So someone set 0xB16B00B5 as the guest ID in the hyper-v code in the Linux kernel, and some other people got offended and asked Microsoft to change it.
I don't see the problem, I don't know how someone could be offended because of this. And as Paule Bolle says [1], it can be changed without breaking anything.
The only serious thing that comes to mind about this is the MS Trustworthy Computing initiative, but I don't think it has anything to say here.
Dear god. Microsoft ought just chill. Anyone offended by a Hex string needs iCouch.me. It would be different if it were some Nazi slogan or some Al Sharpton quote. Either way, it's in Hex. Consider it a funny Easter egg. Let the nerds have some fun! After all, for some MS engineers, that's a close to big boobies as they'll ever get.
It's a bit bigger of an issue than that. There's nothing wrong with easter eggs, but the big issue here is that it is a sexist remark at a time when women are having a difficult time making it in many STEM fields, specifically software development, directly because of the actions like this that affect them in the workplace.
I doubt there was any sexist intent (regardless of perception). The fact is that there are a limited number of intelligible strings that can be made out of 8 hex chars and this is one of them that brought a smile to somebody's face. If we seriously consider that guy to be some sort of misogynist, then should we also consider OxDEADBEEF to be a radical vegan statement?
The fact that it was without intent indicates to me how poorly many people understand the effects of comments that objectify women's bodies. If there wasn't already a pre-existing culture in which women expect to find themselves judged for their bodies more than for their aptitude at their jobs, then 0xBI6B00B5 wouldn't matter so much. As it is, it serves to reinforce the existing perception (and unfortunately, the existing reality) that women are judged by different criteria from their male colleagues. Combine this with stereotype threat [1], and you get that the effects are decidedly harmful, even in the absence of sexist intent.
I doubt that removing the specific magic number in this case really helps much, though. Rather, I think that it is important to establish a standard that this kind of thing is not in keeping with professional standards or with human decency towards one's colleagues. Given that most people really do seem to mean well, having that awareness and empathy about the direct and indirect effects of seemingly innocuous choices like this can only help make programming a better career choice for all involved.
Although I obviously understand how you formed your analogy, I just don't see how it's actually analogous. Software development is a male-dominated field, and the objectification of body parts is much more prevalent with women's breasts than with male genitalia. If we lived in a world where males felt uncomfortable working in software development environments due to repeated sexual harassment by their predominantly female co-workers and where billboards and music videos were filled with gratuitous imagery of male genitals, then this might be analogous. But that kind of hypothetical is way beyond my imagination.
That's fair. However, I don't understand what "objectification of body parts is". Men are attracted to big breasts, small waists and large hips, women are attracted to broad shoulders and big arms (or so I am led to believe).
Body parts are objects. I don't expect my broad shoulders to be able to hold a reasoned debate for long. What do you mean by objectification? If the fact that someone is attracted to "big boobs" and putting it in some source code is anathema, does the same thing happen with "intelligence is hot"? If not, why is one acceptable and the other not?
Granted, I haven't thought about these issues long, so my mind can easily be changed if someone demonstrates errors, but it seems to me that we went from "some men need to stop being creeps and hit on women at least during work hours" to "any mention of any attraction ever is forbidden".
"Objectification of body parts" was poor phrasing on my part. The issue is the sexual objectification of women, in this case reducing them to their component body parts (e.g., "big boobs"). A woman is more than a set of breasts—she's a human—yet you often see well endowed women used in advertising as nothing more than highly sexualized decoration with a disproportionate focus on their breasts (or other parts). This is the sort of objectification I'm talking about (and it happens in more forms than this and in more than just advertising).
I don't think this isn't even a matter of stating attraction to "big boobs." This is merely saying "big boobs" for laughs. It's the kind of stuff young children do (see also: the penis game), so I'm not sure why anyone's rushing to defend this sort of behavior.
Let me ask you this, though. Suppose you work as a developer (as you likely do), and you're tasked with welcoming a new female developer to the team and bringing her up to speed on the system she'll be working on. While opening up the source code and explaining one particularly peculiar section, you come across this constant:
BIGBOOBS = 0xB16B00B5;
How comfortable are you showing off this bit of code to the new developer? How comfortable do you think the new female developer would be in this situation?
> yet you often see well endowed women used in advertising as nothing more than highly sexualized decoration with a disproportionate focus on their breasts (or other parts)
That is because the advertisers want to show something that will immediately capture the attention of their target audience. You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (or even specifically) men.
A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad. I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all. It's human nature to be attracted to the opposite sex, and the most available factor is external appearance.
> This is merely saying "big boobs" for laughs. It's the kind of stuff young children do (see also: the penis game), so I'm not sure why anyone's rushing to defend this sort of behavior.
I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an issue".
I am equally (un)comfortable showing this to a female developer as I am to a male developer. I find it childish and might be a bit embarrassed, not because of the gender of the new hire, but because it's a childish and unprofessional thing to have in code.
I am not sure how comfortable the female developer would be, I assume she'd laugh it off, but that's projecting my own feelings onto hers. If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically.
> A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do much for a 20-second ad.
Right, of course not. As I mentioned earlier, advertising is not the only medium in which this sort of objectification is prevalent.
> I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all.
Again, I don't think you can simply swap genders and call it a fair analogy. Additionally, at least in my experience, the number of advertisements, music videos, etc. that use the sex appeal of female body parts for commercial purposes far outweighs the number of equivalent things using tan, muscular, and similarly exposed men for commercial purposes.
> I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an issue".
When confronted with criticism, arguing that the subject at hand is not a big deal is defense, is it not? I'm not saying anyone's promoting more use of 0xB16B00B5 in code, but there seem to be several commenters in here saying it's fine.
> If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically.
It's actually not moot. I was interested in how you thought a woman might react—a question only you can answer. The actual reactions of women would vary quite widely from one to the next, of course. I'm sure some would laugh it off; I'm sure some would be offended. Personally, I'd be afraid that more women than men would be uncomfortable in this situation, and I don't like the idea of a development culture that makes women feel less comfortable or welcome than men. That's why I personally find it offensive. If you think women would be just as comfortable with this as men, then I would understand why you would not find it offensive.
> That's simply not true. See [...] for plenty of counter-examples.
Hmm, the page of counterexamples you listed seems to be about making women feel "sexy" (it's on the ad for many of them), so it makes sense they would show "sexy" women, just like selling clothes and other items that would make men feel masculine would show buff men.
> As I mentioned earlier, advertising is not the only medium in which this sort of objectification is prevalent.
Hmm, which other media is it prevalent in that could display other qualities of a woman for the same purpose instead?
> Again, I don't think you can simply swap genders and call it a fair analogy.
I will concede that.
> When confronted with criticism, arguing that the subject at hand is not a big deal is defense, is it not?
I am not sure about this. "It's right and you shouldn't be offended" isn't the same as "it's wrong for different reasons and isn't a big deal anyway".
> It's actually not moot. I was interested in how you thought a woman might react—a question only you can answer.
Ah, okay. I answered that above, then.
> That's why I personally find it offensive. If you think women would be just as comfortable with this as men, then I would understand why you would not find it offensive.
I think this is the crux of the issue. I think women wouldn't have a problem with it, so that's why I don't have a problem with it. Maybe it's societal, though, as we can't assume the US technology sector culture is universal and the same as in other countries (I live in Greece).
> Hmm, the page of counterexamples you listed seems to be about making women feel "sexy" (it's on the ad for many of them), so it makes sense they would show "sexy" women, just like selling clothes and other items that would make men feel masculine would show buff men.
That's true. Many of those examples are for products designed to make women more sexy, but I'd argue that advertisements like this are much more common than advertisements with buff men that are supposed to make men feel more sexy. I think many people would agree that, at least in American culture, there's more pressure on women to be sexy than there is on men. This is part of the problem, if you ask me.
> Hmm, which other media is it prevalent in that could display other qualities of a woman for the same purpose instead?
You see this in pretty much any sort of pop culture. Music videos (whether the performers are male or female) are generally littered with imagery of young women as sex objects. Even 24-hour news stations have been criticized for using news anchors in risque clothing—something that doesn't happen with male anchors. Several tabloids employ the concept of the "Page 3 girl." I'm not aware of such a thing with men (certainly not with the same prevalence).
Outside of media, you see the same issues reflected in culture. I'm having difficulty finding statistics on these, but stripping and prostitution are at least perceived (and portrayed in media) as predominantly female industries with male clientele. The concept of the woman as a sex object is practically everywhere.
> I am not sure about this. "It's right and you shouldn't be offended" isn't the same as "it's wrong for different reasons and isn't a big deal anyway".
True. That said, there do seem to be some comments here that imply no offense should be taken as well as many that merely downplay the issue as not a big deal.
> I think this is the crux of the issue. I think women wouldn't have a problem with it, so that's why I don't have a problem with it. Maybe it's societal, though, as we can't assume the US technology sector culture is universal and the same as in other countries (I live in Greece).
I agree: this is the crux of the issue. I plead total ignorance on Greek culture and can only make guesses as to the hypothetical reactions of American women. Nevertheless, I think it's best to err on the side of sensitivity, especially in a field so criticized for its gender gap.
> advertisements like this are much more common than advertisements with buff men that are supposed to make men feel more sexy.
Maybe women are just a larger market. I can't comment.
> I think many people would agree that, at least in American culture, there's more pressure on women to be sexy than there is on men.
Again, maybe the causation is the other way. I can't comment.
> I'm not aware of such a thing with men (certainly not with the same prevalence).
I'll give you that. This is, again, probably addressing the fact that the target market are men.
> stripping and prostitution are at least perceived (and portrayed in media) as predominantly female industries with male clientele. The concept of the woman as a sex object is practically everywhere.
I'm not sure this follows. They're perceived as predominantly female because men are more overt about (or more open to) paying for sex. Women aren't as interested in that, for whatever reason. Male strippers/prostitutes do exist, after all.
This isssue is too complicated to discuss on HN, sadly. I did greatly enjoy the discussion, however!
Then fight the people that are truly objectifying women and harassing them.
This kind of overblown press coverage for an hex value that is not degrading in itself serves only one purpose: making the sexist males take this issue even less seriously than they did before.
Try and imagine for a moment someone that truly degrades/objectifies/discriminates against women. This hypothetical person will not read this article and go "Oh I was wrong, I'll be nicer to women from now on". They think to themselves how ridiculous this is, perceive women as weaker (as is often the reason they have this attitude towards them in the first place) and go on their merry way.
So there is no problem with the hex string, there is a problem with the culture. I know, lets fix the hex string.
Introducing new gender discrimination, regardless of intentions, generally causes more gender discrimination. Also, doing it as a matter of policy could leave you open to a lawsuit.
I encode my numbers in base 21, therefore I can use 0xB1GD1CK as a value. Anyone care to write an article about how sexist I am and shame my employer into a public apology?
Sarcasm aside, we ARE facing an issue in the tech world. People that objectify women, discriminate against them or even so little as treat them differently in the workplace should be shamed. However, this crossed the line (imo). Statistics suggest that this was written by a man but I can see a lot of my female friends (if they programmed) be comfortable enough with what they are to use 0xB16B00B5 themselves.
I'm definitely aware of people making women's lives harder, and some women say that even small things like these can wear you out eventually, but I don't know.
I mean, surely, if you reverse the sexes and this is okay, it should be okay as-is, too. The enviroment that makes women not want to be in tech would also not be okay if the roles were reversed, but this isn't an instance of that, as far as I can tell.
I don't believe that sexual harassment is the only reason more women aren't in the field. The same level and types of harassment are found in any field. The problem is with the picture society paints of anti-social, acne-ridden males dwelling underground with only faint green light for illumination as the "computer geek". There are many other reasons as well including the lack of exposure to the field during education, the same goes for Engineering.
I'm seroiusly having difficult time figuring out how this is a "sexist" statement. It definitely is sexual, but I can't see how it would convey that women are inferior or that they don't belong.
Honestly though, I'm not a woman or programmer, at least not by trade, I have no idea how a woman would interpret this, so please enlighten me.
I find it funny that this is offensive to some people. I cringe that some of the silly names we have given internal code bits or projects might one day offend someone somewhere and need to have a formal apology. It's a good thing people can't get under the paint of their walls as it's common for construction workers to write notes and draw on unfinished sheetrock.
Now there's a limit to draw too. I don't approve of some of the blatant sexism going on in our field, but this is a little too much don't you think?
If I tell someone I like boobs, should I issue a formal apology too? Should Microsoft issue a public apology to their cafeteria workers for using 0xBAADF00D? OpenSolaris for 0xDEFEC8ED?*
They're hex strings ffs. Can we stop pretending we're so prude and perfect, call out the real offensive stuff and not fret over this kind of irrelevance?
For what it's worth I think it's been spun up to a bigger story than it needs to be. It should have been patched quietly and done and moved on.
And there is a line to be drawn, females aren't sacred cows need smothering away, but it's a bit off handed to make sure your hex code spells something like big boobies, just reflects poorly on the industry.
I don't know the technical details, but it sounds like the purpose of the magic number is interacting windows programs with linux. Regardless of how accurate that is, unless the magic number is used only within 1 program (or maybe only withing Microsoft programs), changing it is going to cause problems.
> If I tell someone I like boobs, should I issue a formal apology too?
Since you seem to think this is an appropriate experiment, feel free to start some professional/workplace conversations about big boobs and let us know how that works out for you.
Having to issue an formal apology seems like one of the more mild likely consequences I can think of.
So you're telling me it would be reprehensible if I said "big boobs" aloud, out of context, in my workplace cafeteria (because that's what this is, "big boobs", said out of any context)? Talk about overreaction.
Men have boobs too, and some men have big boobs (often referred to as moobs). This just shows that people can get angry at any and everything. Sexist? Only if you want it to be.
"Big Boobs" is not a boys club. Women are welcome. And many woman are into big boobs (either their own or those of others). What is sexist is to grip a notion that only men are capable of being immature or into big boobs. Not to mention that thinking women can't be into big boobs kind of sounds homophobic. Hey look... two can play the lets overreact and haphazardly toss around labels game. :)
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether or not I like big boobs, or whether or not I like childish humor. If I'm interacting with people in a professional or collaborative context, and I employ childish humor, it's totally reasonable for people to consider me unprofessional / a person with poor boundaries, and to find me difficult to work with. And so they probably aren't going to work with me. That's the issue, and most of the research on retention of minorities in industry supports that people leave or choose not to participate in the first place due to behavior like this.
Agreed. Oh wait... but... but... being "unprofessional" or having "poor boundaries" is a far cry from "sexist". Labels matter... getting them right does too.
Who used the term "sexist"? Not mjg, and the BBC article only mentions it in terms of the ensuing debate. I have no doubt that mjg avoided using it, in part, because people seize upon it to derail the discussion, as you seem to be doing. Guess what - labels don't matter to people who don't feel welcome. They're just going to leave, and while some people don't care, others would like this field to be a bit more welcoming to others, and once again, that's why this matters.
Though this is possibly offensive, and happens to concern women... it is not discriminatory and therefore is not "sexist".
Please, I know it may seem like a minor point but if we generalize the term 'sexist' too much away from its origins, we will have to invent another term to define discrimination against women because of their gender/sex.
There have been arguements in the past about improper language having a chilling effect on women in the feild, therefore being indirectly discriminatory, but I don't buy it.
If you're not applying gender stereotypes, expositing hatred, or engaging in discrimination then you may still be doing something offensive, but it isn't pertinently sexist.
Apparently it is not welcoming to the culture of nerdy developers that like big boobs. Which since most programmers are men, it sounds like you're letting the slowest sickest lamb in the herd get us all eaten by the lions of fun hating.
So basically an environment where everyone must self-censor himself and avoid all jokes, fun and adult talk except maybe the most childish kind of fun (say, nerf guns).
No, it's called being a corporate (or startup) cog in a PC hegemony.
As a matter or fact, it is very far from adulthood: for one, all kind of childish behavior is ok if its within PC bounds (from super hero comics to LoTR, and from pop music to nerf guns and "hackathons").
Second, it's de-sexualized, another sure sign of non adulthood.
Why? People who don't get jobs because of their gender is a big issue. Why, of all problems, is this a big issue?
In my not so humble opinion, people are simply looking for something to complain about. If there were a supposedly man-degrading word that could easily be expressed in hex, I'd use that for debugging, too. There's absolutely no reason to think that the use of these words is somehow meant as some sort of insult, and taking it as such appears to me to show a very rigid mind.
I don't see the big issue.
The phrase "big boobs" alone is not sexist.
If it had said "the only good thing about women is big boobs" this would be a different case, but it doesn't.
The phrase alone means nothing and anyone calling it derogatory or celebratory is simply projecting.
The big issue I see is a bunch of men, most of whom have probably never actually worked with a woman in a STEM field, think they are experts on what such women would find offensive.
I find this hypothesis truly bizarre. Since almost the late 80's I have been in one of these (clever acronym du-jour) STEM fields, and have yet to NOT have worked with women in my group, as peers. (My background is primarily writing banking software, if that matters.) I've never NOT worked with a female geek programmer either at my level or above.
My anecdote is not data, but neither are vast and wild generalizations like you are making.
> His comments, and those on the Linux mailing list, have started a huge debate about whether use of the string was sexist and how male developers should conduct themselves.
Worth repeating: Until it is proven that the coder who put that in was, in fact, a male it is highly sexist to just assume that it was a man and that ladies are not capable of being childish or being into big boobs as well. ;)
I don't see the problem, I don't know how someone could be offended because of this. And as Paule Bolle says [1], it can be changed without breaking anything.
The only serious thing that comes to mind about this is the MS Trustworthy Computing initiative, but I don't think it has anything to say here.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/13/362