[HN Gopher] 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry' ___________________________________________________________________ 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry' Author : RickJWagner Score : 154 points Date : 2021-02-17 12:57 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.bbc.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com) | jonathanstrange wrote: | Everybody involved has always known and assumed that so much that | it's almost a cliche. I mean, people were warning about predatory | record producers since the 60s or so. Since I'm not against | prostitution either, I can't really be angry about this old hat. | (Not that I think it's good.) | simonh wrote: | Entertainers can work their whole lives to break into the | business, investing their heart and soul into it, only for one | gatekeeper to hold all of that hostage. They hold incredible | leverage. That's in no way similar to offering someone a few | quid for sex. | mnouquet wrote: | It's exactly the same, as long as someone will want to go the | extra inch to make anything more than their competitor, this | behavior will stay. | known wrote: | It's there in IT industry also; Girls silently suffer / quit jobs | :( | lostgame wrote: | While it is there, being female and in both industries myself I | have to say that it's like comparing a cup of water to a bucket | in terms of the sheer amount of sexual abuse that goes on in | the music industry. And I say that as a victim of IT workplace | sexual assault, and I unfortunately did exactly as you posted. | :( | | The music industry is harrowing. It's not to discount the very | real trauma myself and others have gone through in the IT | workplace - it sucks, it's shitty and it shouldn't be. However, | the last decade especially, I've noticed IT has gotten | progressively and better at this, and if women in my workplace | or previous two were seriously mistreated everyone would be | shocked and people would be immediately fired. | | I don't have a lot of time to list off the horror stories right | now, but pretty much everything you've heard about abuse in | Hollywood is true, and it's much worse than you've heard. | | I guess the abuse is just so much more systematic, established, | and regular in the music industry, and; despite #metoo - it is | unfortunately not progressing or evolving in the way that I | have personally witnessed the IT industry do over the last | decade. It just seems like more people have been exposed. | | There's some bad apples in IT but tbh very often you do hear | about them, and it destroys companies and careers. | | The _good_ apples in the music industry are the exception, not | the rule, and in IT that playing field is incredibly more even. | golemiprague wrote: | IT was always normal, it didn't make any "progress" except | from the general "progress" that the whole society did. It | wasn't different to any other industry 40 years ago and not | today. The only grief women had is that there were not enough | of them, which is still the case but the ones who worked in | the industry whether as programmers or other peripheral jobs | were treated exactly like they would in a law office or a | bank or other jobs with more women. | | The funny thing is that the whole agenda causing women to | think as if this industry is so bad was pushed by the actual | bad industry, the media, film and music industry. An industry | which let hip hop artists say the most horrible things about | women for years, that actually raped and traded success for | sexual favours as a common trading coin. They misdirected the | fire to IT and mid America and everybody swallowed it hook | line and sinker. | red01 wrote: | I can't help but notice the rapists are usually Jewish. | BrandoElFollito wrote: | I've been working for 25+ years in huge, international, rich | companies -- at very senior (tech) levels. | | Plenty of travel, plenty of team building, plenty of dinners and | hotels. | | My wife asked me a few times about the orgies the movies show, | and damn it, I must have always been at the wrong parties. | | It is interesting how this varies by companies and organizations. | bluGill wrote: | My understanding is this was more common in years past. Up to | the 1950s it was understood a good looking secretary got her | job in bed. The really ugly ones got and kept it by being good | at the job, with a possible side of the wife doing well in bed. | Even then it was understood as not always true, but it was true | enough. Secretaries at the time demanded the ability handle | boredom as a lot of the job was doing the simple repetitive | work we have automated machines to do: a girl who got her job | in bed could probably do it nearly as well as the ugly | secretary who was good with only a little training. The | slightly more complex repetitive work would be given to a | computer - which was a job title for a human not a machine. | | Note the sexist language above. Females were generally "kept in | their place", which meant little opportunity to get to do | anything interesting or high paying. | vinger wrote: | It was never true the pretty ones put out and the uglies were | good at there jobs. The less good looking probably put out | more where the more beautiful could get by on a bosses hope. | bluGill wrote: | You aren't wrong, but I don't think you are correct. There | were a lot of "good church going men" who wouldn't sleep | with anyone they weren't married to. There were others are | appeared that way in public, but wanted some "outside | pleasures". The former hired for skill and tried not to | care about looks, and in fact ugly could be an advantage as | it may limit temptation (but this was still "women's work" | so it was her). | | The later in theory would hire based on looks, but on on | reflection it was more complex. It is a bit tricky to | figure out how who will sleep with you in the interview, as | those who wouldn't may tell society which would be a | disaster for someone pretending to be a good church man. | Those who could figure this out would hire the good looking | ones. Those who couldn't had to figure out how to make it | clear that imperfections in performance could be overlooked | in bed and see what happened - I suspect this was more | common, and thus biases to the ugly ones. | tabtab wrote: | In other words, other "skills" can partly substitute for | looks. One generally moans with their eyes closed. | | One thing that bugs me is that it's often said "men are | animals" in that they lack self control. Yet many women | wear provocative clothing at work to gain favors. Such | women want it both ways: the ability to tease and taunt, | but a magic lid on those when they don't want advances. | | They want to play with fire BUT not ever get burned. Sorry, | that's being too choosey. If you don't want to get burned, | don't play with friggen fire! It's like wanting to taunt | tigers at the zoo all day, but saying they should never try | to break their cages. Both sides are at fault. Don't taunt | the hungry tigers in our pants and expect 24/7 self | control. You already know tigers are dangerous, so don't | aggravate them. | grawprog wrote: | >Don't taunt the hungry tigers in our pants and expect | 24/7 self control. | | I probably shouldn't even bother responding to this | comment, but i'm sorry, as a man, yes control your | fucking dick. That's the way of it. If you can't control | yourself, that's on you, nobody else. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | I agree that men should control themselves. They have the | moral responsibility to do so. | | And yet, we live in a world where not all men do. We live | in a world where some men are rapists, and some use | intimidation or influence to pressure women into sex. | _That 's their fault_, not womens'. But if a woman acts | like she lives in a world where that never happens, she | is not being very wise. Morally, is it her fault? No, | absolutely not. But she still is acting unwisely. | nineplay wrote: | > But if a woman acts like she lives in a world where | that never happens, she is not being very wise. | | How many woman do you think are pressured into sex who | "were not being very wise" What wisdom did they lack? | | What does acting "like she lives in a world where that | never happens" mean exactly? Cute clothes? Friendly | attitudes? Having curves and not trying to disguise it? | Un | tabtab wrote: | I'm not justifying it, only saying it's not realistic IN | PRACTICE. Requiring 24/7 discipline on that doesn't | scale. Most men are friggen horny by nature. It's like | telling everyone to diet and exercise to not be obese. It | doesn't work, half the population over 30 is obese. Or to | never gossip. How many will follow that? | | Realistic advice needs to scale and work in practice. | Platitudes without that won't actually fly. | grawprog wrote: | Yeah dude...being horny by nature is no excuse for that | kind of behaviour. Yes it is realistic to expect people | will not sexually take advantage of others just because | they're horny and the other person is dressed in a way | that 'taunts' them. | | It happens all the time. There's millions of horny people | out there every day not sexually assaulting people. | tabtab wrote: | BOTH SIDES have a responsibility to reduce the problem. | Women shouldn't be given a Get-Out-Of-Taunt-For-Free | card. | | Re: _There 's millions of horny people out there every | day not sexually assaulting people._ | | Just because SOME can muster up the discipline doesn't | mean everybody can. | | It's not about "making excuses", it's about solving | problems in a PRACTICAL way. (I replied here because the | Reply button is missing for unknown reasons.) | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Everyone _can_ , but not everyone _does_. Cold hard | reality is that not everyone _does_. Saying that not | everyone _can_ is excusing at least some of the men. | grawprog wrote: | I'm going to respond to this comment, but this is to the | above poster as well and in general to the thread. | | Rereading your comments, i think i've responded a bit | reactionary and not really addressed some of the things | you've said. | | Yes, i believe people have a responsibility to keep | themselves safe and out of harm. Yes, women and everyone, | should be aware there's nasty people out there that will | hurt them. You're correct many people are unaware of | this. | | This doesn't change the fact that the victim of an | assault is not guilty of it. Saying women are responsible | because they dress a certain way is the same as saying | | 'Well that guy that got beaten and robbed, it's his | fault, doesn't he know that street's full of crime? | Everybody knows that.' | | It's laying the blame on the victim, saying they are | somehow responsible for their attacker's actions. It's | their fault because if they'd just dressed differently, | maybe they wouldn't have been attacked. | nineplay wrote: | > Yet many women wear provocative clothing at work to | gain favors. | | Where are earth are you working? I've never seen anything | like it in 30-odd years. | ThankYouBernard wrote: | who needs Mad Men when you can just read HN in 2021 | pvarangot wrote: | I worked for the movie industry only for a couple of years and | on very technical low-level roles, almost apprentice level. | Think data tech or in color grading and only as a side gig. | | I also frequented movie festivals. | | Don't take this personally but I think you were at the wrong | parties. Good signs to tell if you are "in" or not: do you know | how to get illegal drugs on set? have you ever been to a | private event in a hotel room or AirBNB before or after a | ceremony? have you ever been in the same room with an A list | celebrity or actor when they are using an illegal substance? | | If the answer to all those is no then yeah it's probably that | you are in the wrong parties. | | If you've been there and like never witnessed a movie level | epic orgy then that's great for you. I know they are not usual | on some circles, I've heard Disney and Netflix try to keep | their staff on a tight leash. Honestly I wished my experience | was more like yours because I liked the industry and it was a | little bit of a dream of mine to be more involved with the | movie creative process, and one of the reasons I didn't get | more into it was that I was not comfortable mixing illegal | drugs and orgies with work in the way it was usual. | lostgame wrote: | Yikes, my answer is yes to all of these, and, indeed, I | witnessed and partook in several of said orgies. They | certainly do happen, for sure. | g00gler wrote: | I don't think OP was in the entertainment industry. He has | worked with several large companies at a very senior level | and has never experienced anything like what is alleged to | occur in the entertainment industry. | BrandoElFollito wrote: | Yes, thanks for clarifying - I should have highlighted that | I worked in tech. This is why I was wondering how life is | different between companies (and even organizations within | a company). | BrandoElFollito wrote: | I worked in tech companies, this is why I was mentioning how | this is different between companies and organizations. | crazypython wrote: | I wonder if it's common in other industries e.g. dance. And how | many victims there are, and how many of them are those most | easily exploited: the poor, weak, and underage. | mercer wrote: | It's very common in the world of gymnastics, for one. | sbilstein wrote: | Yes it is. Opera, for example, | https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745286413/opera-star-david-da... | | Music and Arts are a hellhole for this kind of stuff | sadmann1 wrote: | Stardom levels of success will always be based on relationships | and all the power dynamic baggage that entails | FriedrichN wrote: | I would be surprised if it wasn't the case. Industries like these | have too many 'king makers' and people idolize the established | figures too much. It's basically the same mechanism by which the | abuse is facilitated in closed religious communities. | alistairSH wrote: | And US Gymnastics and other sports. | evgen wrote: | Currently there are major scandals in France around coaches | and team officials sexually abusing kids in swimming and | figure skating. It is not just a US thing... | throwaway894345 wrote: | Russian ballet comes to mind as well | _pmf_ wrote: | So, it's women exploiting men for money? | cat199 wrote: | Don't know why they picked a headline that buried the other big | point of the article - "Mafia 'owned' pop stars" | | This is a huge thing hugely related to the rest of the 'industry | culture' being talked about. | sdellis wrote: | #FreeBritney | motohagiography wrote: | I remember reading about a scandal in the 90's or 00's fashion | business where it came out the top modelling and talent | agencies were in-effect used as escort agencies by super | wealthy clients. The arts have always been seedy, but they have | also always been a key path to social mobility, so it's kind of | a story as old as time. | throwaawwaaaay wrote: | HN: Legalize prostitution, it is normal work. | | Also HN: Sleeping your way to the top? THE HORROR. | | I know quite a few people who did the latter, they don't seem to | regret it at all. | [deleted] | dang wrote: | _Please don 't sneer, including at the rest of the community._ | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | That guideline is there because this is such a common, tedious, | and reliably provocative form of flamebait. Please make your | substantive points without flamebait. | kgwxd wrote: | Sleeping your way to the top isn't what's under fire. It's the | people in positions of power expecting sex. | enriquto wrote: | These two things may be very difficult do distinguish in | practice. In many cases the only difference will be in how | you describe the situation. | kgwxd wrote: | Specific instances aren't really part of the point I'm | trying to make. It's clear that there exists a non-zero | number of people in positions of power expecting sex in | exchange for opportunity and a lot of people just accept | "that's how it is". | | There is a surprisingly large number of comments here | trying to justify this by redirecting focus towards the | people who ultimately decided to give sex in exchange for | opportunity. That's a completely separate debate that isn't | even very controversial. It's those comments, and their | upvotes, that concern me. Especially when they're high | karma accounts on a site targeted at entrepreneurs that | might be in a position to coerce someone towards choosing | to give sex in exchange for opportunity. | capableweb wrote: | It's almost as HN is filled with actual real human beings with | different opinions and emotions, some of them think legalizing | prostitution should be done and some of them think using your | body for industry favors is bad. | chewmieser wrote: | Both of these can be true too... We can be horrified that | people abuse their positions of power to force people into | sex to achieve a life goal while at the same time believe | that prostitution should be legalized for those that choose | to go down that path in life. | | Legalizing behaviors doesn't endorse them either. It removes | some of the danger inherent in the behavior. | Jochim wrote: | Can you really not see the difference? In prostitution sex is | the product being sold. In other environments sex is a | distorting factor that puts those not willing to engage in it | at a disadvantage and can cause great harm when it becomes an | expectation. | eplanit wrote: | I don't think it said they were forcibly raped; but that the | sex was in exchange for something of value, like opportunity | or promotion. So long as both parties are adults and in | agreement, the "not willing to engage" part doesn't apply. | Maybe it's still unethical, though. | leetcrew wrote: | the point is that even if the participants are okay with | it, it still harms people who are unwilling to participate. | if I'm a sex worker, my work _is_ sex. nothing wrong with | charging money for that. if I 'm a software engineer, my | work has nothing to do with sex, and my career progression | should not be impeded by my refusal to have sex with my | boss. | [deleted] | Jochim wrote: | I was intending to make a more general statement on the | effects of the practice on all participants and in other | industries. | | The disadvantage for being "not willing to engage" would be | applied to those potential artists who refused the sexual | advances of these people and were therefore passed over; | despite potentially being a better candidate. I think you | could even argue that there may be an element of coercion | if the person was willing to engage originally. Now that | your manager is responsible for your career are you really | safe in saying no the second time? | | The question is really whether we're okay with allowing | sexual favours to be placed over merit when accepting | people into an industry. I think the answer is | unequivocally no, even in industries where sex is the | product. | chewmieser wrote: | So you'd rather keep things as they were? Make this a permanent | barrier to entry? | enriquto wrote: | It's a barrier or an open door, depending on what you are | willing to do. | Jochim wrote: | Either way it usually has nothing to do with the job. | Should we really be accepting of managers hiring/promoting | people based on how likely they are to fuck them? | enriquto wrote: | No, of course. But it still is an open door to many | people who wouldn't be there otherwise. I'm not giving | any assessment whether this is good or bad. | Jochim wrote: | What is the point of discussing something like this other | than to determine whether it was good or bad? | leetcrew wrote: | it is bad for promotions/opportunities at work to be | doled out on any other basis than a good-faith estimate | of capability. that is, assuming you agree that the point | of work is to get work done. | Dirlewanger wrote: | >Entertainment industry where fucktons of money can be made has a | shady underbelly no one publicly talks about. | | No way? Next you'll tell me Hollywood has this same problem... | agumonkey wrote: | You should start a thread on twitter, #bttf | texasbigdata wrote: | This is probably the most interesting comment here. Especially | (as a moderate to liberal) with the cancelling of Parkor which | was deeply troubling. | | Is anyone speaking publicly and/or thinking deeply on this future | of everyone in the value chain being able to deny freedom of | speech? Obviously in some cases it's warranted (violence), but in | others where the attack is very pointed (heard instances of | cloudfare being petitioned to take down content which is | literally internet plumbing) it's relatively concerning. | krapp wrote: | >(heard instances of cloudfare being petitioned to take down | content which is literally internet plumbing) | | It's not, it's a private company. Most internet infrastructure | is private companies offering their services under arbitrary | terms, because that's the only possible way to have such an | infrastructure without government controlling or regulating the | internet, which we don't want. | | And petitioning is free speech - people have the right to | petition anyone about anything. There's nothing to be | "relatively concerned" about here, except maybe the lack of | competition in the DDoS space, but that's a free market issue, | not a free speech issue. If too many people think Cloudflare | has stepped out of line, someone will create an alternative, | just as alternative right-wing platforms like Gab and Parler | were created by people unsatisfied with mainstream social | media. | dang wrote: | We detached this subthread from | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26166493 since it's taking | the thread on a generic tangent that's been argued to death and | back many times recently. | | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... | nicolas_t wrote: | Who is Parkor? Tried googling but couldn't find anything about | that? | MadeThisToReply wrote: | Presumably they meant to write Parler | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler | MauranKilom wrote: | I think they meant Parler. | [deleted] | znpy wrote: | The article is from nine hours ago. | | The interesting part will come, maybe, in the next days. | | It's going to be interesting if somebody from the pop scenes | comes out to confirm those claims, in a sort of "me too" fashion. | | I mean, I would really like to see this topic discussed by more | people in the industry. If anything, to help put an end to this | kind of practices. | Communitivity wrote: | I saw comments talking about a hypothetical utopia where no one | needs to go hungry and where talent gets notice without having to | sell their body or soul. | | As with many things, the problem is not technological. We have | the technology to create such a utopia (there would still be | other problems, but the world would be utopian from those | aspects). The problem is sociological. In order to do this we | need to both all work together, and think long term (on the order | of 50-100 years). The problem is that nations can't even stay | together in just an economic union when it's in their best | interests economically (Brexit, Paris Accord), and internally | those same nations bicker and vote on party lines (Tories vs | Labor, Democrats vs Republicans), instead of voting what's best | in the long term for the nation. | | What's happening in Texas right now is an example. Texas had the | money to buy snowplows. They didn't. Texas had the money to | winterize wind turbines. They didn't. | | We have to get beyond our short term greed and work together in | long term action to succeed at addressing these problems. | Otherwise there will always be Epsteins, etc. in any industry | where people are vying for attention (most of them). | tabtab wrote: | Re: _Texas had the money to buy snowplows. They didn 't. Texas | had the money to winterize wind turbines. They didn't._ | | They worship tax-cuts and D.I.Y. social Darwinism (survival of | the fittest). So when the weather gets bad, many there are okay | with social Darwinism per survival. | https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/17/texas-mayor-... | | Note I didn't say all are happy with it, but enough that they | tend to lightly fund infrastructure. | [deleted] | MichaelMoser123 wrote: | what interests me is: how do people maintain their integrity in | such a foul environment? I mean if you can't look yourself in the | mirror then how do you keep on creating anything? | AltruisticGapHN wrote: | An important topic here is that shame is also a construct, and | it is a collective construct. Certain things are shameful in | one culture, not in another. | | This isn't to say that we don't have a gut feeling when | something feels wrong. We have an inner sense of boundaries | which eg. can be damaged by trauma and deeply affects our | ability to connect and such. | | But when it comes to adult relationships there is a wide | spectrum of behaviours and unless everyone tells you something | is deeply wrong, I think there are times and places where | people may not endure the same sense of shame. | Udik wrote: | Exactly. Insisting on how shameful and/ or traumatic some | experiences _must_ feel is, deep down, incredibly puritanic. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Which isn't always a bad thing. E.g. society can deem | certain experiences shameful (incest) for puritanical | reasons if it decides to do so. | MichaelMoser123 wrote: | I don't quite buy that; whatever your cultural norms are, | there will always be a significant problem with any kind of | forced violation of this kind. | bluGill wrote: | Perhaps, but none of this was forced. It was clear that if | you didn't play the game you wouldn't get farther in | general, but you had a choice, if you call get out of music | a choice. | [deleted] | jaegerpicker wrote: | This assumes that everyone views integrity in the same way. Not | everyone views sex as a sacred rite that a lot of cultures make | it out to be. Regardless of my views or your views using sex | for gain isn't wrong or immoral to everyone. I don't support or | think it's right for anyone to have no other option but some | people would argue that having the option is better than not | and I shouldn't enforce my morals on them. | | Note: I'd never use sex in a bargain, vows and dealing with | peoples emotions is a very serious thing to me. I'm not | everyone though. | runawaybottle wrote: | You overestimate the amount of integrity people have. | dang wrote: | The article is interesting because it seems to be an example of | just that. | linuxftw wrote: | Why do you think so many celebs face drug addiction? They're | being exploited, often have to compromise their morals, and | drugs are a coping mechanism. | | Institutions of power are masters of controlling people. It's | almost scientific. | bigtex wrote: | Also drugs are used as a control mechanism, as we say with | the child stars who were being sexual abused. Get them | addicted to drugs while the abuser gets what they want. | usrusr wrote: | It's really simple I think: the vast majority of "transactions" | won't be well defined "do x to get y" offers but just things | that may or may not change certain odds. There's an entire | spectrum between the extremes of pure romantic love and list | price prostitution and I believe that the point were you really | can't fool yourself anymore can be surprisingly far from the | former. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Combine a mild dose of self delusion with a huge potential | payoff and world view that everything is crap and there's | evil everywhere and you'll have no trouble living with | yourself no matter what you do. | killtimeatwork wrote: | A polish pop star who once said that her career took 10 years | longer to go off than it otherwise would because she refused to | sleep with the important people in the biz. So, you can | maintain your integrity. | simonh wrote: | At a very real risk of being permanently blocked. Just | because one person managed to succeed despite not being | compromised, that doesn't mean it's possible generally. It | seems more likely that almost all the artists that refuse to | compromise have their career killed right there. | chokeartist wrote: | Yup. Just ask Rose McGowan. I'm sure in retrospect it would | have been easier for her career to let mongloid-dick Harvey | Weinstein plow her a few times. | | Fucking disgusting abuse of power. Makes me sick. | watwut wrote: | > how do people maintain their integrity in such a foul | environment? | | They can not require sexual favors when they are about to | decide who to help. This ability is entirely within their | possibilities. | | Because really, the biggest integrity fail in this is sexual | harassment, making business decisions based on sexual favors | (demanding ones or accepting them) and abuse of power. | Consultant32452 wrote: | I'd have sex with a rich and powerful woman in exchange for | millions of dollars and I wouldn't feel the slightest bit of | shame. | lurquer wrote: | But would a rich and powerful woman want to have sex with | you? For millions of dollars? | | I salute your inflated ego, sir! | havelhovel wrote: | The key word is "I'd" which is the contraction of "I | would", which indicates a hypothetical situation separate | from the commenter's ego or self-image. | [deleted] | jinkyu wrote: | "were"? | [deleted] | subpixel wrote: | I'm reminded of an axiom, which I will paraphrase: | | Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is about power. | agumonkey wrote: | Actually I'd bet that neurologically sex is far from power | games, but along each growth the system gets used for personal | benefits rather than union. Might be a cultural lens too. | mnouquet wrote: | Actually, in a human hierarchical society, power is all about | sex. | saalweachter wrote: | Money, power, sex and elephants. | pjc50 wrote: | It might have gone better if you'd said "aphorism" rather than | "axiom", because boy howdy are there a lot of people in these | comments who don't know what an aphorism is and are taking it | literally. | subpixel wrote: | you are correct. | A12-B wrote: | I've always thought this phrase is a bit silly. It completely | erases the existence of asexual people and their goals and | ambitions. | jmt_ wrote: | Not that I'm supporting asexual erasure, but sayings like the | quote in GP are usually fairly general. Statistically, there | are much much fewer asexual people than not, so in general it | may hold but that's not to say it holds for every single | person. | robscallsign wrote: | The average human has one breast and one testicle. | dspillett wrote: | And less than two arms. | covidthrow wrote: | Parent is talking about percentiles, not averages. | | But on the point of averages: the median human has two | breasts and no testicles. | mnouquet wrote: | Even with asexual people, it's _all_ about sex... or the lack | of thereof. Asexuality is a sexuality. | eqvinox wrote: | I think you misunderstand the phrase; it's about society as a | whole, not individual people. Things are implicitly about sex | and power on an ingrained level, and asexual people are just | _screwed_ (SCNR) even more by this. | A12-B wrote: | I disagree with that. Not everything is implicitly about | sex, maybe everything is about power (strong maybe) but sex | is not a precursor to that. That said, you are probably | right that the things that are about sex and power end up | disadvantaging the asexuals. | [deleted] | voldacar wrote: | Asexual people actually are the ones erasing their own | existence. On a generational timescale, at least | A12-B wrote: | Not really, because asexuality is not an inheritable trait, | as far as i understand. It wouldn't have lasted this long | in humanity if it was (maybe there were asexuals who have | been forced to have sex? I don't know). | | It can also just be a lifestyle choice. We wouldn't call | this asexuality probably, but nevertheless if someone | chooses not to have sex it's kind of a spit in the face to | say that everything from work to relaxation is undertaken | because of some sex->power pipeline. | lostgame wrote: | Came here to post this, glad I didn't and forget we can't | post about asexuality here. | | As an asexual person, not only are we not respected | whatsoever here, but in my experienced, also personally | attacked. | | That your comment about erasure is getting this many down | votes is unfortunately absolutely common for HN, and I'm | incredibly disappointed in that. | | Before people jump in who might not be asexual to try to | defend this - it's such a problem I have actually shared | emails with an admin who actually seem genuinely concerned | about the problem. Just the truth. | | I'm not sure why HN has it in for asexuals, but God damn | guys, can't you ease up on us? | caseysoftware wrote: | > _I 'm not sure why HN has it in for asexuals, but God | damn guys, can't you ease up on us?_ | | Complaining about the erasure of asexual people as you use | "guys" to erase non-men is an unfortunate combo. | lostgame wrote: | My apologies. I use 'guys' gender-neutrally, I should | have said 'y'all', which was the intention. | | Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it. | A12-B wrote: | It's ok. If you even slightly hint at being self righteous | or virtuous you will get downvoted. I saw it coming the | second I said 'asexual people exist', which is just a | declarative statement of fact and nothing more. | Clewza313 wrote: | They got downvotes because it's not relevant to the point | of the saying. | | Which this little flap just underlined, because | asexuality is defined as a lack of interest in sex, once | again demonstrating that everything is indeed about sex | (or lack thereof). | lostgame wrote: | This is hilarious. | | 'Everything is about food.' | | 'Well, an iPhone isn't food.' | | 'Well, you had to mention that an iPhone _wasn 't_ food, | therefore everything is indeed about food, or lack | thereof!' | | ... | | There's a term for this type of fallacious reasoning, I | forget what it is - anyone? | A12-B wrote: | Not really. That's like saying everything is about food | because even when it's not about food, it's still about | food in relation to something else. You still have to | prove everything is about sex, or we can do this with any | object and assert it as true. | azeirah wrote: | I found that HN is generally not very friendly to LGBTQ+ | people. I don't think it is because there's a certain type | of phobia here, but most people here are very logical and | analytical people which I've seen resulting in "logical | arguments for and against the existence of ..." which is | just.. Why | | We exist because we exist, nothing else. | lostgame wrote: | And to speak up about it, as obviously pictured once | again here - gets us downvoted into oblivion, only | confirming our feelings of being unheard... | | For real, it's been such an issue here I have had emails | with an admin but didn't press the issue further and I | think it's due time to send another one. They really did | seem to care and to be concerned. | mercer wrote: | I'm very much in your camp, so to speak, but I downvoted | some of the upthread comments because I think they are | responding to something that wasn't really said. | | There's a massive difference between an observation and a | judgment. Especially if that 'observation' is a commonly | quoted statement (aphorism, as has been pointed out). | | Personally, I'm pretty close to asexual if we'd consider | sexuality a spectrum. As such, if anything, I find the | observation valuable because it underlines how much sex | plays a role in areas of life where really perhaps it | shouldn't. | | Pointing out something that is true or at worst perceived | to be true is in no way equal to agreeing with it, or | morally defending it. | lostgame wrote: | I...might agree with downvoting maybe the poster's | original point, but, as an asexual person, blanket | statements like the world revolves around sex absolutely | do seem to completely ignore the ever-growing movement of | openly asexual individuals. | | My responses, however, about the general negative | atmosphere towards LGTBQ+ folks here, especially asexuals | in particular - (no idea _why_ , asexuals in particular; | it's just relentless, sometimes) - also got downvoted | into near oblivion. | | They consistently have, and I regret even opening up | about it, honestly, because I hate getting dragged into | this shit online, but I wanted to actually back up and | validate the OP who has evidently had an extremely | similar experience to my own, that; yes, HN has a long- | standing problem with LGBTQ+ relations, and neither OP or | I are the first to experience or post about it. | | That we choose to open up about the negative treatment, | and get downvoted for it, for me; is an issue of respect | and being heard. | | Downvotes on a post saying that we feel the community | needs work with regards to respect for LGBTQ+ people | _obviously_ only make, at least myself - feel even | shittier and more unheard. | | Getting downvoted into oblivion for opening up about the | negative treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals on this | particular forum seems clearly intentionally * phobic and | that's just a shit sandwich I can't do much about. | | Is it the stigma associated with asexuality? Is is just | general * phobia? I'm not sure what makes HN in | particular so awful with regards to LGBTQ+ issues - today | has certainly all but reaffirmed that for me - but for | such an intelligent crowd, and a bunch of people from the | Bay area and shit; I'm honestly continually baffled and | unfortunately it appears to be a _growing_ issue that is | getting worse, rather than improving in any way. | eqvinox wrote: | You're assuming you're getting downvoted due to the | asexual aspect of your posts. I don't know whether this | applies to other cases, but in this case I'm reasonably | sure the reason is different: the existence and behavior | of asexual people does not change how overall society | works (sadly). | | In the very situation the BBC story refers to, it doesn't | matter whether you're an asexual musician. The | producer/executive/... would still expect sex from you. | They don't give a shit, follow their ingrained patterns, | and that's the problem. | | No part of "Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is | about power." is in any way diminishing or erasing | asexual people. If anything, it exemplifies the | additional plight that being asexual brings, even over | other LGBTQ+ preferences. Society expects you to be about | sex & that's gonna be a very slow change. | globular-toast wrote: | Yeah and it completely erases the existence of clouds too! | Why isn't there a bit about clouds?! | benburleson wrote: | Or, is the lack of sex about power, reinforcing the axiom? | A12-B wrote: | The 'axiom' (idiom) is not that the lack of sex is power, | but that everything is sex, and sex itself is power, | therefore everything is ultimately about power. But you | cannot take sex our of that equation. So it implies that | anything you do, even if you don't care about having sex at | all, is about sex. Doesn't make sense. | kgwxd wrote: | It's also leaves out everyone for whom sex is not about | power. It's like saying knives are for stabbing, which is | true, if you're going to stab someone. | mnouquet wrote: | Either conscientiously or inconscientiously, sex is about | power. | kgwxd wrote: | Says more about the speaker than sex itself. Sounds like the | words of someone with mental health issues. | leetcrew wrote: | kevin spacey said this in the first season of house of cards. | kgwxd wrote: | I did not know that and I choked on my tea reading it. | leetcrew wrote: | in hindsight, it's kind of incredible. in the show, he | said this to a young reporter who was trading sexual | favors for scoops. | ordu wrote: | Or maybe someone who've read Frans de Waal "Chimpanzee | Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes". Power and sex seem to be | interlinked due to evolution: the more power one have, the | more accessible sex and reproduction become. People are | trying to break this link for some reasons (probably good | reasons), but it is not so easy. | subpixel wrote: | A more nuanced critique is to be found via the podcast "Sex | Power Money", by Sara Pascoe. | globular-toast wrote: | _Fifty Shades of Grey_ is one of the best selling books of | all time. Almost all the women your age have read it or seen | the film. You should too. | mhh__ wrote: | The phrase should be considered as a framework for (let's | say) hyper-masculine Id behaviour. | | However sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. | mensetmanusman wrote: | The internet is enabling a new norm in reducing the cost of | calling out behavior. | | Some of this is good, e.g. calling out sexual abuse. Some of this | is bad, e.g. cancel culture that has no means of forgiveness. | mathgorges wrote: | I've seen this take quite a bit lately with respect to cancel | culture and I'm a bit confused about it. | | Since HN is amazing, I'm hoping someone here can help me | understand without it turning into a flamewar. | | I don't understand how "cancel culture" is substantially | different from what we used to call "boycotts", just with the | internet for more social lubrication. | | I suppose theres a risk that the allegations at the center of | the boycott are incorrect, but isn't that what defamation laws | are meant to combat? | [deleted] | jimkleiber wrote: | I think one thing that I've noticed is that defamation laws | seem really hard to enforce on people speaking on the | internet, especially when one can hide behind a pseudonym or | straight anonymity. | | I guess overall for "cancel culture", I see it similar to | boycotts, but often boycotts _edit_ are _/ edit_ of a | specific individual, and also without the stipulation that | the boycott will stop if a behavior changes. AFAIK, the civil | rights bus boycotts wanted a specific policy to change and | once that policy changed, they stopped their boycotts. Much | of "cancel culture" I guess wants an organization's policy to | change, but often that policy is to excommunicate an | individual and there doesn't seem to be much that the | individual can do to seek redemption--but I may be wrong on | this. | | Would love to hear your thoughts in response. | mathgorges wrote: | Thats a fair take. | | I hadn't considered the sort-of agenda that boycotts tend | to have. | | I bet a lot of cancels also have a salient agenda, but | since the movement is so democratized it gets lost in the | noise. Just a gut feeling. | | _____ | | You lost me a bit on: | | > Much of "cancel culture" I guess wants an organization's | policy to change, but often that policy is to excommunicate | an individual... | | I've been conceptualizing the cancel as individuals | choosing to not support creators, but this makes it sound | like theres a third-party involved. A sibling comment | mentioned people repeatedly calling Disney.. am I missing | something here? | | _____ | | I've been involved in one cancel before, so heres the frame | of reference I'm coming from: | | I like an artist named DojaKat. | | A while ago a video surfaced of her singing a song with a | racial slur in it. | | I saw the video and said to myself "Oh man, I don't want to | support a racist artist, this sucks, but I don't think I | should stream her on Spotify anymore (In my mind, that was | the cancel). | | Some weeks later, DojaKat released a video in which she | apologized, talked about how much she's grown as a person, | and promised to do better. It seemed sincere to me, so I | added her work back to my Spotify playlists. | | Am I correctly interpreting that as a cancel? | mgarfias wrote: | Boycott is me (or you) choosing not to spend your money or do | business with a particular entity due to perceived notions | about that entity. | | This cancel culture stuff is about not just "not reading the | article and not going to the site", its an active attack | against someone that you don't like. | | A boycott is me saying "buzz feed sux, i won't goto one of t | heir urls". Cancelling would be me saying Gina Carano sux, | i'm gonna call disney over and over until she gets fired. | kube-system wrote: | There is a long history of people who have been fired due | to public outrage. People have different (and a greater | number of) means of communicating that outrage today, but | the general mechanism hasn't changed. | mathgorges wrote: | A few people have made the point about boycotts being | against organizations and cancels being against | individuals. | | I don't see the material difference there, what about it | being an individual makes you feel it's different? | | Your last point is intriguing to me. | | If I were to simply not watch films with Gina Carano in | them anymore, would you still say I'm canceling her? | unishark wrote: | When it's against individuals it starts to become | harassment and bullying, depending on the severity. These | are not things we generally care about protecting | organizations from, just individuals. | mathgorges wrote: | I see, that makes sense. | | I'm still curious if me choosing to not watch films with | problematic individuals in them would be considered | cancelling or a boycott? | leetcrew wrote: | > A boycott is me saying "buzz feed sux, i won't goto one | of t heir urls". Cancelling would be me saying Gina Carano | sux, i'm gonna call disney over and over until she gets | fired. | | I guess I'm not sure I see the difference here. complaining | about what gina carano says on her twitter is, in a | roundabout way, complaining about a disney product. disney | didn't fire an actress from one of their popular shows | because they got tired of listening to a small group of | people complain; they did it because enough people | complained that they saw a potential loss in future | revenue. this looks a lot like a boycott to me. | manfredo wrote: | A boycott is when consumers protest an organization by | refusing to do business with them. Typically this is done to | try an effect a change in behavior or policy in said | organization. | | Cancel culture usually targets an individual. The objective | is typically not change in policy, but the ostracism of the | target. | | E.g. refusing to buy from Nike until they pay better wages to | their manufacturing labor is a boycott. Pressuring a company | to fire a certain employee because a group doesn't like the | political views of said employee is cancel culture. | jimbokun wrote: | People getting fired for an allegation that doesn't pan out, | but by then their reputation and career are already | destroyed. | | Or comments taken out of context or missing nuance. | | Or punishment out of proportion to the offense. | | In the past, boycotts were aimed at corporations. Not buying | or consuming a specific product, or protesting that company. | Cancel culture is more aimed at individuals. | | Suing for defamation can be expensive and risky, and doesn't | necessarily restore reputational damage even if you win. | | Obviously, some people clearly guilty of the accusations | against them and deserve the consequences being meted out | against them. | | But there is also a long history of "witch hunts" and people | being punished in ways that don't deserve. Social media is | enabling a new form of that, which is what we call "cancel | culture". | klyrs wrote: | > In the past, boycotts were aimed at corporations. Not | buying or consuming a specific product, or protesting that | company. Cancel culture is more aimed at individuals. | | This isn't remotely new, though. For one very visible | example in our industry, Lynn Conway got fired for coming | out as transgender. Similarly, Turing was canceled for | being gay. Politicians have been getting canceled for | marital infidelity for most of my life (and, wow, Trump | really modernized the Republican party on that one). Not to | mention the McCarthy era, where people got canceled over | suspected affiliation with leftists. | | There's a huge panic about how cancel culture is destroying | the world... but the difference is that people today are | getting canceled for exhibiting intolerance and bigotry, | instead of getting canceled by the intolerance and bigotry | of those in power. And, yes. There are certainly cases | where the cancellation is disproportionate to the offense. | But compared to Harvey Milk, Martin Luther King, and many | many others canceled in the past... there's nothing new | here, and historically speaking, this sort of cancellation | is pretty soft. | jlawson wrote: | Turing wasn't 'canceled' for being gay. He was prosecuted | by the government according to the laws of the time, by | police. Cancel culture is _extra-legal_ and does not | involve the use of laws or police. | | Cancel culture is also distinct from politicians and | infidelity because cancel culture _targets non-public | individuals_. Of course politicians and celebrities were | always subject to public opinion; the modern era now | means that everyone can be targeted this way, even if | they weren 't known at all before (Justine Sacco is a | simple example). | | The McCarthy era was again a matter of government action | through government processes with at least some level of | transparency, democratic representation, and | accountability. It was not spontaneous mobs of | individuals without leaders or any kind of | accountability. (They also targeted communists, not just | 'leftists'). | | It's ironic you say casually that "people today are | getting canceled for exhibiting intolerance and bigotry", | when cancel culture is itself intolerance and bigotry. | The standard definition of bigotry is "extreme | intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs | from one's own." [0] | | [0] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry | | It's also always disturbing to encounter people like you | who are openly clear that cancel culture is just like | historical persecution, but you're totally fine with it | because you (wrongly) think it only happens to bad | people. As though only people you like deserve to have | human rights. | mathgorges wrote: | You're point about cancel culture being against _private_ | individuals is new to me. | | Where I think of people who have been cancelled I only | think about celebrities. | | Reading about Justine Sacco's story was interesting. Do | you know where I can learn more about private individuals | being cancelled? (Googling only brings up celebs) | mrec wrote: | Emmanuel Cafferty is one example that springs to mind: | | https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop- | firin... | spoonjim wrote: | Yes, they are equivalent to boycotts, but think about how | hard it was to organize a boycott. They were done at large | scale to protest things like "black people must sit in the | back of the bus." | | Now your career can end because "You encouraged too much | forgiveness for a girl who attended the wrong kind of party | at 18." | ookblah wrote: | i think boycotting a business or having a highly visible | public figure (aka celebrities) face social consequences | isn't "cancel culture". it comes with the territory, so to | speak. | | for me, personally, it's when your average joe gets the other | end of internet mob justice and they suddenly seek to ruin | everything about your life above and beyond what you would | normally face. | mr-wendel wrote: | Great questions, and I applaud your ability to approach a | sensitive topic with such open curiosity. | | Some arguments I'm familiar with around cancel culture are | below. My goal isn't to assert them -- just enumerate some of | them. People are welcome to reshape them or knock 'em down as | they see fit. | | - The Internet is a global namespace: now you can have people | anywhere in the world outraged. What used to be a localized | problem and response can now turn into a localized problem, | but global response. | | - The ability to go back-in-time is all too easy. That dumb | comment you made as a teenager can come back years and years | later to haunt you (or people close to you). Maybe you had a | massive turn-around already or you were recorded without | consent. Often that doesn't matter. | | - It is fostering an insidious call-out culture. The focus is | no longer on prevention and remediation, but on scoring | points and repositioning power towards "the vanguard". | Legitimate victims aren't helped to heal and offenders aren't | led to improve. | | - No room is given to defend yourself, particularly when | mobbed upon. Even if the record is set straight later it | doesn't matter, as your reputation (possibly friendships, | career, and family life) is in tatters. | | What I do feel worth asserting is this: no matter what the | current norm is, always remember you will be judged according | to later standards, right or wrong. The greater the disparity | in power the more important this is regardless of role (e.g. | boss, parent, etc). | mathgorges wrote: | Thanks for this. These sort-of argument catalogue comments | are very helpful in these discussions. | | And your call out at the bottom is good wisdom :) | | Edit: this->these | LanceH wrote: | -- it is selectively enforced depending on what side | someone is on -- especially with regards to forgiveness of | something which happened some time ago. | | -- Context is irrelevant. People are being canceled for | using the wrong word when enumerating words which cannot be | said. again, some people can say them, some can't. | | -- it is completely out of proportion to things which do | actual damage. This really bothers me. Someone saying | something really bad means less to me than even the mildest | act of violence | | -- some places are upping the ante to claim that speech is | actual violence and that if certain people aren't fired, | then the workplace is unsafe | heywherelogingo wrote: | Boycott - don't attend talk. Cancel culture - you may not | give talk. | mathgorges wrote: | So "cancel culture" == "deplatforming"? | werber wrote: | Boycotts still exist, like the BDS (boycott divest sanction) | movement | matkoniecz wrote: | Not an expert, but big difference is that boycotts are | against companies/businesses while cancellations target | individuals. | rgblambda wrote: | The term can apply to individuals as well. | | The origin of the term boycott was a landlord's agent | called Charles Boycott, who was socially and economically | ostracised in response to the eviction of tenants. | macksd wrote: | I see the difference as being that boycotting is a means of | protesting a specific policy or practice in the hopes that an | organization changes. | | Cancel culture is wanting to punish a person (or virtue | signal) for something in the past. Maybe they deserve it - I | get it more when there's a history of credible charges of | sexual assault or something (but then, I'd prefer they be | tried in court and punished via the legal system). But the | bar seems to have lowered and now you get fired for a tweet | people don't like. And maybe people have the right to do it, | but that doesn't mean it's always a good idea. If we're not | careful it takes over the role of rule of law in our society | and will do a worse job of it. | | In the recent case of Gina Carano specifically, I don't think | her tweet is remotely offensive to the level of being fired, | and the effect will be that she's given a voice and seen as a | martyr by people who have far more extreme opinions than what | she's voiced previously. | armchairhacker wrote: | IMO the main issue with cancel culture is when it targets | people who are innocent or gives unreasonable punishments for | small mistakes. Those being cancelled are tried in the court | of social media, where critics attack without evidence or | even knowing the accusations. The accused' friends and | employers fear being associated with the accused, even if | they ultimately get cleared of any wrongdoing, and they can | sue for defamation but it won't necessarily work out. | | People have gotten kicked out of colleges for using racist | words in text messages. People have been fired for their jobs | for messages taken out of context. Non-public individuals | start getting death threats online and they get called out in | the streets, for small mistakes or things taen out of | context. | | A separate issue is that people sometimes get cancelled for | things that happened a long time ago, sometimes even when | they were still young. The issue here is that people change. | It would be like boycotting a company because 20 years ago | they exploited workers, regardless of whatever they're doing | today. It's a really grey area. | tchalla wrote: | > However he left the music business in the mid-90s to become a | teacher and is now president of Saint Louis School in his native | Hawaii. | | Interesting career choice :) | timthorn wrote: | My chemistry teacher was in a top ten pop group in decades | past. Could be a more common career ladder than you might | think. | fuzzer37 wrote: | Wow that sounds super interesting. Did he have any cool | stories? | unnouinceput wrote: | Quote: "Mafia 'owned' pop stars" | | Mafia owned Elvis. If the king didn't had a chance what chance | have the pop stars? Get serious, where is lust, regardless of | industry, there is Mafia, organized or not. | selimthegrim wrote: | Citation? I thought he kept family retainers around | chiefalchemist wrote: | It's hard to imagine this is only the music industry. Human use | sex as a weapon and a tool all the time. True, it might be more | useful in the music industry but why would sex as currency only | exist there? | | Where there are humans, there is sex. The obviousness of how that | plays out may differ but the underlying theme is universal. | csunbird wrote: | Reminds me of a (untasteful) joke in Family Guy: | | A women goes to the "Penguin" Publishing, where the owner is a | penguin and asks for her book to be published. The penguin | makes the joke: "If you want your book in black and white, | black and white has to be in you." | | I feel like this is based on a true story. | bjourne wrote: | Perhaps because the music industry is so dependent on personal | connections and because talent is very subjective? In academia, | doctorate students usually do not have to sleep with their | supervisors to get their degree. | tabtab wrote: | How do you know that? There are plenty of opportunities for | favoritism. For example, listing position on the name of | assistants on research papers. | jacquesm wrote: | This comment probably wasn't intentionally funny. | runawaybottle wrote: | It depends. It's a matter of how normalized the vice is. If | everyone did coke in the 80s, it is much easier for one not to | feel any one way about it. | | It's not normal to fuck your way to the top or use your power | for sex everywhere. It's abnormal in many places. | | Avoid systems that make you feel uneasy. Whoring/pimping ain't | for everyone. The same way I'd say avoid tech if hyper | competition makes you uneasy. | alistairSH wrote: | Any industry where there's a massive power differential between | "the boss" and "the employee" will likely have this happen. | | US Gymnastics. Movie, TV, and music industries. US Presidents | (and other politicians) and employees. | | Hell, you still get it in normal business. The stories my wife | tells about former co-workers and bosses are disgusting and a | primary reason she no longer works at a former employer. | chiefalchemist wrote: | The power deltas might create more opportunity. But as you | (and me) noted, it's everywhere. | nabla9 wrote: | It makes perfect sense. | | Music industry is a economics of superstars. | https://www.jstor.org/stable/1803469 Very few stars get huge | profits and after that it's long slim tail. | | Talent or high work ethic is not enough for success, "getting | discovered" aka someone likes you and invests the initial money | and effort is another factor. | | If personal effort is not enough and the artist has nothing else, | selling your ass for an opportunity to earn millions is pretty | damn reasonable transaction. I mean, if Jeff Besos would come to | you and say: I invest into your startup $100M if I can fuck you | into the ass tree times, very high percentage of HN crowd would | immediately say yes. | agumonkey wrote: | The big question is will internet free the good artists that | were gatekeeped due to refusing debasing their core values. I | have a feeling that only those ready to overcome any such | hurdles have the grit to pursue a stage life, but I can be | wrong. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | I wouldn't put it that way, but I think you're referring to | something real. I'm not musical but I was quite active in | theatre from a young age and there seems to be a skill around | dissociation that is necessary to perform. There's something | incredibly intimate that happens between a performer and the | audience, someone comfortable with that kind of intimacy with | that many strangers probably couldn't have certain kinds of | core values anyway. | illwrks wrote: | The answer to that question is a "no". | | Those large companies are distributors, packaging a product | and selling it to consumers. Think of distribution like a | motorway Vs dirt road. If you're doing it yourself, you're | running down that dirt road trying to get from point A to | point B, battling with millions other people trying to do the | same. If you're with a distribution company, you're on their | branded luxury touring bus cruising down a motorway, you'll | be arriving any minute... | shakow wrote: | > The big question is will internet free the good artists | that were gatekeeped | | I don't think so. What they need the most is publicity, and | this is not magically granted by internet. | | Just take a look at e.g. Spotify; I'm sure there are hundreds | of extremely gifted artists sitting down at barely a few | dozens listenings, just because no one found them. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Spotify charges $1/song/month as a listing fee. I bet a | majority of Spotify artists pay more to Spotify than they | receive. | steverb wrote: | I've never had to pay spotify a monthly fee to list a | song. I've had to pay some one time costs to get the song | listed (via a distributor), but I've never had to pay a | maintenance fee of any sort. | | And I assure you, the stuff I've put up does not make | enough money to cover any fees (20 listens a month). | agumonkey wrote: | But it's interesting. Do we like artists due to marketing | only ? Or seducing feature over artistic quality. A small | but gifted artist on Spotify could, in theory (in theory), | generate word of mouth at quickly get known. Sometimes I | believe that labels were filters for that. They could see | who was just very good and who had some 'it factor'. | bluGill wrote: | The problem is there are more great artists with the | potential than the world needs. Only one artist can be | number one for the week in any given week, and the artist | who holds that often does for several weeks (and often | they get a second hit). People like a small amount of | change in life, which means they listen to a few artists, | then change to a different one. Then they grow up/old and | review that set of artists for memory sake and need even | less new great ones. | | I don't have time to listen to all the great music in the | world. Even if "God" gave me a list of all the great | artists trying to record today, it would take me more | than a day to listen to all their recordings. So the | labels choose for me, and to a large extent it doesn't | matter which ones they choose, what matters is there is a | filter to gets the right amount of music to me. In the | world being great isn't enough as there are more than | enough greats, so if you can great, good looking (this | helps me overlook any of your faults - I'd like to think | otherwise but I know better), and good in the bed of the | label - you make it. If you fail any of the above three | you have probably lost (note to the good looking, the | labels may use you for sex knowing that you won't make | it). | | Note too that labels bring in other help for the great. I | can record music in my basement: I don't have the best | microphones, but they are good enough to pick up the sump | pump in the corner. I can mix tracks in my basement as | well, lets just say I'm not quitting my day job. I could | go on about other parts of the process of turning a great | artist into a great recording for mass consumption that | labels have figured out. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | 'Some factor' was usually the previous generations' | equivalent of virality - typically a blend of sexual | charisma, personal charisma, theatricality, entertainment | value, and shock value. | | Without that packaging music is a very tough sell. Being | competent and creative on its own isn't enough. | | I can't think of anyone who has made it on musicality | alone without at least some of the above OR enthusiastic | and regular promotion by gatekeepers (top radio DJs) | while they were still an influence. | beckman466 wrote: | > I mean, if Jeff Besos would come to you and say: I invest | into your startup $100M if I can fuck you into the ass tree | times, very high percentage of HN crowd would immediately say | yes. | | Ew. This comment is atrocious and shows your privilege. It | sounds like you haven't listened to many stories of women | experiencing systemic abuse, misogyny and humiliation (and who | experience most of this abuse in the music industry). It scares | me that people say this stuff publicly. | | Comparing Bezos 'fucking you in the ass three times to gain an | advantage' with the constant threat women face from powerful | men leaves me feeling disgusted | IAmGraydon wrote: | Get a grip. | vmception wrote: | The reaction anybody views probably comes from their own | prior life experiences. | | That doesn't change that a very high percentage of the HN | crowd would take this offer are men. A lot men are not in a | position to reject offers about their body's sexual value | such that it turns into abuse. | | A lot of men (99%?) don't get the privilege of making a | choice to prove themselves in the business world, versus | distinctly with their body. | | If this was a more frequent choice, the gender representation | in tech/corporate leadership roles would even out much | faster. Because less men would be there, having chosen a | different opportunity. I perceive this as an underrepresented | reality. | | I viewed that comment as referring to that crowd. | nabla9 wrote: | These two things don't compare: | | a) People in position of power demanding sexual favors from | people so that they can get on with their work or get small | rewards. | | b) Competitive entertainers prostituting themselves for rare | opportunities to become wealthy celebrities. Exchanges of sex | for extreme rewards. | | Equating how people prostitute themselves for celebrity | status and high income to the abuse that some background | dancer gets every day is wrong. | | I understand that people live and understand things trough | celebrities, but that's not where the real problems are. | beckman466 wrote: | > b) Competitive entertainers prostituting themselves for | rare opportunities to become wealthy celebrities. Exchanges | of sex for extreme rewards. | | No. I think you overestimate the frequency of this | happening. Most people don't want to give sex for | opportunities. | | Most of the people I've met just want their unique talent | to be recognized and honored. | nabla9 wrote: | Many beautiful women marry rich ugly men they don't love | for money. That's not abuse. It's prostituting oneself. I | respect these women and men and their decisions. | Sometimes sex is business decision. | | Trading sex for favors is not automatically abuse. | | People trade sex for opportunity because all other tings | equal they may get opportunity over someone better. | Superstars don't become superstars just because they have | unique talents. They are as much or more results of | marketing investments. When there are hundreds of equally | talented individuals, picking one of them for marketing | is more or less random. | | When person has opportunity to continue as indie artist | or sell their ass for million dollar opportunity, that's | just a business deal. | mam2 wrote: | > Ew. This comment is atrocious and shows your privilege. It | sounds like you haven't listened to many stories of women | experiencing systemic abuse and misogyny. It scares me that | people say this stuff publicly. | | The point is that for 2 girls complaining about abuse, in | this industry there are 100 who perfectly know what they are | doing and happy to play the sexual favor game. | | The only part where you are right is that it should be made | more public, so that "innocent" (not like amber heard) girls | would not get so surprised then. | beckman466 wrote: | > in this industry there are 100 who perfectly know what | they are doing and happy to play the sexual favor game. | | Do they 'know', or have they just come to accept this level | of violence and danger becuase of their gender? | | > The only part where you are right is that it should be | made more public, so that "innocent" (not like amber heard) | girls would not get so surprised then. | | Ah jeez, speculating about Amber's innocence is just | tabloid celebrity gawking at this point. Have you met her | or heard her story in person? No. | leesalminen wrote: | To me your comment is illustrating your privilege. | Prostituting oneself three times to be financially set for | life could be a perfectly acceptable trade off for millions | of people. The fact that you wouldn't even consider it shows | that you haven't gone hungry for a while. | TacticalCoder wrote: | > The fact that you wouldn't even consider it shows that | you haven't gone hungry for a while. | | "I give you $1 bn if you kill that one kid" and you answer | "I'll never kill a kid, no matter how much you pay me" to | which I reply: "Your answer is illustrating your | privilege". | | Certainly you see the gigantic sophism in your comment? | leesalminen wrote: | No, actually I think this is a fairly poor analogy. In | your example, one is being asked to harm _another_ for | their benefit. In the other, one is being asked to harm | _one's self_ for their benefit. | | However terrible and painful the example is, abstractly, | I believe people are free to decide what happens to | themselves, but not to others. Murder is universally | illegal, while prostitution, arguably, shouldn't be, and | isn't in many places. | null_deref wrote: | What are you talking about? In my understanding you're | saying everyone that been offered sexual transaction from a | superstar is dying for a piece of bread? I think that | statement is very detached from reality | wiz21c wrote: | ain't sure what you mean by acceptable. All of this | discussion comes to one question : do you have a choice or | not. | | You have a choice to run a start up and make any sacrifice | you think necessary. You don't have a choice to eat | something when you're hungry. | | If you don't have a choice, then you're a victim. | | (and yes, not everyone has a choice, not everyone just has | to work more to get the choice, many people, at some point, | don't have a choice; abusing their situation is criminal) | zajio1am wrote: | It is not that you have only two options: | | 1) Get $100M and anal sex from Bezos | | 2) Be hungry | | You can take third option, do not take Bezos's offer, do | not make startup and instead do same basic work. So in | this case you have choice. | ceejayoz wrote: | > The fact that you wouldn't even consider it shows that | you haven't gone hungry for a while. | | This is an argument for making sure people don't go hungry, | not for letting rich people rape people who want a job. | leesalminen wrote: | I'm not here to argue about a hypothetical utopia where | nobody on the planet has to make terrible choices to | protect their life. I'm just providing a commentary on | the state of the world we do live in. Obviously this | hypothetical utopia (or any step in that direction) would | be superior to what we have now. | ceejayoz wrote: | I like to think of "not being raped" as "bare minimum | standard to strive for", not "hypothetical utopia". | leesalminen wrote: | I was referring to the hypothetical utopia of "making | sure people don't go hungry", which is something that has | never happened before in human history. But thanks for | assuming negative intent. | ceejayoz wrote: | The world produces enough food to feed everyone. Doubly | true if you scope things to the developed world. Triply | true if you scope it to the USA only. "No one starves" is | just as reasonable a minimum standard to _strive_ for as | "no one gets raped". | | Yes, there are serious implementation details, but | there's a big societal will factor at play too. | tomp wrote: | You're making a strawman argument. The difference is | between "being a local singer vs being a superstar", not | "being hungry vs fed". | ceejayoz wrote: | This thread stems from a comment that stated: | | > The fact that you wouldn't even consider it shows that | you haven't gone hungry for a while. | beckman466 wrote: | > To me your comment is illustrating your privilege. | Prostituting oneself three times to be financially set for | life could be a perfectly acceptable trade off for millions | of people. | | I hear you and get where you're coming from, yet my take is | that I want to shift the dynamics of the system for | everyone. Systems change, not personal change. Also this | isn't about a 'facing a trade off' or sex work, it's about | dehumanization and exploitation at the hands of an abusive | powerful person. | | And I want everyone to be 'set for life'. It's absolutely | possible. | leesalminen wrote: | > I want to shift the dynamics of the system for | everyone. Systems change, not personal change. | | We can agree here! | [deleted] | galfarragem wrote: | > very high percentage of HN crowd would immediately say yes | | FWIW, I believe GP was not making any gender distinction.. | rectang wrote: | I agree, that was the intent. The article talks about gay | sexual favors. | | However, the distinction is that people with tangible | experience with sexual abuse perceive this differently. And | unfortunately, women have disproportionate experience with | sexual abuse. | mindslight wrote: | It's easier and more honest to simply say "ew" to a crassly | worded comment, than to drag the discussion into a | pity/privilege party by making up some narrative about the | poster. | fishe wrote: | Don't equate sex work (which is what is in op's example) with | rape. It simultaneously denigrates sex workers while | trivializing victims of sexual violence. | david38 wrote: | There's always one who takes any comment and has to act like | that gatekeeper. | | You don't own suffering. You're not it's gatekeeper. It's not | for you to decide if one person's proposed situation doesn't | take into account the situation of one of millions of | versions of suffering. | | This sounds like you never played "would you rather" as a | child. If comments like this leave you disgusted, you would | reconsider reading public forums. | dv_dt wrote: | A transaction where the terms are fully disclosed with | enforceable clauses and which has a clean starting and ending | completion state is very different from what is being described | in the article or what you are fantastically proposing. | | A sexual assault tied to an entertainment career paths has | indefinite terms, consists of unagreed upon jeopardy in terms | of what is being exchanged, and for how long. It's nothing like | an "opportunity". | hshshs2 wrote: | you seem to neglect the fact that in a realistic scenario bezos | would do it and also not pay you, rape isn't a financial | transaction | [deleted] | johnchristopher wrote: | > if Jeff Besos would come to you and say: I invest into your | startup $100M if I can fuck you into the ass tree times, very | high percentage of HN crowd would immediately say yes. | | What's the name for this kind of arguments? | | Also, why specifically Bezos? Why not the billionaire next | door? | | Also, why only the HN crowd? Wouldn't a lot of people too? | | Do you have a beef with the HN crowd or Bezos? | adamisom wrote: | I perceive your parent comment to be straightforward and not | sinister in the least. Why _not_ Bezos (the billionaire who | most easily comes to mind), why _not_ HN (the website we 're | _on_ )? Seriously, what's with the weird angry insinuating | questions. | leetcrew wrote: | how dare someone choose an example that would be relevant | to the audience! | [deleted] | 3np wrote: | It makes my wonder, just how prevalent is that in the tech | industry? I'm pretty sure it falls somewhere between 0 and | music industry, non-inclusively. | onychomys wrote: | Probably a lot less of a problem since so many tech dudes are | dudes. | hshshs2 wrote: | lots of fairly high profile harassment cases in the | industry, especially if you expand it to include game dev | rectang wrote: | Sadly, that means that the few women in the tech industry | experience even more concentrated abuse. | | Furthermore, there are even fewer people up the tech | management food chain than in other industries who | appreciate the circumstances of sexual abuse victims. | onychomys wrote: | I mostly meant in a probabilistic sense. It's much more | likely that a male VC will be having a meeting with a | male startup CEO than a female one (on either end!). | bluGill wrote: | Sort of. The lack of women in the field is a problem. | However programmers are in demand which means that women | have some awareness that they can scream and get away | with it. A female in the arts who screamed can be | unofficially blacklisted and not get anywhere, where as a | female in programming can scream and find a different | job. | | Also a lot of tech companies (but by no means all!) are | aware of the issue. You can be reasonably sure a large | tech company has as good anti-sexual harassment program | and will generally take actions to prevent it. A female | is about as safe in tech as any other job: not perfectly | safe, as safe as possible. | thn-gap wrote: | Thousands of employees devote already 1/3 of their life doing a | work they despise just so they can avoid starving. | | Getting literally fucked to save 40 years of bad work doesn't | sound too bad. | im3w1l wrote: | It's a race to the bottom though. Once one person does it, | everyone else has to do it too, just so they don't fall | behind. In the end you are back to where you started, except | you have to sell yourself in addition. | xwdv wrote: | You're selling a service, not yourself. There's plenty of | people for whom a sexual favor is not a big deal, and they | see it as a huge return on investment. | kgwxd wrote: | > There's plenty of people for whom a sexual favor is not | a big deal | | And that's their choice. Sleeping your way to the top is | a very separate debate. Requiring anyone who wants a job | to fuck you is the topic being discussed. | enriquto wrote: | > Sleeping your way to the top is a very separate debate | | You keep saying that, but it's actually the same thing. | One cannot exist without the other. You need both kinds | of people for the phenomenon to exist. If a boss hires | only people who have sex with them, and nobody is willing | to, they will not hire anybody. Conversely, if a | candidate is willing to sleep their way to the top, but | no boss partakes in that, then they are not hired. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >It's a race to the bottom though. Once one person does it, | everyone else has to do it too, just so they don't fall | behind. | | See also: growth hacking which is rampant in the tech | startup industry | [deleted] | rectang wrote: | Except that most sexual assault victims just get literally | fucked and don't save 40 years of bad work. | | People generally perceive winner-take-all economies like the | music industry through this same fallacious lens: they assume | that the star experience is the norm and ignore the long | tail. The music industry is a high-profile but economically | tiny; it is not representative of the wider economy, and the | star experience within it is even more unrepresentative. | | It's comments like this which remind me that HN has minuscule | female participation. Because so many more women have | experience with sexual assault than men, and because people | who have experienced sexual assault would downvote this | comment into oblivion, the fact that it survives is a | testament to how screwed up HN demographics are. | neutronicus wrote: | Yeah, this shit didn't happen with a fucking contract - the | entire sexual assault probably took place without the | offender ever even mentioning a _quid pro quo_ , you just | heard from someone else that it was the only way. You can't | sue the fucking guy if you don't get a callback. | | And to be honest there are people here who _loudly_ won 't | even do a three-hour whiteboard interview for a high-paying | gig that isn't a sure thing. | | I just watched Fran Lebowitz's Netflix special and | according to her you couldn't even get a job as a waitress | in NYC in the '70s without sexual favors. Basically a | generation of service industry management looked at | sexually assaulting job applicants as a _perk_. | zajio1am wrote: | > Except that most sexual assault victims just get | literally fucked and don't save 40 years of bad work. | | But sexual assault is offtopic in this thread. OP discussed | voluntary exchange and not sexual assault. | rectang wrote: | The generic term "abuse" would have been more precise, | and I have used it elsethread. However, it is common for | these incidents to take the form of sexual assault: see | Harvey Weinstein, Les Moonves, etc. In any case, | "voluntary exchange" is a spectacularly inapt way to | characterize sexual coercion by entertainment industry | executives. | notahacker wrote: | A lot of "favours" are also about avoiding downsides. | | With Weinstein or hypothetical influential Valley figure, the | choice might be between literally or metaphorically being | fucked. | wiz21c wrote: | I'd be happy to vomit all my sexual weirdness upon you. Then | you'd have those 40 years to rebuild your psychology from | ruins... | | Come on, you can't possibly think seriously about what you | just wrote. | curation wrote: | I thought so. At 20 I used to go out dancing every night for | fun. After being repeatedly groped I decided I should get | paid for dancing. It was a perfect decision. But not for the | money. The thing is it's not the 'getting literally fucked' | that is bad. It's that when you choose that as a way to avoid | starving their is a social cost: You are a fucking dirty | whore. And it follows you the rest of your life. I became a | sex worker activist because in Toronto being a stripper/sex | worker meant no protection from the law (if cops found you | doing a lap dance or on the street they arrest you if you | don't give them a hand job (stripper) blow job (hooker). | jalla wrote: | Your argument doesn't make sense at all. You don't invest in an | idea or people if you don't believe you can profit. | TacticalCoder wrote: | > ... very high percentage of HN crowd would immediately say | yes | | The most powerful world in the dictionary is "no". As an | entirely self-made / self-taught person I know the power of | that word. | | That you consider it a "pretty darn reasonable transaction" | tells about your ethics and morality, not about the ethics and | morality of a "very high percentage of HN crowd". | | Regarding fame/money, here's Ruyard Kipling's take on it: | | "Do not pay too much attention to fame, power, or money. Some | day you will meet a person who cares for none of these, and | then you will know how poor you are." | | I'm raising my kid the way my rebellious parents rose me, | telling her "no" is the most powerful word and she should use | and abuse it and teaching her there's more to life than fame | and money... But feel free to raise yours telling them selling | their bodies to obtain fame/money is a "pretty damn reasonable | transaction". | [deleted] | kgwxd wrote: | This isn't about the people who exchange sex for opportunity, | it's about the people who exchange opportunity for sex. | scottisbrave84 wrote: | I disagree about your comment with Jeff bezos. I don't believe | anyone on the hn community would do this. | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | Sure, but what's the catch? | sokoloff wrote: | Now we're just haggling over the price. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | I was haggling on if it had to be Jeff Bezos. | Humdeee wrote: | I'm appalled, what kind of a man do you think I am? | ericol wrote: | I recognized this quote. | jaywalk wrote: | I was worried I'd get into a bidding war with someone who | says they'll do it four times. | yardie wrote: | > the Mafia is very much a part of the music industry, | | I'm not too familiar with the pop side of the music industry. I | dipped my toe into the Rap/R&B side of the business building | websites for new artists. There were literal gangsters in the | recording studios sitting across from me drinking and smoking and | they made plans for every aspect of these young girls lives: what | and when they could eat, who they could see, where they could | travel. They were given an allowance. Sexual favours weren't | requested or performed in front of me but it was clear these | girls were under control. And by girls I mean 15,16,17. | selimthegrim wrote: | So R Kelly just erred by degree? | csharptwdec19 wrote: | I'll be bold and say it's the media industry has a problem. | | I remember family members having problems/reservations with | Weinstein's behavior back in the _90 's_. People like Corey | Feltman have been speaking up for years. | | But nobody cares because we're getting good cinema and TV, | right? | | A huge part of these industries are based on 'favors' and | 'networking'. Toss in the theory that you have a higher-than- | baseline level of narcissism in this talent pool and you lead | to a recipe for abuse. | virtue3 wrote: | I mean... Judy Garland was... ugh. Here's a pretty tame | snippet: "But it was her draconian weight-watch that made | Judy the most abused child in the history of American cinema. | Judy was put on diet pills from the age of 12. She was not | slowed to eat anything that children enjoy. In the bio-pic on | Judy we see how she was not allowed to have cake even on her | own birthday. Mayer personally kept reminding Judy of how fat | she was when in fact Judy was a skinny under-fed near- | anorexic child who craved to enjoy a burger or sip on a cola. | Pleasures that she was sternly and often abusively denied. If | she broke the diet code she was threatened with immediate | dismissal from the MGM roster." | jacquesm wrote: | Check out children's beauty pageants if you want to see | another example of this kind of horror. | mgkimsal wrote: | > If she broke the diet code she was threatened with | immediate dismissal from the MGM roster. | | And yet... given her level of fame even early on, I think | she was far more valuable to keep on the books. But... I | doubt she (or those around her) were able to think that | strategically in the moment. | jiofih wrote: | > who craved to enjoy a burger or sip on a cola | | On the other hand, presenting a burger and cola as some | kind of innate need for a child also seems off - enjoying a | birthday cake, a lemonade or a lasagna are already damning | enough... | nostromo wrote: | Roman Polanski won an Oscar _after_ pleading guilty to | drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. | | Look at all these vile people applauding this villain, who | couldn't accept his Oscar because he fled the country. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk | | In some ways I think we may have over responded (Aziz Ansari | is not Harvey Weinstein), but it was shocking what behavior | people were excusing from the powerful even in recent | decades. | Mediterraneo10 wrote: | With Polanski, though, it is worth mentioning that the girl | in question has (later, when she grew up) expressed that | she does not wish that Polanski be prosecuted or further | punished by the industry. | enriquto wrote: | > Look at all these vile people applauding this villain | | Acknowledging the artistic talent of a villain does not | make you vile. Not at all. | | Imagine a clearer example. Imagine that somebody is on a | life sentence convicted of a murder that they have | commited. Do you think that this person has the right to | write a book? Can this book be sent for participation at a | literary contest? Can it win? Does the jury that gives the | prize condone the killing perpetrated by the winner? Are | they vile? | spoonjim wrote: | Yes, I would applaud such a scumbag and would hope my | friends did not either. | varjag wrote: | No need to imagine. There was a historic precedent of a | convict writing super popular book. | mywittyname wrote: | I can see why this might be considered debatable, but I | firmly agree with the parent comment here. | | People who do vile shit should not be celebrated at all. | To me, it's a requirement: if you want to be considered a | person of great accomplishment, then you should be an | upstanding citizen. | | I also think that celebrating vile people is a reflection | on the "jury" here as well. If I discover someone | celebrates the works of Hitler, Stalin, Mengele, Saddam | Hussein, etc, then they are definitely knocked down a few | pegs in my book. I wouldn't go so far as to call them | vile on that alone, but I definitely question their moral | compass. | vkou wrote: | You can recognize the art, while condemning the artist. | | That's the post-war treatment given to studies of | hypothermia that came out of Nazi Germany - because the | means by which those studies were conducted was by | putting Jews and PoWs into barrels of ice water, and | measuring how long it would take them to die. | | You recognize the results, while condemning every single | person involved in the methods. | fredophile wrote: | Your example is missing some key points. Imagine if | instead of serving that life sentence your murderer fled | the country before sentencing. Also imagine that instead | of writing books by themselves all of their books are co- | authored by other famous authors. Should you be spending | your money on books that were written by a fugitive? | Would it be wrong to judge their publishers and co- | authors for collaborating with a fugitive? | austincheney wrote: | The example that comes to my mind is Roman Polanski. He fled | the country while under investigation for child molestation. | It was shocking how much other celebrities came defending him | over the years. He is a child molester and fugitive. It's | just bizarre. | diob wrote: | This is why I don't understand the massive cultural obsession | over KPOP. It's one of the grossest abusive industries, and | anyone who wants to know is able to do a simple google to find | out. Those fans? They could use their collective economic | impact to help those folks they "love". Instead they just let | them get used and abused for their fantasy. | quasimodem wrote: | ...How exactly is this hacker news? | anonAndOn wrote: | Hacking one's progression up the career ladder outside of OOP? | (...or is that OPP, yeah you know me!) | api wrote: | Any time you have an industry where the number of people who want | to do the work vastly outstrips demand and where there are | gatekeepers, you are going to get a culture of abuse. | | It comes in various forms: sexual or other inappropriate favors | for advancement, verbal abuse, or just abusive working conditions | like sweatshop hours and burnout culture. | alexashka wrote: | > Any time you have an industry where the number of people who | want to do the work vastly outstrips demand and where there are | gatekeepers, you are going to get a culture of abuse. | | You've perfectly described capitalism where every capitalist | state consciously constrains the number of available jobs, | maintaining a stable unemployment % among the populace. | | Once they've done that, people are always fighting each other | and compromising their dignity and morals - some to get ahead, | some to simply stay afloat and have a family. | tabtab wrote: | I would qualify this by saying many want to be in _specific_ | entertainment industries for the (potential) glamor and fame, | and will sacrifice a lot to reach that goal. Many may have | more _practical alternatives_ , but are driven by a goal. | This is the land of opportunity, and many dream of taking a | shot at the big-time while still young and attractive. That | window of time closes fast. | | The idea of possibly being the next Elvis or Madonna if you | accept being boinked by a pig with money is hard to turn down | for many. | | One of the reasons the game dev industry has more abuse | (mostly non-sexual) than other software endeavors is because | games are seen as more fun or cool to work on, rather than | say a sales proposal tracking CRUD system. (I'm happy making | sales proposal tracking systems myself, although I admit I | have dabbled in the pop music writing industry, and still | dabble in neo-renascence tunes.) | | My daughter found the clothing fashion industry is similar: | high pressure because many want the job of designer and | scrape and claw to get it. She changed careers after some | nasty office skirmishes among competitors. | [deleted] | moduspol wrote: | It also helps a lot when the quality of the work performed by | the person is subjective and overall success is largely | dependent on the work of others (writers, musicians, tour | directors, sound editors, etc.). | | It'd be a lot tougher to be successful as an electrician or | commercial airline pilot if you got there from sexual favors | for your boss. | fulafel wrote: | I wonder about game development, it shares a lot of the traits. | api wrote: | Game development is known for being a death march burnout | culture. | tabtab wrote: | My body doesn't qualify me for access to "alternative routes" | to success. I can see many game devs are in the same boat. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-17 21:01 UTC)