LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+18 18 0
Published 4 months ago with 1 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • achekulaev (edited 4 months ago)
    +3

    So the sexism is that

    Visibility enabled these men to judge and rank women according to their sexual attractiveness

    So I guess if visibility is so bad, we should start making separate offices, so that men could not see women, right? Or you know, maybe require some sort of office dress code, that would prevent that. Like black cloth, that would cover women tip to toe... Hmm, that reminds me something...

    Or maybe we should impose thought police, to deny men and women right to rank potential partners? That would be awesome, yeah. To avoid sexism of course.

    ...there was no private space where workers could go if they were emotionally distressed or needed to conduct a private conversation. “If you’re upset about something, there’s nowhere to go,” one woman told the researchers. “Where can you go? All you can do is go to the ladies

    Ladies?! So a "distressed person" should go to ladies? Not to gents? Implying gents don't get distressed? Was this article anti-sexist again?

    This is just freaking idiotic and crazy article.

Here are some other snaps you may like...