"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:ier8i4$1db...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/21/10 4:02 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote: >> On 21/12/2010 21:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> On 12/21/10 2:38 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote: >>>> On 13/12/2010 15:49, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>>>> On 12/13/10 9:11 AM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: >>>>>> On 12/13/2010 09:08 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote: >>>>>>> Yes I am :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Since you were the Descent author, I wonder how you feel about Ruby's >>>>>> lack of static typing. In the video, the speaker bashes type safety >>>>>> as >>>>>> "having your balls fondled at the airport", that is, security theater >>>>>> that doesn't accomplish much. >>>>> >>>>> By the way, I couldn't stop cringing at the distasteful, male-centric >>>>> sexual jokes that the talk is peppered with. Wonder if there was any >>>>> woman in the audience, and how she might have felt. And this is not a >>>>> ghetto rant - it's the keynote of a major Ruby conference! (And I'm >>>>> definitely not a prude.) Am I alone in thinking that this is not what >>>>> our metier should evolve into? >>>>> >>>>> Besides, the argument in favor of dynamic typing is one of the most >>>>> disingenuous around. C is a language for consenting adults that gives >>>>> you that kind of freedom. If we took the speaker's arguments to their >>>>> logical conclusion, Ruby would be a language for people who don't care >>>>> about correctness, despise efficiency, and have contempt for >>>>> modularity. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ah, hold on a second. I agree the talk was rude and unprofessional (not >>>> that it was meant to be either), but I disagree it was sexist or >>>> offensive to women. Looking at the comment in question, "having your >>>> balls fondled at the airport", it's simply something that you cannot >>>> convey with anywhere the same meaning in a gender-neutral way ("having >>>> your gonads fondled at the airports"?... "having your genitals fondled >>>> at the airport"?... "having your crotch fondled at the airport"?...) >>> >>> You presuppose there's a need to stick with the original metaphor. There >>> are many good metaphors to use, and there are a lot of good jokes around >>> the "porn scanners". >>> >>>> For better or worse, "balls" has become a metaphor for braveness, >>>> boldness, power, recklessness, (or a combination therefore), and has >>>> even been applied to women some times ("does she have the balls to do >>>> that?"). >>> >>> There are a lot of actually good jokes around that topic. I think this >>> one, for example, is not gross at all: when describing the shortcomings >>> of iterators, I mentioned "you have to have a pair to do anything". I >>> delivered that with a straight face and it was really interesting to see >>> the audience slowly getting the doublespeak and starting to laugh with >>> various latencies. I am subjective but I think that one is firmly on the >>> opposite side of a thin line than the "fondled balls" joke. >>> >>> >>> Andrei >> >> I forgot part of my argument actually: Just as the "balls" metaphor has >> that meaning, conversely, "being grabbed by the balls" means kinda the >> opposite: being subjugated, dominated, restrained, kept-under-control, >> emasculated, etc.. So I think the "having your balls fondled at the >> airport" is a direct allusion to that metaphor, which goes in line with >> the talk's general theme of anti-authoritarianism. >> So yes, I am presupposing there's a need to stick with the original >> metaphor. (in order to convey the subjugation meaning/allusion.) > > I'd almost agree had the word "fondled" been absent :o). >
This is what makes me question the existence of anti-female sexism in the joke: Replace the word "balls" with either "breasts" or any slang (or non-slang) term for female genitalia. Maybe replace the speaker with a woman, too, I don't care, either way. Or keep the word "balls" and make the speaker a woman. Any combination, whatever. Would that make it offensive to men? Maybe I'm just really weird as far as men go, but I honestly can't see how it would be. I certainly wouldn't take offense to it, no matter how you arranged the male/female-ness. But I can certainly imagine people that would still wave an "offensive to women" banner. So unless I just have a really bad grasp of human behavior (and knowing me, I very well might), what we have is a situation where references to any gender-specific body part is offensive to...women and only women. Which triggers the "Reductio ad absurdum" flag in my mind.