[davidpayne11]

There is a very thin line between being a feminist and being an asshole. The problem with these women, who claim to be angered by women being treated as objects is that they don't identify the real problem.

Women are attracted to men and men are attracted to women. This is basic nature and no one can change it. Using either to sell a product is not exactly sexism. For example, many deodorants use both male and female models to promote their products.

Sexism in my definition would be when given the same opportunity, when one gender is being paid or treated better than another gender, that would be sexism, because someone is being treated unfair.

What hypermac (the company in question) did was not wrong. They hired models who were for god's sake ready to do it. They were ready to accept money and stand nude on their product exhibit. It would have been unfair if they were treated unfair, or against their will, none of which had happened.

The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified - either for money or for some other form of compromise. This is the real problem. As long as such women exist, the product makers and corporations would obviously use them. So, if you want this to stop, you have to revolt when someone from your own gender (male/female) is ready to represent your gender infront of a public audience and accept to be objectified for money. Don't go after the corporation that hired them, instead ask these people why they let them objectify you, on behalf of you/your gender in the first place. This is the real problem.

I love the way that these rogue women go after men (and vice versa) only because they want an apology to feel superior and write a blog post about it.

I think it must have been a great marketing campaign for HyperMac and the guy was right - These people deserved no apology for this particular event and this particular event alone (please don't generalize this conclusion).

There's a great saying - Any publicity is good publicity. I hope these feminists realize this and stop fucking themselves up like this, publicly.

[mercurial]

> The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified - either for money or for some other form of compromise. This is the real problem. As long as such women exist, the product makers and corporations would obviously use them. So, if you want this to stop, you have to revolt when someone from your own gender (male/female) is ready to represent your gender infront of a public audience and accept to be objectified for money. Don't go after the corporation that hired them, instead ask these people why they let them objectify you, on behalf of you/your gender in the first place. This is the real problem

Either you think objectifying women is wrong, or you don't. If you do, then it's absolutely logical to go after the people deciding to run their marketing campaign this way. You will always find people ready to do whatever if you put enough money on the table. It doesn't mean it's not wrong.

[randomdata]

What I fail to understand is why objectification of the body is wrong, but objectification of the mind is normal, if not encouraged.

We spend a lot of time trying to make individual thought into an interchangeable machine. You don't even have to dig very deep in HN to see people boasting about the benefits of a college education, or why you should drop out, in order to make yourself like just like everyone else, creating an "us vs them" mentality. Then we put the most attractive minds on display for all to see. "Buy this and you can be smart and successful just like me!"

Exploiting a woman to display her body to sell a laptop battery is no more wrong than exploiting a woman to use her mind to create the battery in the first place. In either case, we are not appreciating the person for being a person, just an object that gets the job done.

Women are not free of problems because of their gender, but this case seems entirely about a non-sensical shame of the human body.

[mercurial]

Interesting analogy. This actually made me pause and think for a while.

However, I think it is ultimately flawed. The message here is clearly targeted at the reptilian part of heterosexual male brains: buying this battery is like buying this woman to bed her. Straightforward and effective.

Saying "do this and be smart just like me" works in a completely different way. It does reduce people to one dimension: their success, while ignoring their appreciation for the finer points of Zoroastrianism. But I would not call it exploitative. You put forward a positive quality (business skill, programming chops, whatever) and you encourage people to take action and work to acquire it. This is a fairly positive message.

I would say also that paying a woman to create a battery (provided the compensation is fair) is not exploitation. In this context, we are not talking about economic exploitation, but exploitation of heterosexual male lust in ways which send out the message that women are nothing better than sex toys.

To every straight, at least moderately attractive male who have trouble understanding how this can be an issue, I suggest to challenge yourselves and go out to a gay night club on a Friday night. If anything, this should be an interesting experience, and may help you understand some things which can make women uncomfortable.

[randomdata]

You definitely make some great points. I do, however, wonder why you consider business skills a positive quality, but being a sex toy a negative quality? Neither is inherently good or inherently bad.

I expect it is because the woman is viewed as a sex toy without getting to choose to be one? However, the stereotype about a man's wallet seems to play into the same idea. A man who looks wealthy is going to be assumed to be a smart businessman, even if he wishes to not be seen that way.

I admit that I still don't fully understand, and maybe it is impossible for me to fully do so, but I'm glad we can talk openly about it to learn more.

- "I suggest to challenge yourselves and go out to a gay night club on a Friday night."

I have actually done this and found it to be a fun and positive experience. Nothing creepy or uncomfortable about it. I guess I am, perhaps, too ugly to have experienced what you are talking about?

[mercurial]

> You definitely make some great points. I do, however, wonder why you consider business skills a positive quality, but being a sex toy a negative quality? Neither is inherently good or inherently bad. > > I expect it is because the woman is viewed as a sex toy without getting to choose to be one? However, the stereotype about a man's wallet seems to play into the same idea. A man who looks wealthy is going to be assumed to be a smart businessman, even if he wishes to not be seen that way.

But society does not see businessmen in the same light as sex toys. At all.

The problem is that we've been living in a patriarcal society for a long, long while. Sending the message "women are sex toys" also means "women are sex toys, nothing more - they are here for your enjoyment". It's a message that they are not in a position of power, contrary to the businessman. They are not equal.

> I have actually done this and found it to be a fun and positive experience. Nothing creepy or uncomfortable about it. I guess I am, perhaps, too ugly to have experienced what you are talking about?

It's a bit difficult to explain. Imagine suddenly that somebody sees you as just a piece of meat, ready to be consumed and thrown out afterward. This is not a pleasant feeling. And congrats for challenging yourself!

[randomdata]

So would you say the root problem is our puritan shame of sex, as I suggested earlier? If a sexual person was held in the same regard as a business person, wouldn't that be something to strive towards, not shy away from?

"It's a bit difficult to explain. Imagine suddenly that somebody sees you as just a piece of meat, ready to be consumed and thrown out afterward. This is not a pleasant feeling."

See, I wish people would value me for my body in that way. It is the constant having to prove myself with my mind, instead, that made me think of the original comparison. Without being able to fully understand what you are feeling, it seems like it could be the same thing in many ways – ultimately rejecting what you have and seeking what you don't have.

[king_jester]

It's true the interaction between companies and their employees has issues, esp. with regards to employees whose output is more mental than physical.

But objectifying women's bodies to sell a product is sexual objectification[1]. The issue with this is that we live in a society where attitudes that women do not control their bodies or that others get to control those bodies is a root cause of sexual violence against women and promotes an attitude that blames victims of such violence for being the cause of that violence. Keep in mind that for the vast majority of history in the western world, women were treated literally as objects and were bartered and sold and denied protection of the law when assaulted (this last point arguably is still true).

The difference between that objectification and the kind that occurs when a business simply treats you as a faceless output unit is that sexual objectification mainly has negative effects for women compared to men. The tech world has a long history of contributing to that objectification of women in a way that doesn't apply to men, who are the most common type of worker in the tech industry (that isn't to say that there aren't issues for tech workers with their jobs).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification

[wahnfrieden]

Very different issues you're talking about. It's disingenuous to equate them, but nice slip of rhetoric.

[randomdata]

What you say may be true, but I fail to see the difference. That is why I brought it up. I'm open to learning and understanding more about the subject, but simply passing it off as rhetoric doesn't really help the cause. Care to explain what you mean?

[wahnfrieden]

If you apply enough reductive logic, anything can seem to be the same thing.

[randomdata]

Surely, but that doesn't explain why this case is not reductive in the way I have presented. You can claim anything to be not true, but that doesn't make the claim true.

If we want to progress women's rights, we need to be able to talk about the problems, not just sweep everything under the rug with "No, you are wrong."

[saraid216]

> The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified

Root cause analysis, please. Five why's. You've answered one.

[mwetzler]

I've never been called a "rogue woman" before. That's awesome. It's funny how women having an opinion is so offensive to some people.

[jamesaguilar]

I love the unintentional imagery of feminists as rebels against the system, with the implication that the rebellion is unjust and the correct behavior would be to know one's role. The term "rogue woman" about someone standing up for equality is so offensive it almost makes me laugh.

[wahnfrieden]

Taking money for something does not mean that you're comfortable with it, that you're not being exploited (unknowingly or not), that what you did was right, that you understand the context of your actions, etc. Being a man or woman does not mean you speak for all men or women.

[wizzard]

> The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified - either for money or for some other form of compromise. This is the real problem. As long as such women exist, the product makers and corporations would obviously use them. So, if you want this to stop, you have to revolt when someone from your own gender (male/female) is ready to represent your gender infront of a public audience and accept to be objectified for money. Don't go after the corporation that hired them, instead ask these people why they let them objectify you, on behalf of you/your gender in the first place.

Why do people accept money to do things? What a great question. That ranks right up there with "Why do prisoners want to escape from prison?"

Everyone has a price. If someone told you they'd pay you a million dollars to stand naked for a few hours in front of a gaggle of lecherous old ladies, I bet you'd do it. Scruples don't pay rent or put food on the table. Maybe your price is higher, or maybe it's lower like these models, but at some point you'd do it.

[king_jester]

> Women are attracted to men and men are attracted to women. This is basic nature and no one can change it.

Except when, you know, they are gay or on the asexual spectrum.

> Using either to sell a product is not exactly sexism. For example, many deodorants use both male and female models to promote their products.

People aren't objecting to the existence of ad, but rather that this marketing reduced women's bodies to a commercial commodity. Lack of self agency and a women's body as property is a very sexist issue that is present in US culture today and affects many.

> Sexism in my definition would be when given the same opportunity, when one gender is being paid or treated better than another gender, that would be sexism, because someone is being treated unfair.

This is the case today. We have well documented instances of individual sexist treatment and systemic sexist treatment, mostly towards women.

> What hypermac (the company in question) did was not wrong. They hired models who were for god's sake ready to do it. They were ready to accept money and stand nude on their product exhibit. It would have been unfair if they were treated unfair, or against their will, none of which had happened.

Getting a job isn't some kind of process that occurs in a cultural vacuum, a lot goes into why people take on jobs that are sexist in nature. Also, just because the company can hire models for sexist marketing doesn't mean they should.

> The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified - either for money or for some other form of compromise.

This is victim blaming at its prime. You are blaming cultural objectification of women on women.

> So, if you want this to stop, you have to revolt when someone from your own gender (male/female) is ready to represent your gender infront of a public audience and accept to be objectified for money.

This directly against what feminism is even about in the first place. Feminism doesn't proscribe that you attack women who exercise their self autonomy. In fact, telling women to attack other women who act in a way they don't approve of is a common way to sow discord and distract people from the larger social and cultural issues that affect their lives. That is, you are telling people to ignore context and attack other people who are just as affected by our society as they are.

> Don't go after the corporation that hired them, instead ask these people why they let them objectify you, on behalf of you/your gender in the first place. This is the real problem.

That you see no problem with ignoring corporate behavior and attacking individuals speaks a lot about how you feel with regards to corporate domination and control over people's lives.

> I love the way that these rogue women go after men (and vice versa) only because they want an apology to feel superior and write a blog post about it.

Lol "rogue women"

> There's a great saying - Any publicity is good publicity. I hope these feminists realize this and stop fucking themselves up like this, publicly.

So now feminists are fucking themselves up because a company engaged in sexist marketing and people called that out? What's really fucked up here is how willing you are to defend companies and marketing over the actual lives and experiences of people who are directly affected by that kind of sexist marketing.

[olgagalchenko]

Hahahah. The first line is gold. Took the words right out of my mouth.