Matthew Garrett got it right...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Jul 19, 2012 12:20 PM EDT |
Matthew Garrett got it right and Sam Varghese is defending the indefensible. What Microsoft did in this case was purile and childish and is a good example of sexism in IT. That Sam Varghese thinks sexism is OK and that Mr. Garrett overreacted just proves that Varghese is part of the problem, something I could have guessed already. |
| theBeez Jul 19, 2012 12:44 PM EDT |
What's so offensive about 2976579765?? It's a prank, the more airtime you give it, the more ridiculous the whole affair becomes. As if women don't have anything more important on their mind, like getting a boob job (250,000 women each year). |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 19, 2012 12:48 PM EDT |
"the more airtime you give it, the more ridiculous the whole affair becomes" That deserves repeating. |
| caitlyn Jul 19, 2012 12:54 PM EDT |
How did I know theBeez would defend blatant sexism? Hans, you are 100% predictable and, as always on this subject, 100% wrong. Why give it airtime? Sunlight is still an excellent disinfectant. The more we educate people and show off just how stupid and counterproductive sexism is the more it will disappear into the past. Of course, some people will never learn... right, Hans? |
| jdixon Jul 19, 2012 1:15 PM EDT |
> The more we educate people and show off just how stupid and counterproductive sexism is the more it will disappear into the past. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any sign that people in general are all that capable of learning such lessons. |
| helios Jul 19, 2012 1:35 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, I am not defending or justifying this but remember, often we are dealing with socially-awkward, regressed geeks who break out in a sweat when confronted with the possibility of even having a conversation with a woman. I should know the type....I am one. Have you seen the M&M commercial with the lady M&M defending the fact that she is not naked, she just looks like it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0dZera-lKU That's what you are dealing with here. Pity is the correct response, not anger. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 19, 2012 1:45 PM EDT |
"Pity is the correct response, not anger." That, also, deserves to be repeated. Having seen more than I ever wanted to see of obese male bodies without their shirts on, the assumption that the original hex-abuse referred to females is, itself, sexist. |
| helios Jul 19, 2012 1:46 PM EDT |
Bob....milk + monitor = mess. Thanks a bunch. ;-) |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 19, 2012 1:52 PM EDT |
Milk? More sexism! (I'm going to stop before someone (me) gets hurt) |
| dinotrac Jul 19, 2012 1:56 PM EDT |
Soooo.... To be honest, Big Boobs could be referring to a lot of things, such as: Congress, SUV owners who cannot maneuver their land barges in a parking lot, and just about any random sample of corporate middle managers. Come to think of it, Big Boobs would definitely apply to any group of software types who thought putting a reference to mammary glands in publicly distributed code was worth a yuck. |
| tuxchick Jul 19, 2012 2:02 PM EDT |
Ken, the excuse of the socially awkward geek is beyond threadbare. As you say, this crud is everywhere. God forbid women should be perceived as actual people. Pity? Screw that noise, when do people start owning up to their own misogyny and stupid attitudes and take responsibility for them? This isn't exactly a brand-new issue. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 19, 2012 2:07 PM EDT |
"when do people start owning up to their own misogyny and stupid attitudes and take responsibility for them?" Like putting bikini tops on 3-year olds? TC, I _agree_ with you. The incentive, however, is the over-reaction such acts achieve. It would hardly have been "fun" to use "asphalt", because no one would have reacted to "asphalt". This whole mess has far more to do with the extended, enforced infantilization and isolation of "children" that this society fosters, than it does with any actual misogyny. |
| tuxchick Jul 19, 2012 2:17 PM EDT |
Bob, this particular incident was probably no more than a passing hur-hur and then forgotten. Yes, we mostly agree. But childishness doesn't equal misogyny, and don't overlook the persistent and toxic misogyny that infests the US from stem to stern-- like the political climate of the past few years, which has resulted in literally 1100+ pieces of legislation aimed at turning us into state-controlled broodmares. This junk has real and damaging consequences. You can ignore one person peeing in a big swimming pool, but not everyone peeing in the pool. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 19, 2012 2:54 PM EDT |
"like the political climate of the past few years, which has resulted in literally 1100+ pieces of legislation aimed at turning us into state-controlled broodmares" A problem hardly limited to your "us". As has been stated for decades by another special interest group, "It's not about ****, it's about control." Back on the main topic, the individual who decided on that binary pattern deserves to be educated, if an accident, corrected, if deliberate. In that there is no disagreement. |
| JaseP Jul 19, 2012 4:08 PM EDT |
Matt Garrett & Caitlyn are both correct. If Linux developers put something in their code (such as, when running Linux on an MS hosted virtual machine) that contained something like this, you know they'd make an issue of it. |
| gus3 Jul 19, 2012 4:34 PM EDT |
Pity? No. Public humiliation. |
| theBeez Jul 19, 2012 6:22 PM EDT |
@caitlyn
As if you aren't predictable. You have even the arrogance to speak for *ALL* women ("alienate 50% of the population" is interpreting the numbers correctly, I presume?), although when you closely browse through the comments, you will find that there is rather a large number of females that don't have a clue what the fuss is about. Add to that the number of females who don't have an idea what a kernel is (more likely: will never encounter the source in their life), who have other things on their minds than small-minded feminism, because they dedicate their life to more important things and that number decreases very quickly. I don't speak for anyone, just a world where people can behave in a normal way instead of looking at their shoulder any second, pause twice in a sentence because of ayatollahs like you. Gee, referring to a part of the female anatomy is "sexism". What's next? |
| tuxchick Jul 19, 2012 6:30 PM EDT |
My dear Hans, I cannot begin to fathom your pathological need to continue to parade your inexplicable intransigence on this subject. And that is probably a good thing. |
| gus3 Jul 19, 2012 7:00 PM EDT |
Beez, you minimized and defended this asininity four years ago, two years ago, and now. You are utterly predictable on this topic. Be glad my name isn't Scott. |
| tracyanne Jul 19, 2012 7:42 PM EDT |
Sigh, Sunlight and discussion will make no difference at all. The people who did this either aren't going to read adverse comment, or will be sharing it among themselves and giggling over it. |
| BernardSwiss Jul 19, 2012 8:09 PM EDT |
Juvenile? Probably. Over-reacting? Probably. Chauvinistic swinery? Overblown Political Correctness? Storm in a teacup? Yet another manifestation of institutionalized Rampant Sexism? Probably. Probably. Probably. And yes, probably. This kind of story always makes me wonder; would there be so much "obsessing" by so many supposed adults about body parts, if there wasn't so much obsessing by society about concealing those same body parts in the first place? I'm not sure this is a "gender issue" -- I think the fundamental problem lies much deeper than that. |
| caitlyn Jul 19, 2012 8:26 PM EDT |
Where did I speak for anyone but me? Hans, when you have to make up your line of attack out of thin air you must be pretty desperate. Yes, I predictably go after blatant sexism. As far as behaving normally, misogyny like yours isn't behaving normally. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!