Wow this article is a mess. Launching into speeches about clothing is probably a bad idea. If done on a regular basis, it can make people feel self-conscious and judged all the time. But pulling an individual aside for "almost laughably inappropriate" clothes seems like a reasonable thing to do.
I have to say I don't understand the kitten thing. Is it just that the pun was in bad taste?
It doesn't say which incident prompted the vandalism complaints, but I remember people crossing out "Black Lives Matter" which is, let's say, questionable. This post was flagged dead on HN https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/mark-zuckerberg-asks-emplo... Even if it wasn't that incident, I find it very plausible that they were vandalized on other occasions. It's also possible that Zuck overreacted, but the article doesn't really support that.
Also the kitten incident sounds like a spur-of-the-moment joke in poor taste, if it even happened. I'm not sure why the author seems to be claiming otherwise. Surely they're well aware of the whole internet / kittens thing?
I'm not saying the tech world is blameless but this sounds like someone with a book to sell.
So kittens are a metaphor for women? I never knew that. I know sushi in German sounds a little like pussy [Muschi/Sushi], so maybe next time don't use kittens, use pictures of sushi -not many will get it. I mean, if they'd chosen flowers, or dogs, almost anything, one can put alternate meanings to them.
But really, who'd make that connection, given the kitten meme? I think it was over thinking on her part.
That said, maybe have everyone adopt an Asian style ethic and dress drab for work. It's work, it's not impress your high school friends with new clothes at the beginning of the school year.
Rubenstein knew about the pun, and confirmed it once Sandberg called him out on it. Seems working with his team, she was able to understand how their minds worked and knew exactly what they had done.
I think the real issue was not having any women on the team, which allows this kind of behavior to continue constatnly and in the open. And you can't use random photos - the tech has to learn some kind of category of thing to recognize.
[Edit: I mean if it was a one-off thing it could have been funny, but if it's yet another reminder that the company is basically a locker room, that's insulting.]
No women is an issue --but being on a team with women, I know they have similar tendencies to men. They also like puns and also have a sense of bathroom humor too --not that that kind of humor is something one might like to leak into the work environment, but that's what we get from today's culture
In addition, in some way, this kind behavior, whether man or woman, can be a kind of subversive way to exert self and flaunt power --i.e. "I can get away with this childishness." and "I can get away with reprimanding/shaming you". Aka territorial pissings.
True, they could. Altho there really should be no issue with flowers, or cats, or water, or whatever because someone might make an inference. What if I make the inference that random pictures itself _is_ a euphemism for something else?
Let's pause on the details, look at the language. "Distracting" clothing? This is the definition of victim blaming. "I can't work because she is making me stare at her butt, and it is her choice to wear that outfit." "She was asking for it."
If you're a dude or a bro, before you down-vote this, ask yourself whether you would applaud or criticize the same person for wearing that outfit to Wholefoods.
The tech industry is perpetually patting itself on the back for have such innovative workplace policies. Many actions or dispositions condoned or encouraged by these policies would get you fired at a Wall Street bank. So, one can not claim that one should know better than to wear these outfits. The entire point of this "new workplace", which is by definition and design not well defined, is to not dictate the individual in so far a his or her personal choices, but simply to create an atmosphere where each individual is productive.
You ever tried working in an office with a full bar on tap, twenty feet away? How about in an office that has two ping pong tables nearby in the open space floor plan? That is distracting. That is also stereotypical Silicon Valley. But hey, I put on headphones, ignored my strong desire to get bent, and was productive.
If you're a woman, please chime in here. This is, to my ears, victim blaming. And this comment will no doubt instantly begin garnering many, many down-votes. So, please, risk a few karma. But, I'm a guy, so what do I know?
I know that tomorrow I can go into work in shorts small enough to show a bit of butt and people will think it's funny, and we'll all sit down at our screens and get back to work. Because, in our culture, I'm not objectified sexually, I am the patriarch, and I control all thing, except that thing in my drawers.
> ask yourself whether you would applaud or criticize the same person for wearing that outfit to Wholefoods.
My criticism would persist because presumably the same person wears that outfit to Wholefoods for the same reason:
garnering attention.
Wearing baggy cotton trousers and a grubby, loose t-shirt looks scruffy in the workplace or Wholefoods but has a purpose: comfort.
Wearing Daisy Duke shorts to the workplace or Wholefoods has a purpose: garnering attention.
Anything that is designed or intended to attract attention is by definition a distraction. That's where the differentiation arises. It's irrelevant whether that attention is inappropriate due to objectification, the point is that the mental effort to overcome the context-shift is distractive.
For those who can't understand "distracting clothing", I suggest them to visit a restaurant where waitresses are naked, on a day when you are hungry, and you don't have a female partner. The theory says that its impossible to fulfill both needs in the same time. (Maslow hierarchy)
And to really do the test, you need the name of the restaurant, so we don't just talk none sense:
http://www.timeout.com/london/blog/exclusive-this-is-what-it...
Some will understand why the owners will make a lot of money. So don't blame the naked females, blame yourself: you couldn't eat what you ordered because your hormones took over your appetite. Or you were able to eat, but you only focused on your plate, in which case we can ask why didn't you choose a different restaurant.
17 comments
[ 0.16 ms ] story [ 47.1 ms ] threadI have to say I don't understand the kitten thing. Is it just that the pun was in bad taste?
It doesn't say which incident prompted the vandalism complaints, but I remember people crossing out "Black Lives Matter" which is, let's say, questionable. This post was flagged dead on HN https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/mark-zuckerberg-asks-emplo... Even if it wasn't that incident, I find it very plausible that they were vandalized on other occasions. It's also possible that Zuck overreacted, but the article doesn't really support that.
I'm not saying the tech world is blameless but this sounds like someone with a book to sell.
But really, who'd make that connection, given the kitten meme? I think it was over thinking on her part.
That said, maybe have everyone adopt an Asian style ethic and dress drab for work. It's work, it's not impress your high school friends with new clothes at the beginning of the school year.
But maybe that's expecting too much.
That said, I have trouble believing this kind of behavior is unique to Facebook, or even unique to tech.
[Edit: I mean if it was a one-off thing it could have been funny, but if it's yet another reminder that the company is basically a locker room, that's insulting.]
In addition, in some way, this kind behavior, whether man or woman, can be a kind of subversive way to exert self and flaunt power --i.e. "I can get away with this childishness." and "I can get away with reprimanding/shaming you". Aka territorial pissings.
If you're a dude or a bro, before you down-vote this, ask yourself whether you would applaud or criticize the same person for wearing that outfit to Wholefoods.
The tech industry is perpetually patting itself on the back for have such innovative workplace policies. Many actions or dispositions condoned or encouraged by these policies would get you fired at a Wall Street bank. So, one can not claim that one should know better than to wear these outfits. The entire point of this "new workplace", which is by definition and design not well defined, is to not dictate the individual in so far a his or her personal choices, but simply to create an atmosphere where each individual is productive.
You ever tried working in an office with a full bar on tap, twenty feet away? How about in an office that has two ping pong tables nearby in the open space floor plan? That is distracting. That is also stereotypical Silicon Valley. But hey, I put on headphones, ignored my strong desire to get bent, and was productive.
If you're a woman, please chime in here. This is, to my ears, victim blaming. And this comment will no doubt instantly begin garnering many, many down-votes. So, please, risk a few karma. But, I'm a guy, so what do I know?
I know that tomorrow I can go into work in shorts small enough to show a bit of butt and people will think it's funny, and we'll all sit down at our screens and get back to work. Because, in our culture, I'm not objectified sexually, I am the patriarch, and I control all thing, except that thing in my drawers.
My criticism would persist because presumably the same person wears that outfit to Wholefoods for the same reason: garnering attention.
Wearing baggy cotton trousers and a grubby, loose t-shirt looks scruffy in the workplace or Wholefoods but has a purpose: comfort.
Wearing Daisy Duke shorts to the workplace or Wholefoods has a purpose: garnering attention.
Anything that is designed or intended to attract attention is by definition a distraction. That's where the differentiation arises. It's irrelevant whether that attention is inappropriate due to objectification, the point is that the mental effort to overcome the context-shift is distractive.
Some will understand why the owners will make a lot of money. So don't blame the naked females, blame yourself: you couldn't eat what you ordered because your hormones took over your appetite. Or you were able to eat, but you only focused on your plate, in which case we can ask why didn't you choose a different restaurant.