There's a big computer graphics convention every summer, and it's discussed in depth on one of the CG forums I frequent. I haven't had a chance to go to this conference yet, but I hope to next year (I also hope to enter a short film into their animation festival and kick some butt. I have a lot of hopes. )
Last summer, one of the threads on the CG forum was about the parties being hosted by big-name CG studios during the week of the conference. Someone mentioned that they wanted to get a ticket to one of the parties, because some rock band he liked was going to be playing, but the tickets had all been given away already. Someone else responded and said that he didn't need a ticket, that any guy who brought three females with him was allowed to enter.
I couldn't believe my eyes, I thought they were joking. So I asked, and they said that not only were they serious, but that that's how most of the industry parties work at this conference. They said that, without such a rule, there would be no women at the parties, and that would be lame.
Now, I've seen such rules before, at the frat parties on campus when I was a freshman. Usually from the most stereotypical frat houses. I was annoyed by it then, but to see it coming from some of the most respected companies in the industry, at official company-sponsored parties?
So I posted again, saying that I thought that was ridiculous and sexist, because it clearly set up the women attending the party as being mere eye candy for the enjoyment of the REAL guests: the men. Furthermore, as a woman entering this field, I would be seriously pissed off to attend such a party, just to be lumped in with the girls who were there only to give the guys something to drool over. Ugh.
But they all thought I was being ridiculous, because that's the way all the companies do it, since there are so few professionals who are women. I felt like I was being some sort of extreme feminist looking for something to get offended by.
I don't know. What do you all think?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
As a female engineer I'd be pissed too. However if I wanted to go to the party, I'd take two female friends with me and then we'd get in for free and could dis the stupid guys for being idiots.
AJ
[ March 03, 2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's not just offensive. If it's true, it's the kind of thing that the press jumps all over as a chance for an expose story.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If it's true, it's the kind of thing that the press jumps all over as a chance for an expose story."
No, not really. It's pretty much common knowledge. Heck, most bars and nightclubs still operate under a version of this rule.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
I think its sexist to do something like that and I can't believe that would be policy. I think thats terrible and you give'em hell for it!
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I'm trying to imagine what going to one of these parties would be like. I have the feeling that the stench of desperation would be rank in the air.
If I do ever go to one of these things, I'll be sure to have my wedding band upgraded to be 10x larger, with "TAKEN" crawling across it, stock-ticker style.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
So, Tom, what's your opinion of such policies? Do you think it's reasonable for them to try to even out the ratio of males to females? Should that even be a priority at a company-sponsored event?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, that's bordering on sexual discrimination - particularly if it's a sponsored function.
-Trevor
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's not sexist to ask men to bring a bunch of women to the party.
It is sexist for the men to assume that the women are stupid, etc.
quote: So I posted again, saying that I thought that was ridiculous and sexist, because it clearly set up the women attending the party as being mere eye candy for the enjoyment of the REAL guests: the men. Furthermore, as a woman entering this field, I would be seriously pissed off to attend such a party, just to be lumped in with the girls who were there only to give the guys something to drool over. Ugh.
This does not logically follow. It's an assumption (and possibly sexist?) on your part to think that the men would not respect you for who you are.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
umm so as a female at almost any type of computer conference you're pretty much going to have to expect to be somewhat of a spectacle. I try to make it work to my advantage. I don't really care if the reason person x is talking to me is because I'm a girl. If I can learn about their ideas and such then whatever.
*shrug* I mean I guess it bothers me but I'm starting to get used to such things being that way. I guess my response would have been oh so if I come by myself and am a girl do I just get in?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not a fan of such policy, since it's clearly sexual discrimination. The problem here is that these companies are torn between wanting to make the parties fun and making the parties professional, and they don't always come down on the right side.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It is not sexual discrimination. Quite the opposite.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
The opposite of sexual discrimination is treating people the same regardless of sex.
That is not what this is.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It sounds like a setup for objectification and possibly assault and rape, if there's enough intoxication going on, to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, it's still sexual discrimination, Storm. They're not encouraging people to bring women to get more women interested in CG as a career; they're encouraging guests to bring women to make sure there are women at the party. Which is an important consideration at any party that's going to involve dancing (and even CG geeks dance, in ugly, lurching ways, their ponytails bobbing awkwardly), but is not exactly a professional consideration.
I prefer my conferences to be humorless and unentertaining for precisely this reason; attempts to entertain are almost guaranteed to backfire.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
I feel it is sexist because they told people to bring three females with them. If they just told everyone that their would be dancing, etc., and to bring a date it wouldn't be bad it all. I think this bring three thing takes it too far.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Encouraging more of one sex to be at a function so that the sexes are evenly represented is not discriminatory and says nothing about how the men or the company treat the women. If the company were to keep women or men out, or treat them differently, because of their sex, that would be discriminatory.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: (and even CG geeks dance, in ugly, lurching ways, their ponytails bobbing awkwardly)
I laughed so's the cats could hear.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Whether it's discriminatory or not, it's not appropriate at a company-sponsored party.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I dunno, sarah.... I mean, part of me just wants to go with the flow and accept that this is how things are in a male-dominated, especially male geek-dominated industry... but I'm really uncomfortable about having it spelled out like this by the very companies I could see myself wanting to intern at or work for some day. I mean, I want to be treated the same as my future male coworkers, not feel like I was hired because the office would be more fun with women around. I understand that a lot of geeky CG guys out there are terminally single and somewhat desperate, but frankly, that scares me, and I don't particularly like being reminded of it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think that there's anything intrinsically wrong with the setup. There aren't many women who come to these things and having women at parties usually makes the party more fun for the people there. Where the problem comes in is the (in my opinion warranted) extrapolation that you're making that women at these things are going to be seen primarily as eye-candy.
That's not a problem with the structure. It's a problem with the people. You're basically complaining that guys in CG are socially insecure geeks who look down on women. Wow. Big suprise there. If you, as a women, go to a male dominated geek party, you're going to be objectified and not respected. That's not how it should be in a perfect world, but that's reality.
I don't know. I have problems getting worked up about the basic socialization inequalities between the sexes, especially when we're talking geekdom.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Ridiculous! No women? We're not in the - excuse my vulgarity - phuqing 17th century!
As a man, I feel it very offensive that people of my sex treat the other sex like that. Full equality - that's the rule.
I'd have said "take your biggest-breasted friends and get in there", but that's not any level higher. Honestly, I belive that you should complain, and make the biggest fuss possible. Go as far as needed, just to prove your point.
I'm truly outraged by this behaviour. Shame upon those damn bastards who made up the rule!
JH
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The motives may not have had the intention to be negatively discriminatory, but the execution of the actions come across as such.
Had they wanted to encourage female particpation, they could have actively recruited female engineers, female students and so on.
It's rather depressing this has taken on the overtones of a college frat party for geeks, regardless of initial intent.
-Trevor
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:There aren't many women who come to these things and having women at parties usually makes the party more fun for the people there.
Why? Seriously?
Does it make it more fun for the PEOPLE there, or for the MEN there?
Say there isn't going to be dancing involved. Why does it matter whether there are a lot of women there or not?
I think what bothers me most is that these parties are for CG people. It's a very technical field. If I went to one, I would want to spend a good amount of time talking shop, or at least talking about my other nerdish interests, like how lame it was that FOX cancelled Futurama, or the relative merits of Family Guy's writing team. By encouraging guests to bring anyone with a pair of boobs, it ceases to be a fun gathering of professionals. If 5% of the guests are women who know something about CG and computers in general, but 30% of the guests are women who were brought along just because they look pretty... Ugh. I'm having trouble nailing down exactly why it bothers me.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Probably because women were singled out as having special significance in making the party fun.
Gee, no pressure. And that line of thinking doesn't sound suspect at all. Nope, not at all.
-Trevor
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
I don't find it bad to say having equal sex representation at a party makes it more fun. I think that being only one of a few guys at a mostly all female party can be less fun and having only a few women at a male dominated party is less fun aswell. Not anything related to dating or dancing either. Just that guys and girls tend to do certain things differently and a party with alot of both is more fun.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
You know, as one of the, say, 5% professional women at such a party, I wouldn't get any enjoyment at all out of the, say, 30% non-professional women. I would far prefer to be surrounded by 100% people who shared my interests. That would be the point of going to the party, for me.
However, I'm not always the best indicator of people's social reactions. Would that just be me, or would most women in this field prefer to have other women around, regardless of interests?
Edit: Also, I'm wondering, when this kind of expectation is set up at a party, if it makes it more acceptable for the male guests to see the women as eye candy. Like, if they knew that the only women present were there because they love CG and computers, then the guys would have to accept them on those terms, and treat them the same way that they treat their male colleagues. Because that's what the women would be: colleagues. When a staggering percentage of the female guests are NOT colleagues, and indeed don't even share many of the same interests as the professional guests at the party, doesn't that sort of send the message that the women are there for the men's enjoyment?
[ March 03, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
What's the difference in a pair of testicles talking shop and a pair of boobs talking shop? [Although I do realize with some nerds, this doesn't narrow the field much, but work with me here...]
If the point of this party is industry or theme specific rather than a social mixer, then the priorities should be adjusted accordingly.
-Trevor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, and I may be mistaking this, I figure the central function of the parties is for people to have fun, while also providing an opportunity for networking. I could be completely wrong about that. If these are working things, then I'd disagree with that policy, not because it was sexist, but because it would diluting the capability for the people to work.
As a verteran throwing of parties for the purpose of having fun, I can tell you that it's generally a good idea to have a more or less even male/female ratio at a party. It's more fun for everyone involved. A significant inbalance in either direct changes the social dynamic. Sometimes that can be a good thing but were I throwing a party in a situation like this and I was trying to making it fun, I'd try to get as good a mix as I could.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You know, as one of the, say, 5% professional women at such a party, I wouldn't get any enjoyment at all out of the, say, 30% non-professional women. I would far prefer to be surrounded by 100% people who shared my interests. That would be the point of going to the party, for me.
See, now that's an attitude that sort of bothers me. Part of the job of the host in terms of party socialization is encouraging among people of different interests. The clumping up and exclusion of outsiders is one of the reasons why geek parties suck. Talk shop at the conference. That's what it's there for. You're supposed to go to the party to have fun.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is why, of course, parties should not happen at conferences, because conferences should not be fun.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Even if their aim is to "equalize" the industry, I'd be offended. I want to get a job because I'm good at it, not because they really needed some chicks.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Part of the job of the host in terms of party socialization is encouraging among people of different interests.
This applies only is if it is a individual's party with just a bunch of friends and acquaintances getting together. If it is somehow corporately connected at a specific kind of conference that changes the entire thing. The purpose of that kind of party is for networking, not as much "fun". Yes, everyone may have slightly different interests but all in the same larger industry.
As a female engineer, I've experienced the double negative you get. The guys are talking shop, it is difficult, but you can be accepted if you can talk shop as one of the guys and prove you know your stuff. But, if any of the guys brought a date, then the non-technical female(s) the guys have brought as companionship are often ticked off, monopolizing their men, simply because you speak the same language and enjoy discussing the same things. Even if it wouldn't be a ragingly fun party, far better to restrict it to all geeks than to try to get an even male-female ratio, in a corporate situation.
AJ
[ March 03, 2005, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So great. Be offended. It's not going to help you achieve you goals. If you whine about it, even people who might be sympathetic to your cause are going to tune you out. The best you can accomplish is, if you really push, to get rid of the parties.
That world isn't perfect. Deal.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
You can't get so upset at sexism that you start to see it where it isnt aswell. You can't start saying "they didn't hire me because I'm a woman when they don't hire you AND say they did hire me just because I'm a women" when they do. If you get evidence of something like in this case then I agree that you should get upset about it but don't start jumping at shadows.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Zeugma, if you were one of five women at a party, isn't more likely that A) you'd be hit on a lot within the first half hour and B) the 50-80 guys who figured they don't have a chance with the 5 women would get tired of free drinks and go elsewhere ?
Honestly, I'm suprised with the "uprorar" this has caused here. It's not like these companies have hired these women to come and socialise with the geeks...and although that practise would be desperate, I wouldn't see anything wrong with that either.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Squicky, despite the double negative I expressed... if I chose to go to a party like this, I'd have fun regardless, I'd figure the non-technical chicks just have to suck it up and deal since they let themselves get talked into attending to begin with.
AJ
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yes, you're going to be hired so we can meet our mandated quota of women and minorities.
We won't tell you this of course, so you will always be left to question why you were hired and guess at your qualifications.
Feh. It's an opening - take advantage and move on. It might not be perfect, but getting your foot in the door is not something to be tossed aside lightly.
-Trevor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Banna, The business world isn't that simple. A company that does a good job of entertaining, of holding fun things, will prosper over a equally capable company that doesn't. It is good for the health of a business to throw a kicking party that people are talking about for weeks to come. That's one of the big reasons why they throw parties in the first place.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yes, but let's face it - the approach in question wasn't the best possible option for just this reason.
-Trevor
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Squicky, I would say it depends entirely on the industry as to what form of a "fun" party is acceptable. In the manufacturing sector, where budgets are still tight at the moment, while moderate socialization in a hotel bar would be acceptable, a lavish party as Zeguma describes would be viewed as a horrid waste that cuts into profit margins. Making stockholders and prospective investors upset for two reasons, 1) the waste and 2) what is the company trying to cover up by having a distracting party?
AJ
[ March 03, 2005, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, but she's talking about computer graphics. Completely different situation. They make a living off of people thinking that they and the stuff they turn out is cool.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
To celebrate a perceived success, a company Porter worked for had a lavish party where they flew all the employees out to NY City. I wasn't "invited" to the party, but our child and I came along on the trip for fun. Porter went to the party alone. I don't recall them having any silly rules about bringing ladies.
And the company died few months later.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Squicky, I agree. And as I stated before, I'd likely go to the party and have fun regardless, of the gender inequities that exist. I'd go in with my eyes wide open though *knowing* I'd be objectified.
Objectification doesn't bother me too much because I figure I can use it to my advantage and I've had to deal with it my entire life, being a moderately attractive blonde female. I didn't realize how much I subconsciously used it to my advantage, until I dyed my hair, and the objectification I got from being blonde disappeared.
I also deliberately dress with a baggy grunge bent at times in order to somewhat obscure the fact that I am a moderately attractive female. Because I *do* want to be judged on my brain and not on what I look like. Doing so has helped me be accepted into the "boys club" more rapidly in several situations including my current job.
However if you find objectification in general to be ethically abhorrent and inherently degrading to women, you'd have major issues at a party like this regardless of how competent you were techinically.
AJ
[ March 03, 2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Squicky, I agree. And as I stated before, I'd likely go to the party and have fun regardless, of the gender inequities that exist. I'd go in with my eyes wide open though *knowing* I'd be objectified.
What does 'objectified' mean and how do you know that it would be done to you and would you be doing it to everyone else there?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
If tech geeks weren't horny, there wouldn't be internet porn. Let's face it, in the most sweeping, demeaning, but often too true, generalization, most of the heterosexual tech geeks out there are attracted to anything remotely resembling the female form cause they don't get any very often, they are two busy with their code.
Yes, I would expect them to be checking out my T&A. (I guess that's what I mean by objectifying, checking me out and sizing up my physical attractiveness and assets and detriments.) And yes, I *would* use them checking me out to my advantage, to start up a conversation if it was someone I knew had technical expertise that I was interested in knowing more about. I would also expect that I would be resented by a non technical companion to said geek because once you get a geek talking tech talk they won't stop.
AJ
Would I be doing it to everyone else? It depends. Probably not, or no more than ordinary, because my physical attractiveness standards for checking guys out is pretty high after years of lifeguarding. But every now and then there might be someone that would catch my eye.
[ March 03, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: once you get a geek talking tech talk they won't stop.
Tee hee!
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Banna, I've done exactly the same thing, dress down for parties where I want to be taken more seriously.
Of course, when I went to the state finals for one of the nerd competitions I was on in high school, I was the only girl on the 10-person team, and was completely snubbed by the guys while the teacher cracked jokes about how any woman who wears comfortable shoes is a... well, I guess I won't post it here, a crude term for a lesbian. So... damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Were the company throwing the party a reasonably sucessful one, there'd be plenty of objectification of the men by some of the women too. They'd go after the guys with the most money.
There's plenty of dishonesty and objectification on either side of male - female interaction. There's plenty in intrasex interaction too. That's just the way the world is.
Men still have more power, so the more overt inbalances tend to favor them. If this were a case where someone was being denied access to resources because of their gender, that'd be a different thing entirely. But this is just complaining that the world isn't all rainbows and sunshine. I agree, but bitching about it isn't going to achieve anything. We might as well have a gripe session about how people tend to resent people who are smarter than they are.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah, Zeguma, I know. In this case, given the specific "party" circumstances you describe, I'd pretty much flaunt what nature gave me I think. If any guy is stupid enough to think I'd actually sleep with them it is their problem. But it's always a judgement call as to which route you go.
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Of course, when I went to the state finals for one of the nerd competitions I was on in high school, I was the only girl on the 10-person team, and was completely snubbed by the guys while the teacher cracked jokes about how any woman who wears comfortable shoes is a... well, I guess I won't post it here, a crude term for a lesbian. So... damned if you do, damned if you don't.
*feels hackles rising*
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Squick it *is* about being denied resources. As a female, in a technical field if you aren't being taken seriously you are often denied opportunities. You could easily be judged against for *not* going to the party, even if you didn't feel comfortable attending.
Yeah you have to live with the inequities and get on with life regardless, but are you telling me that someone shouldn't be aware that the inequities exist and figure out the appropriate actions that one should take to get the most optimum result?
AJ
[ March 03, 2005, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I agree, but bitching about it isn't going to achieve anything.
If it brings it to the attention of those who perpetuate these inequalities, I'd say it is a good way to acheive something. If you are preaching to the choir, then it doesn't acheive much except sympathy--which does have some value.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Way back when I was a freshman engineering student my project group was meeting in one of the guy’s dorm room. When the question of what we should wear for our presentation came up, one of the guys leered at me and indicated a lace-lingerie clad model on a poster under his loft.
I told him I thought he’d look great in it, but suggested that the rest of us wear business attire.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Yep, Banna, I'm with you on this. When it comes down to it, I'm motivated and independent enough to put up with a lot of crap if it means achieving my goals.
Doesn't mean I have to like the crap, though.
I am glad to see that it doesn't look like I was overreacting, plenty of people here seem to think there's something wrong with the policy, too.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I told him I thought he’d look great in it, but suggested that the rest of us wear business attire.
If I had a scriptwriter, I could be so witty. I'd hire Dana for the job.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Oh my, and then, especially in engineering, there is the question of exactly how short or long your skirt should be for a business suit, and what color. Anything innovative is bad,because engineering is a traditional institution. It should only be black, grey, or navy. Colored blouses can be bad. Showing some leg can be good, because it will get you the job you want if some of them are dirty old men A@@holes. But the conservative married fuddyduddies, will worry about what their wives will say, because you are remotely attractive. And pants can be bad because they mean you aren't traditional or feminine enough. (Though these days I'd say to heck with it and wear pants anyway.)
AJ
[ March 03, 2005, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Wow, yeah, that would be tough for me. I can't remember the last time I wore a skirt.
With the places I'd like to work at, I'd be worrying more about what neon color I should dye my hair to fit in. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
This specific instance is not about dnying resources. As I said, the party itself and the "bring three chicks - get in free" policy isn't intrinsically sexist. It takes on that character because of the background context that it's occuring in.
I agree that, overall, women not being treated seriously is a problem. In this specific instance, I can easily see the side of the people throwing the party and I don't think there's anything to be achieved.
If you can come up with something productive than can be done in this particular case, I'd be both amazed and supportive, but the thing is, they're geeks and they're guys. There's just not that much to be done about that.
I'm a single man. I enjoy attractive female company. When I go to a party, regardless of the background, I'm looking to enjoy myself and will do so more if there are attractive women around. I'm not going to appologize for that. I also try to judge people on the abilities that are revelant to what I'm judging them on. Most of the world doesn't. I'm sorry that this is the way things are and I'm board if you've got a way to change it, but I'm not going to blame people who are throwing a party for trying to make it a fun party, just like I don't get upset when bars have ladies' nights. They're taking advantage of fundamental social imbalances in order to further their goals. I'm not going to be the one to say that they should shoot themselves in the foot by avoiding to do so.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: If tech geeks weren't horny, there wouldn't be internet porn. Let's face it, in the most sweeping, demeaning, but often too true, generalization, most of the heterosexual tech geeks out there are attracted to anything remotely resembling the female form cause they don't get any very often, they are two busy with their code.
Yes, I would expect them to be checking out my T&A. (I guess that's what I mean by objectifying, checking me out and sizing up my physical attractiveness and assets and detriments.) And yes, I *would* use them checking me out to my advantage, to start up a conversation if it was someone I knew had technical expertise that I was interested in knowing more about. I would also expect that I would be resented by a non technical companion to said geek because once you get a geek talking tech talk they won't stop.
So, basically, objectification is when someone sees someone else as sexually attractive for their physical attributes.
Let me be honest and upfront and say that I totally loathe the term 'objectification'. To me, it's a totally sexist description of male sexual attraction. You can say that it applies equally to men and women, but let's face it, it's almost exclusively applied to when men find women's bodies beautiful. It connotes men somehow being unable to see women for anything other than as sexual creatures and connotes that doing so is, a priori, 'bad'.
I get really annoyed with members on this forum because it seems like the same flippin' things are said sixty million times and no one listens. To repeat a point that's been made repeatedly on this forum many times, just because men can see women as sexual beings doesn't mean that they can't see them for their other attributes. Men seeing women as physcially beautiful doesn't, as one poster commented upthread, mean that we're going to assault women and rape. As has been noted a billion times, rape/assault is an action of power that is done regardless of how someone looks, k?
But let's leave that aside and assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. I put to you that the basic question at the root of 'objectification' is whether or not men have control over their desire. If men do have control over their desire, then this renders the problem of 'objectification' inert because if men can desire a woman and then stop that desire and speak to her in a non-sexual fashion, there is no problem. On the other hand, if men can't control their desire, then this renders the problem of objectification inert since it's just descriptive of a force of nature. Why get angry at a dog for being a dog?
To speak to the thread subject, I don't think the party is going to cause men to look at women in general, or zeugma in particular, any differently. I think the request for more women is a recognition that many men in CG are lonely than that they can't see women for qualities other than sexual. I agree with AJ that all zeugma has to do is open her mouth and make it clear to those men that are slow on the uptake that she's more than just a body and everything will be cool.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:So, basically, objectification is when someone sees someone else as sexually attractive for their physical attributes.
This isn't the problem. The problem comes when women are given advantages because of their looks that should have nothing to do with sex. Like choosing a more attractive woman over a more qualified woman. Though, honestly, I don't know to what extent this actually happens.
quote:Why get angry at a dog for being a dog? [Wink]
Because we expect them to be human.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
quote:Though, honestly, I don't know to what extent this actually happens.
There are a hundred studies that show that tall, attractive people of both sexes earn more, get hired more often, and are better served than their counterparts.
For the party, any party you have to pay to attend sounds lame. If they have to beg for people, why are they having it? I HATE the forced parties at conferences, which I why I don't like attending conferences with co-workers. When I go by myself, I can duck out and find the guy playing the piano in the empty room down the hall. Much better.
[ March 03, 2005, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I'm discussing this with my nerdy friends and I wanted to know which convention
You don't have to tell me which studio's hosting the party, but for the purposes of the discussion it would be helpful.
BTW my take on it is that at the very least, it's tacky.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Siggraph, of course.
And kat, the tickets don't cost money, they're just to control the number of people there. They get some big-name music acts, so they have to regulate it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Are you even going to bother responding to what I posted or just ignore everything?
quote: quote:So, basically, objectification is when someone sees someone else as sexually attractive for their physical attributes.
This isn't the problem. The problem comes when women are given advantages because of their looks that should have nothing to do with sex. Like choosing a more attractive woman over a more qualified woman. Though, honestly, I don't know to what extent this actually happens.
Correct. If bias is shown, THAT is the problem. Desire does NOT mean that bias will be shown. Appreciation for the physical form does NOT mean bias will be shown.
[ March 03, 2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Stormy, I don't like the word "objectification" either. But there are those out there who believe it is inherently bad which is why I used it, because it *would* be happening at the party. I am not necessarily one of them. I'm not opposed to the sex industry, and believe prostitution should be legalized, regulated for safety and taxed. I love nudes, both male and female. Lol, my friends even have pictures of me looking at Playboy centerfolds. My favorite nudes are athletes though. There is a reason why I like watching the Tour de France on TV. <grin>
But, in another time and place, the majority of the guys in CG would have been in monastaries, and the women would have been in convents. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. With sex mostly out of the equation, then they can have healthy friendships without all of the social/sexual complications and it makes relationships with either sex much simpler. Look at the rise in Aspergers' and Autism in Silicon Valley because geeks are reproducing. While I enjoy sex as much as anyone, I have serious reservations about reproducing myself, especially since both my significant other and I score extremely high into Asperger's ranges on self-tests.
Loneliness is a personal problem even if it may apply across a group. While good for the sake of the party itself, bringing more women to a party is an extremely shallow, temporary fix, and in the long run can cause more harm than good. It allows them to *not* deal with their personal social problems and pretend that they don't exist. It isn't that they can't control their sexual appetites. I would expect them to be able to. It's that the entire party is so artificial and that it perpetuates skewed notions of intelligence and sexuality across the board, with both sexes that is the real problem.
AJ
[ March 03, 2005, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Heh that was their guess, Siggraph.
(A friend of mine went last year to present a paper, actually)
One of my friends is attempting (somewhat devil's advocate) to defend possible reasons for the industry's policy.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Are you even going to bother responding to what I posted or just ignore everything?
I didn't ignore what you said. I only responded to the things I had something to say about. My point is that if objectification is nothing more than finding someone attractive, I agree with you that there is no problem. If there is bias, there is a problem. We apparently agree.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Neat, Siggraph is in Boston next year, on my side of the country. I am SO there.
Of course, what'll happen, once again, is I'll get an internship in San Francisco next summer, leaving me on the wrong coast.
Well, if I do get to go, I'll be sure to record my party experiences here. I could make a whole experiment out of it, vary my clothing and such... Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Loneliness is a personal problem even if it may apply across a group. While good for the sake of the party itself, bringing more women to a party is an extremely shallow, temporary fix, and in the long run can cause more harm than good. It allows them to *not* deal with their personal social problems and pretend that they don't exist. It isn't that they can't control their sexual appetites. I would expect them to be able to. It's that the entire party is so artificial and that it perpetuates skewed notions of intelligence and sexuality across the board, with both sexes that is the real problem.
I do not understand why trying to get more women to come to a party perpetuates 'skewed notions'. I'm sure the geeks at the party would be overjoyed to have intelligent geek girls there. Honestly, every geek I know loves geeky, intelligent girls.
Again, my whole point is that just because men like women sexually doesn't mean that they can't percieve women's minds, and like them, too. Really, ladies. Our drool cups do not runneth over.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Again, my whole point is that just because men like women sexually doesn't mean that they can't percieve women's minds, and like them, too.
I agree... to a point. I don't think the party situation indicated, by its very nature, gives much credence to a woman's mind and could cause situations where drool cups *do* run over. I don't think it is the "geeky" girls that are being encouraged to attend by this policy. I think it is the vapid eye candy types that would show up, because they are so clueless that they wouldn't care that every third word would be over their heads. And some tech people can be happy ending up with these types. (But, I have seen drool cups run over, before so it does happen. Every single guy in my engineering class drooled over a particular, smart beautiful girl in it and watched every move she made. The rest of us girls got to hear all about how wonderful she was and how perfect her body was... And if I was a guy, I would have been drooling too, she was beautiful by any standard.)
And ask every single geeky woman on this forum. While many of us have found stable relationships, it is a very arduous road to tread to find one. Yeah decent geek guys will like you and respect you, but it is nearly always in a sisterly fashion. If someone is in awe of your mind they are nearly always too intimidated to ask you out, due to the usual geek lack of self-confidence about anything social. Then there are the sleazy geek guys, the ones you have to watch out for, and they don't wear name tags.
AJ
[ March 03, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Yeah decent geek guys will like you and respect you, but it is nearly always in a sisterly fashion. If someone is in awe of your mind they are nearly always too intimidated to ask you out, due to the usual geek lack of self-confidence about anything social."
If it's any consolation, this applies in reverse, too.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Lol, Tom, you are right. One of my major regrets from college is that there are a couple of guys I didn't ask out. But with the one guy that I did, it created a bit of awkwardness later when we attempted to define the relationship. He had enough masculine pride that while we are still friends, I think part of the reason why the relationship never worked out was because it wasn't the old fashioned way.
AJ
[ March 03, 2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Not to mention it applies to things other than intelligence - looks, money, position, status, etc.
How many men are comfortable with the idea of their wives making six figure salaries while they stay at home?
How many men would be comfortable approaching a mind-blowingly beautiful woman without wondering "yeah, what could she see in a freak like me?"
The short, sad story is men (for the most part) are not emotionally mature adults and we will continue to define ourselves by social convention and our own biases.
And lest we wander too far down one side of the gene pool - women can be every bit as shallow and narrow-minded as the men.
-Trevor
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I agree... to a point. I don't think the party situation indicated, by its very nature, gives much credence to a woman's mind and could cause situations where drool cups *do* run over. I don't think it is the "geeky" girls that are being encouraged to attend by this policy.
All that was said was, what, three women and you get in free? I don't recall the specification be that they be good looking or dumb. This does not say anything at all about women's minds. Zero. Nada. Nothing. This is my point. I think it is an assumption that because men are acting on their sexual impulses in wanting women to come that they would not, or cannot, or fosters their inability to see women for anything else or render them blind to a woman's other abilities> And why wouldn"t geek girls come to meet geek guys or just to talk shop or whatever and get a foot in the door?
quote: And ask every single geeky woman on this forum. While many of us have found stable relationships, it is a very arduous road to tread to find one. Yeah decent geek guys will like you and respect you, but it is nearly always in a sisterly fashion. If someone is in awe of your mind they are nearly always too intimidated to ask you out, due to the usual geek lack of self-confidence about anything social. Then there are the sleazy geek guys, the ones you have to watch out for, and they don't wear name tags.
I don't know what to say to this. Speaking as a geek guy, I have never, ever seen this. Any woman that shows even the vaguest interest in comic books or RPGs or science fiction is snatched up by their fellow geeks so quick they get whiplash. The only thing I can think of is that you're speaking of non-geek guys and you just thought they were geeks. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: And ask every single geeky woman on this forum. While many of us have found stable relationships, it is a very arduous road to tread to find one. Yeah decent geek guys will like you and respect you, but it is nearly always in a sisterly fashion.
I never had much trouble finding a guy willing to think I was teh awesome. But he was usually geeky in some way. I might have had a lot of trouble finding a *non* geeky guy to think the same of me, but then, that never interested me much. I likes my geeks. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
yay>
(my keyboard is flipping out>)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Stormy, I think we agree more than we disagree here. I think we agree in general, but are just applying different criteria to this situation. I'm not a man-hater by any stretch, nor am I trying to knock men in general. I just believe this situation would bring out more unhealthy negatives than positives for everyone concerned.
As far as my situation in particular and several of my friends, I think it is because we are/were UberGeeks. If guys are coming to you for help with class homework problems, they are far less likely to ask you out. I had to have a guy who was *extremely* secure in his own identity so that he wasn't threatened or intimidated by me. Which indeed I ended up with, but not easily.
I also do think that the situation improves and people become more secure in themselves as they age. So perhaps the same guys that wouldn't ask me out at age 22 because they thought I was too far above them, and had me on a pedestal that I never asked to be on, would ask me out at age 30, when they realized that I didn't deserve to be on a pedestal any more than anyone else. It happened to me once already, with a guy I knew in CA. But, although it was basically gratifying to hear that he told me he'd made a mistake back then in not pursuing a relationship with me, it was too little, too late, now. I have a companion I'm extremely happy with and I'm not going to throw that away!
AJ
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Storm, I think the difference is that even geeks have their standards. (Not speaking of you specifically, AJ. You're hot. ) We're as attracted to eye candy as any jock; we just can't usually get it. If a female geek is also moderately physically attractive, then yes--she'll be snapped up immediately. If she's not, then at least some of the guys will hang back hoping for someone better. Conversely, some geeky guys assume that anyone good-looking is taken, and ignore really attractive women (except to secretly ogle) on that basis.
Oh, and it may make me a geek to say it, AJ, but it looks to me like most of the traits of Asperger's are positive rather than negative. To heck with social interaction! Give me people who can think straight!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"it looks to me like most of the traits of Asperger's are positive rather than negative"
Hm. To me, they seem positively crippling. Not being able to sense and respond to the emotions of other people in an appropriate way seems to me like a cruel and debilitating disease. Then again, I'm so extroverted that my sense of self extends fully twenty feet from my body; it's been known to knock over houseplants.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Then again, I'm so extroverted that my sense of self extends fully twenty feet from my body; it's been known to knock over houseplants.
Tom, I love you!
See I'm extroverted, in that I like interacting with people. But part of the reason I enjoy it, is because they are so mysterious to me. I don't *get* many of the visual clues. I score horribly on those faces/emotions tests. But I like a challenge so I enjoy it. I very much go off verbal cues, more so than physical cues. I have to consciously apply logic to the physical cues so that I intepret them correctly.
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I know you're not a manhater or anything like that, AJ. Unfortunately, you're getting some of the discharge that should be going to other people, I think. Pardon.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Pardon granted and forgotten.
AJ
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Tom, I don't pay a lot of attention to other people, especially emotionally. I find having to deal with their emotions draining. If we could interact with each other on a more rational level--if I didn't have to constantly worry about people taking offense or not listening because they're depressed or whatever--I'd have a lot fewer problems and be a lot less introverted.
Yeah, I know--I wouldn't care about having fun then anyway. But it's a nice theory.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Tom, I love you!![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
But it's a nice theory.