Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Feb 2012 17:55 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Let this be a lesson. After posts by John Gruber and Shawn King, this happened to Violet Blue. "The misinformation gave a significant number of people fuel to stalk me, attack me for hours at a time, malign, insult me in disgusting ways, threaten me with weapon-specific violent death (an axe), and lead social media attempts to force me to lose my job over the matter. Many referenced John Gruber, and/or his post as they did this. Plans were openly made to make media to attack me - another Angry Mac Bastards podcast." Disgusting story, and sadly enough, this isn't the first time this has happened, as Blue notes in her article. I don't like talking about these matters (you don't want to know the kind of crap that gets thrown my way at times), but I can assure you my inbox has seen its share of pure vitriol after Gruber links to an OSNews piece. It ain't pretty.
Thread beginning with comment 506274
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Aristocracies
Member since:
2010-06-15

How do you even know this person was 'sad'? Why is it that a tight shirt automatically means someone is a 'booth babe'? How is that not sexist?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Dude ... did you even look at the picture???

Reply Parent Score: 2

Aristocracies Member since:
2010-06-15

I certainly have. What I find interesting here is you're not confronting the fact that someone is assigning a mood to someone else based upon the fact she's not smiling. Or the very notion that it's okay to assign descriptors as a matter of 'fact' just because a woman is endowed.

Do you have any idea how often women are told to 'smile' because they look 'glum' if they're not smiling? Seriously, you need to really consider how you assign values to someone based upon a single photo without context.

I also find it funny you called me dude automatically.

Edited 2012-02-08 00:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So? What has the picture got to do what she is or what she does?

Reply Parent Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

How do you even know this person was 'sad'?

Then next time you see someone with a face expression resembling the following ;) or ;( you shouldn't assume that someone is sad. Or will you assume it? Because I can bet that you will. Humans use facial expressions to indicate emotional states and they are universal.

Why is it that a tight shirt automatically means someone is a 'booth babe'?

What would you assume?

How is that not sexist?

Their alternative titles are "conference booth PR representatives". Booth babe is the unofficial title.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Aristocracies Member since:
2010-06-15

Facial expressions are far from universal, especially when judging strangers. One person's neutral facial expression could look like someone else's frown -- not to mention, you're still not able to accurately judge someone's emotional state on the basis of just a frown, certainly not to the point where you can label someone 'sad' unless you are very familiar with the person. We're not discussing someone bawling their eyes out here, we're talking about a rather passive expression that was evaluated here and then used to describe someone as 'saddest'.

This often happens to women:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2004/10/07/smile-damn-you-smile/

The fact that you argue that you can accurately label people using the same scant details Violet did, while speaking for not only myself but the whole human race as you claim 'everyone does this' and that facial expressions are 'universal' is something perhaps you better spend more time reflecting upon, because you're going to come away wrong in a number of situations if that's how you go about sizing people up.

As to your latter half of your reply -- you really should stop and think for a moment about what you're doing here. Look at the picture again. This is a woman who is dressed in pants, wearing a long-sleeve shirt and layered on top is another shirt. There's not much skin exposed, it's only a bit snug. This is the only criterion you are using to immediately brand the woman as the derogatory term 'booth babe', dismissing any possibility that she's contributing anything to her company other than eye-candy for men. Do you not see a problem with this? Do you actually feel this is how women should be evaluated in conferences?

Given how you've already stated you feel everyone in PR who is female is automatically a 'booth babe', I know this is already a futile conversation -- but there's one thing I'm begging you to ask yourself here:

How would you ask a woman to dress at a conference so that she may avoid this association? Do you think it's fair that a woman has to consider these things in the first place?

Edited 2012-02-09 01:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0