afterwards?

> Not to mention the fact that studies show that there is no correlation between what a woman is wearing and her likelihood of being sexually assaulted.

Could you link these studies, for the public interest?

I'll have to dig them up, I was linked them a few years back (when I was on the other side of this argument, actually).

edit: This interesting part from the paper I was linked:

>While people perceive dress to have an impact on who is assaulted, studies of rapists suggest that victim attire is not a significant factor. Instead, rapists look for signs of passiveness and submissiveness, which, studies suggest, are more likely to coincide with more body-concealing clothing. (140) In a study to test whether males could determine whether women were high or low in passiveness and submissiveness, Richards and her colleagues found that men, using only nonverbal appearance cues, could accurately assess which women were passive and submissive versus those who were dominant and assertive. (141) Clothing was one of the key cues: "Those females high in passivity and submissiveness (i.e., those at greatest risk for victimization) wore noticeably more body-concealing clothing (i.e., high necklines, long pants and sleeves, multiple layers)." (142) This suggests that men equate body-concealing clothing with passive and submissive qualities, which are qualities that rapists look for in victims. Thus, those who wore provocative clothes would not be viewed as passive or submissive, and would be less likely to be victims of assault.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...

Please note that I also talked about being less warm and friendly -- i.e. behavioral changes, not just clothing -- and the piece is primarily about workplace or professional issues between the sexes, not sexual assault. My rant was inspired by a discussion of a workplace issue where it was not clear cut if the man was "behaving badly" or not but it was clear that the woman wanted him to behave differently towards her. I was roundly criticized for suggesting that dressing more conservatively for a time in response to the issue might help convey a lack of romantic interest in the man without being confrontational. I was told how she dressed at work had absolutely nothing to do with how men at work treated her, the man was merely a creep, etc. We only knew her side of the story. Perhaps he was a creep. Perhaps not.

Saying "it's all his fault, he is merely a creep!" is a) jumping to conclusions without knowing both sides of the story and b) pretty disempowering for the woman. If he is merely a creep and the things the woman does are irrelevant, that leaves you with what? Quit your job or put up with unwanted attentions? Not a great set of choices if, like most people, you need your paycheck. I am proposing that dress and behavior can influence how men treat a woman and if you are a woman who is serious about having a career, you should take some responsibility for your half of it and not just bitch about how all men are led around by their pecker and there is nothing a woman can do about it.

I did work for a Fortune 500 company for over 5 years. I did deal (very diplomatically) with unwanted male attention on the job. I have also dealt with that in other professional situations. This is not just someone blowing smoke based on zero experience or research.

As a woman who (somewhat to my bafflement) comes across as a LOT more aggressive than I wish I did, I assure you that a woman who reads as super aggressive on the job is doing herself no favors. Female passivity is pretty expected in most social settings. Being too aggressive gets you all kinds of attention of the wrong sort and does not help your career.

I have also been sexually assaulted (as a child) and have read a lot about the topic. This is not really the place to argue that issue but I will suggest that a woman can dress conservatively and not read as submissive or passive. I tend to dress conservatively. I also tend to be mistaken for someone in charge, sometimes in situations where I am at the bottom of the ladder, not the top.

I think you are missing the point entirely. There is a reason why she brought up the Rosa Parks example. You should study the reasons why the African American civil rights movement chose to focus on Rosa Parks rather than Claudette Colvin.

This has nothing to do with statistics and correlations for sexual assault and everything to do with the fact that the people who judge you, despite the fact they are well meaning, may have subconscious prejudices based on the way you act or dress. Fact of the matter is, gender equality won't come in a single sweeping wave, and you will have to deal with people who are well intentioned but "don't get it".

Looking at the Claudette Colvin example, it would have been easy for 1950's America to dismiss the whole case just because she was pregnant teenager - despite the fact there is no correlation between pregnancy/relationship status and where you can sit on a bus. You don't want to give your opponents the chance to dissuade people who can ultimately help you just because of your outfit choice.

At the end of the day humans aren't machines. Despite the fact there airplane travel is far safer than car travel more people are still afraid of air travel. Despite what our "correlations" tell us, we are still, and will continue to be superstitious creatures. It would be wise for those us trying to change things to not play into those superstitions.

I did get that point, I just feel that what she's asking of women is crazy for the net gain. If I had a child who was being bullied at school, I could stop that by forcing him to stay at home for the rest of his life. But that would be a crazy solution to a problem. Asking women to dress conservatively so that if they get raped, society will be more likely to side with them, is crazy. Sure, it will probably help change perceptions in the long term, but it is just not a reasonable solution. Asking women to change their behaviour to accommodate those who are victim blamers (whether they are concious of what they are doing or not) is not fair.

First, I'd hope in America that any rape serious rape trial will look into the facts and the evidence and throwaway any personal bias. From the author's article I got the sense she was talking about workplace sexual harassment.

Secondly, I don't think "dressing conservatively" and "being denied one's education" are anywhere near on the same levels on sacrifice. I just can't see how being forced to a particular style of dress in the work place is an unimaginable thing. Consider a different group of people. Imagine you owned a business that hired black men. Now you know these men are all respectable men, however they dressed in oversized tees, baggy jeans and jordans, and because of this they were accused of being thugs.

Now any rational person can see that your style of dress most likely has no correlation with your likelihood of committing a crime. Despite this however the NBA requires players to hold a certain dress code. The last thing you want in any situation is for a potential judge or employer to think "wow this guy looks like a thug." Is it racist? Maybe. However, again, humans are superstitious and it may take lifetimes to reverse this behavior and I don't think this was "too big of a change."

In a minority position, you generally don't want to look the part. It sucks, it might be racist or sexist, but you don't want to further disadvantage yourself. I'm still sort of shocked that having to change one's style of dress is difficult, "crazy solution" for women, but I am not a woman so there maybe somethings I still don't understand (also, I'm not advocating for all women to wear burqa).

Do you wear a suit and tie to work?

From the author's article I got the sense she was talking about workplace sexual harassment.

Yes, my rant was in reaction to a discussion of a workplace issue where my suggestion that the woman in question dress a little more conservatively as just one part of her overall approach to handling the situation inspired controversy and was deleted as an inappropriate suggestion as to what a woman could do when dealing with an overly-friendly man on the job. I.e I was suggesting that dressing more conservatively on the job in reaction to a problematic situation which had already arisen (not as some sweeping policy "just in case") was a means to politely signal "I am not inviting your advances" without making a big stink out of it. I think if you continue to be eye-candy while having a fit about a man being very friendly to you, your behavior is part of the problem. It isn't helpful to say "I should be able to show up at work damn well naked and men should RESPECT ME ANYWAY" -- an argument I have seen (some variation of) before. I think that is completely unrealistic.

It doesn't even have to involve race or gender. Think about how many nice, hard working people feel the need to cover up their tattoos at work because some people seem to think that an "arm sleeve" is some how going to effect their ability to do their job. I decided early on that I would always make sure I could cover my tattoos and piercings with a normal, collared shirt for that very reason.

She's not talking about women being raped. She's talking about behavior ranging from creepy pickups to groping, and was very careful not to say anything that actually justifies it. Furthermore, she's not talking about what the ideal world is like, she's talking about what women can do today, where they are, to make their life better. If, as you say, a woman is going to be assaulted anyway, isn't it strictly better to have public support after the fact, no matter how small the advantage? Callous, perhaps, but unavoidably true, and ignoring uncomfortable trade-offs doesn't make them go away.

You're totally right. Starting this summer, I'll get a strong tan and a tramp stamp, wear skinny jeans, a shirt with two, nay three popped collars, uggs and aviators and drive a Segway on the highway.

Let people stare at me, call me a douchebag and maybe occasionally punch me - because you know what, it's totally cool to completely disregard societal norms because of my gender.

I'd be interested to hear her views about religious dress. "Look - if you're going to wear a turban you just have to expect people to judge you". Or names. "Hey - look at the Hollywood producers and stars who changed their names. If you're going to insist on keeping the Horowitz you're just inviting comments from anti-semites". "Black people - I understand that racism exists. But you're not doing yourselves any favours by being so uppity about it. Learn your place and life would be so much easier."

The word "creep" or "creepy" occurs 8 times in this article. Every time its aimed at men.

Its important to make a distinction. Not every guy that is attracted to you is a creep (even if his attempts at winning you over are awkward or creepy, that does not mean his intentions are - case in point when I first entered the world of dating all of my moves, were, in retrospect, very awkward or even accidentally creepy and I just did not know any better). Its not necessarily an age thing - I have seen cringe-worthy attempts at hitting by males in their mid-thirties.

I'm not really sure if you're agreeing or disagree with the post, but I think that this is one of the points the author was trying to convey.

Not disagreeing with the author, just trying to add some clarity as to why some men might be perceived as creepy. :)

When women use the word "creepy" what they mean is they are not attracted to them and any attention received by them is unwanted. As a guy, there are two ways to avoid being labeled as creepy:

1) be attractive 2) don't be unattractive

or 3) develop some social empathy and learn to infer when someone is not attracted to you, and then act accordingly by not showing them any interest beyond a cordial one that meets the demands of your profession.

It's nice to see others consider that option too :)

the first two points still have to apply for a successful execution of the third point however.

Many years ago, we hired a gal in her mid-20s, slim, girl-next-door looks. It was a fairly casual office environment and she tended toward jeans and a spaghetti tank with an unbuttoned shirt over it. Not indecent, yet definitely skin, so on the borderline of acceptable. One day she was kind of upset because one of the few men who worked there had spent some time talking to her chest. He was in his early 50s, and generally annoying due to overwhelming halitosis and a tendency to talk way longer than necessary. Personally, I was on the fence about fault; I didn't like him at all, but also felt you put out bait, all fish will come, trout and mudsuckers alike. But he gave himself the creep label because he didn't keep his eyes on her face.

This is a really thoughtful article with some practical advice. I hope people read it thoroughly and really think about it before commenting on it, because it would be very easy to skim it and have a knee jerk reaction against the very broad strokes of what she's talking about.

It's not a "blame the victim" article at all, just an analysis of how current social norms might be making things harder than they have to be for women in the tech world.

There's a healthy balance between "OMG, I was dressed like a prostitute at a trashy bar in the bad part of town, what happened?" and "Welp, better dress in a niqab the rest of my life lest I attract any male sexual attention and and be responsible for it".

I don't think this article achieves that balance.

I like this. It's pragmatic, not idealistic.

> The reality is that since the social norm is that men are supposed to ask and women are supposed to say "yes" or "no", it is a social norm that willing women typically signal invitation to pursuit passively, primarily by dressing provocatively, getting all dolled up (in terms of hair and makeup), and being warm and friendly. Please don't pretend you didn't know this.

I think a bigger reason why people wear "attractive" clothes is because their peers judge them. e.g. women getting dolled-up even when they're not looking for a man.

Some of the comments on this article are really pathetic. Look, people, there's a difference between condoning bad behavior and pointing out what victims can do to help themselves. If you're talking to a victim of sexual abuse, there's very little to be gained by telling them what the abuser should or shouldn't have done, but there is something to gain by telling the victim how to help themselves.

This article is about tactics for dealing with the current screwed-up situation, and the crappiness of humanity in general. If there's going to be debate, let's have it be about the effectiveness of those tactics, not attacking absurd caricatures of the article's arguments.

Somehow, when you warn people about thieves and try to help them avoid being targetted, no one gets confused and accuses you of justifying theft and blaming the victim. While the stakes are higher here, the logic is the same.

Much better than one would guess from the title.

The previous title was "Some women are nothing but boobs (of the intellectual variety)". Care to try to improve on the title? (I thought I did, but maybe not?)

Thanks.

I can't think of anything simultaneously sober, mature, and attention-catching. I just wanted to help prevent anyone who looked at the comments first to dismiss the article on its title alone.

Thank you.

Someone please dowvote this flame bait.

Failure to adhere to your clothing norms doesn't make it okay to sexually assault anyone, ever. The solution to sexism is not mandatory burkas; that much should be obvious.

I didn't see anything in the article about being ok to assault someone.

Also, I think she is pointing out problems with clothing norms.

I hope you weren't seated at a desk when you wrote this out; it's a pretty horrific knee-jerk reaction.

Nowhere in the article does it suggest that sexual assault based on clothing is ok. It's actually a well-reasoned article which draws some good parallels between the way you act, and the way people react to you (not just sexually, but professionally and socially).

For my part, I think it's unfortunate that the advice given in the article is good, but at this point it's fairly true. I've worked in professional office environments for the better part of my life (in engineering), and dressing provocatively as a woman IS a sure way to make people treat you less seriously.

The author's points about women sending signals, and their typically passive role in engaging with the opposite sex is spot on. We just need men to come to the table and work on their social graces a bit more I think (and some women to stop playing the 'flaunting it but upset by attention' game).

Did you even read the article?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com