Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

So out of a profanity-laced presentation with embarrassing audience tricks what really got the author was saying that entrepreneurs may be motivated by money, (helping?) people and -- gasp! -- sex? The guy even went back to be more politically correct and explicitly included women and gays.

How much bad will does it take to interpret that, fairly biologically obvious, remark in some twisted way to mean "women are not people"?




People, profits, and women would indicate the set "People" and set "Women" are disjoint.

-----


No, it doesn't because "people" probably means users or customers or maybe your team, and "women" is a substitute for "pussy" which means people you want to have sex with. It would actually be ethically questionable for those sets not to be disjoint.

-----


"women" is a substitute for "pussy" which means people you want to have sex with.

Right. Pussy as shorthand for sex is problematic because it reduces a woman to her sexual organs, it objectifies them. Would you enjoy being reduced to your penis?

That he's using women as substitute for "pussy" and that his phrasing juxtaposes them with "people" (even though that wasn't the intent, I agree) only highlights the problem further. I understand what he was trying to convey, but that doesn't excuse the wording and the attitude it reveals.

-----


I disagree, IMHO Pussy as a shorthand for sex reduces SEX to the sexual organs. Not the woman, the sex act. That may be unenlightened (we know sex can be so much more!) but not necessarily anti-woman.

-----


Um no. Firstly, this is hugely heterosexist, as you are making statements about normative attraction and sex. Secondly, referring to women as pussy is a reduction of a person to their body parts. That is a direct objectification: removing human elements to reduce something to an object. Furthermore, this kind of statement is directly intended for one audience and one audience only: straight men. This is hugely exclusionary and sexist.

-----


Not true, read the actual quote, he said "and women. Or men. Whatever" he specifically expanded it to basically include "whatever you are attracted to" ... he is a straight man, he will use what HE is attracted to as a reference. Also, how do you know his statements weren't actually directed at lesbians, who are attracted to similar private parts, why assume he was targeting straight men? ... in this case, again with so little context, I would lean towards !lighten up everybody!

-----


Sorry I wasn't clear, but my first two points were about what you said about reducing a person to their body parts as not being sexism or objectification.

Beyond that, what exactly are you supposed to think when Noah Kagan, someone who has already made hugely sexist statements in the past, wants to tell you about "the 3Ps of entrepreneurship"? That kind of statement is a lead in, and that he tried to backtrack when the audience reacted is irrelevant. Reducing anyone to their body parts at all is a big problem and is a horrifying thing to say, but women and trans folk suffer much more from this kind if rhetoric then cisgender men do, so don't pretend that this kind of statement is OK or is no big deal.

> Also, how do you know his statements weren't actually directed at lesbians, who are attracted to similar private parts, why assume he was targeting straight men?

The orientation of the folks in the audience is not the issue, it is the reduction of people to sex objects for conquest that is the problem.

> in this case, again with so little context, I would lean towards !lighten up everybody!

Saying that people need to lighten up is a dismissal that says you don't really think that this is a big deal and you don't care about the issues this brings up for many people. This kind of attitude perpetuates these kinds of incidents and makes it harder for people whose lives are directly affected by this kind of shit.

-----


Maybe it would have been better if he said "People, profits, and individuals you would like to have sexual intercourse with."

But the general gist is that he was trying to not say "pussy" and maybe his mind isn't making the kind of mental leaps we're expecting of him. He did include both genders, though, and you can't fault him for misspeaking. Obama said he wanted to send more jobs to China last week, and no one was flipping out about that.

-----


> Obama said he wanted to send more jobs to China last week, and no one was flipping out about that.

Really? I did a search for "Obama + China + jobs" and saw plenty of Mitt Romney literature complaining about Obama's overall China policy, but didn't see a specific line about sending more jobs to China.

Here's a recent article that says Obama was re-opening the unfair-trade case against China. That seems anathema to what you claim: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/in-ohio-obama-...

-----


Second result for "Obama misspeaks" http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7423392n Apparently, Google doesn't think it belongs in your bubble![1]

[1] If someone missed it http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu...

-----


Touche, I guess? I took you at your word that Obama said something, not that he (purportedly) misspoke.

In any case, these aren't the same situations. The OP claims that the speaker talked about three "P's" and made it obvious what the unmentioned third P was. Or are you saying that the speaker meant to just talk about the "two Ps"?

-----


He misspoke. You need better Google Fu.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/us-usa-campaign-ob...

-----


"...or men. Whatever."

-----




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: