

Nothing But A Bunch of Boobs - Mz
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/02/nothing-but-bunch-of-boobs.html

======
rdtsc
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.

------
oinksoft
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?

~~~
mwfunk
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).

~~~
batiudrami
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?

~~~
nemothekid
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.

~~~
batiudrami
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.

~~~
nemothekid
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).

~~~
jack-r-abbit
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.

------
gavanwoolery
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.

~~~
__--__
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

~~~
Herald_MJ
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.

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

~~~
y4mi
the first two points still have to apply for a successful execution of the
third point however.

------
mwfunk
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.

------
cupcake-unicorn
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.

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

------
pubby
> 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.

------
andrewflnr
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.

------
andrewflnr
Much better than one would guess from the title.

~~~
Mz
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.

~~~
andrewflnr
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.

~~~
Mz
Thank you.

------
yojo
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.

~~~
dsuth
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).

