Things men have actually said to me at tech events | Hacker News Reader

Things men have actually said to me at tech events

leahweitz.com

155 pointscolbyaley198 comments

My daughter has been going with me to DEF CON since she was eleven. She's 20 now and this year at DEF CON while she was hanging out at a party with our pen-test team an individual walked up and asked: "how much for the girl." I'm honestly very glad I wasn't there to hear that. This whole behavior is completely confusing. On what planet is that sort of behavior, even when inebriated even remotely acceptable? It's degrading, unprofessional, and frankly well beyond just being sexist. Maybe the guy just wanted to be punched in the face?

Look at the gutter comments on this post to find out how 'unprofessional' it is. The problem is that men who act disgusting are present at all levels of the social hierarchy, men in general are concentrated at the top, and crucially, other men don't call out these gross dudes when they see it. There are more men who feel threatened by gender politics enough that they either dissimulate the problem away, protect their shitty colleagues, or rationalize it away than men who actively stand in solidarity with women.

Which is astounding to me.

This guy at a minimum deserved a slap in the face and a firm command to get lost, and you don't have to be a third-wave feminist to think that. A lot people are of the mind that so-called "gender politics" solves fewer problems than it creates, and a "with us or against us" attitude doesn't help, either.

What sort of problems?

Getting a guy fired for privately telling a "dongle" joke to his male co-worker while at a conference for example. And then costing the woman who snitched on them and told the internet her own job. (true story)

This kind of BS over the top reactions, among other things.

This is another thing that lands on these threads, like clockwork: one time, a woman freaked out over an overheard joke, complained publicly on Twitter, ended up getting someone fired, and was then fired herself. "And you are lynching the negroes."

That this has nothing whatsoever to do with the comment thread we're on about someone's daughter being called a prostitute at DEFCON is unimportant; what's important is to deploy as many countermeasures as possible to prevent sincere conversation about harassment.

OP specifically asked for examples though.

The same as with any other identity politics, really. It makes it really hard to get shit done policy wise, because when you view everything through the lense of identity politics, every disagreement becomes an attack on you personally even if it is just an honest difference of opinion. While some things should be polarizing, probably, identity politics tends to make things needlessly polarizing sometimes, I've found. It is a useful tool definitely, but when it's the only way you approach policy and political action, it often makes you feel really good and validated even while you're failing to achieve a lot of your goals.

Going into it any further than this is going to require more specific examples, which I'm not willing to do since it will derail the hell out of this thread. Sorry.

You derailed a few paragraphs ago.

Well, it's relatively easy to rile up identity politics on the web and place a collective responsibility with a reductionist solution like "calling out" as if it is absolute, more so than following these principles oneself.

For what it's worth, though it is convenient to analyze issues under grand models of identity and class warfare (and I've noticed your commenting patterns before as being quite reminiscent to that of a troll, one with far-left tendencies), people ultimately act out of varied individual motives. From my experience "calling people out" thus has a mixed efficacy.

Maybe the guy just wanted to be punched in the face?

Because jokes justify violence?

Touch the fire and get burned. Imply someones daughter is a prostitute to them and I think a violent reaction might not be that uncommon.

Well some people use that logic to justify killing cartoonists who depict Mohammed.

You can use modus ponens to justify all kinds of weird shit. What's your point?

My point is that being offended isn't a valid reason to use violence against someone. If a stranger says something non-threatening and you react by hitting him, you're a danger to the public and should possibly be arrested.

"How much for the girl" is predatory behavior and a threat, actually, and anyway I don't agree with your premise.

Fighting Words: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

To a3voices:

Violence occurs along a spectrum. Punching != trying to kill, in all cases.

Well in some cases it could be considered a felony, and you could go to prison for years, not to mention possible hospital bills and grief you caused the person you struck.

Not if I was on the jury.

Going to prison for assault over something that somebody said (maybe they are on medication or have some sort of illness/generally not around people) is also pretty un-cool.

You just tell them not to do that again. 'I would have' stories on the internet are pretty lame too.

Readers: you'll find a variant of this exact comment in a lot of threads about harassment on HN, for what it's worth. Someone says "I'm glad I wasn't there to witness <loved one> being harassed" and, like clockwork, this response.

I'm pretty sure it's in some MRA troll playbook somewhere.

Or, you know, people genuiunly believing that just because stress or harm was caused to your <loved one >, it still doesn't justify violence.

I'm not sure by what logic the "if I was there to witness my <loved one > being harassed I've have beaten them up" is supposed to be beyond critique...

Readers: look at this train wreck of a thread and notice how effective the tactic was.

Notice how little the subthread has to do not only with the original story --- it's disconnection to the story is bad enough --- but to the actual comment it responds to, which doesn't even mention violence.

Like I said: I'm sincerely suspect this is in an actual playbook of MRA trolling techniques.

If they really need a playbook... an allegation I don't doubt for an instant... that's really kind of pathetic don't you think? :P

Pathetic is not the word I would use.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: as the parent of two very nerdy teenagers, one girl and one boy, I have a lot of worries here. But I'm far less worried that the girl is going to experience bullshit like the woman in this story, and way, way, way, way, way, way, way more worried that somehow I'm going to lose track of the boy when he goes off to college and he's going to somehow turn into one of these MRA trolls. That's the terrifying thought.

(He's awesome, though, so the fear is mostly irrational.)

>Readers: look at this train wreck of a thread and notice how effective the tactic was. Notice how little the subthread has to do not only with the original story --- it's disconnection to the story is bad enough --- but to the actual comment it responds to, which doesn't even mention violence.

Are you kidding me? First of all ""I'm glad I wasn't there to witness <loved one> being harassed" implies violence clearly ("or who knows what I've done" etc). I

Second, this very subtread began with the suggestion of punching the "the guy in the face", followed by the question whether "jokes justify violence".

Then there's the appalling call to the "Readers" -- as if to say: hey, fellow HNs, come see these wild specimens of unpopular opinion. Let's bully them/downvote them all together. That, along with name-calling ("trolls", "MRA", etc).

Because of course, somebody can't call against violence to a person who did such a thing unless he's an MRA, right? I mean, it's logically impossible that someone can be against such kind of violent responses in general, even if the offender had insulted another male or a gay, or even if the offender was a woman, right?

>Like I said: I'm sincerely suspect this is in an actual playbook of MRA trolling techniques.

And like I often say: people who see trolling in candid opinions they don't like are either using the accusation dishonestly to shut people up, or live in an echo chamber.

"Clearly implies". See how easy it is to keep this thread going? Once again: note that the story we're commenting on has nothing to do with violence, nor does the comment that sparked off this subthread about violence.

Stop to think for a second, readers, how carefully you'd have to write a comment to inoculate it from this kind of trolling. That too is part of the point.

>Once again: note that the story we're commenting on has nothing to do with violence, nor does the comment that sparked off this subthread about violence.

Sure. Probably I imagined the "Maybe the guy just wanted to be punched in the face?" quote, and the response to that discussing violence, all present before I added my comment on the subject lower in the thread.

Readers, see how you can use your high status on HN, and the fact that people won't particularly check the whole thread, to marginalize and accuse people you don't like of trolling. All the while speaking from a pedestal, with call-outs to "readers" and such shenanigans.

And if they dare respond to set things straight (at least from their perspective), that's more proof that they are indeed trolls.

I stop here, can't win this game, and am 40-something, so I'm not interested in games in the first place.

You're fixating on something which wasn't the core thrust of the thread, and using it as a point to derail the conversation. The original post was essentially about his daughter having a shitty experience. I don't think there's a playbook, but it is odd that people get so kneejerk defensive about these kind of things they have to lash out with whatever tiny criticism they can muster, regardless of it actually being relevant to the topic being discussed.

>You're fixating on something which wasn't the core thrust of the thread

Why call it "fixating", as opposed to merely opting to comment on a raised issue that I find more interesting than the "idiot insults girl at convention"?

Doesn't commenting on only part of the starting thread (or even bringing up a new point, related to the discussion but not explicitly present) happen naturally like all the time on HN? Because that's how conversations go? E.g. "Go 1.5 released -> Still no Generics -> Generics are not needed ->", that can go all the way to subthreads discussing Oberon, Java, the blub paradox, etc.

Besides, the main reason I added a few more comments was because I was called out for commenting on the violence part -- the rest of my comments were meta, belaboring the obvious, that the issue had already been raised.

Sorry, but: 1. Doesn't sound like a joke, note even close. 2. If it happened to my daughter and I was there to witness, I'd have to control myself not to punch the asshole in the face too. Especially if he was one of those dork-looking too-coward-to-man-up-and-be-normal nerds. Oh, and that was a joke, wasn't it obvious?

"Doesn't sound like a joke, note even close."

It sounds very much like a very specific joke.

Blues Brothers has a scene where Belushi is being obnoxious and asks the father in family of diners at a neighboring table "How much for the little girl? How much for the women?"

Of course, the joke there is precisely that it's so outrageous and unacceptable.

Of course those are two different things.

What two things are different?

To sound like a joke, as in everyone will find it funny and immediately know it is a joke, and to sound like one specific obscure line that is a joke in some film, and that people don't immediately get. They both sound like a joke, but here "like a joke" means two different things.

Ah. I think you're drawing a reasonable distinction.

Though I certainly wouldn't say everyone (or even most) need to find it funny to "sound like a joke" in the sense you meant. Surely, there are bad jokes that sound like bad jokes. I think it's probably correct to say that most should "immediately know it is a joke".

All of that said, whether that's likely to be the case in this instance depends on a lot of context that wasn't specified.

>Especially if he was one of those dork-looking too-coward-to-man-up-and-be-normal nerds.

So if that guy was non-dork normal looking (read: able to defend himself) you wouldn't punch him in the face? Everyone likes to beat up imaginary nerds, but what if it was the Charles Atlas kick-sand-in-the-face kind of guy, huh?

no, I was just making a point, as in saying something stupid and then just using the cop-out that it was a joke, like the first commenter did. I would defend my daughter no matter the size of the asshole, like most parents would.

Easy, just punch him in the face, then say it was just a joke. Fair is fair, right?

Implying that the presence of a woman at a tech conference is unexpected then insinuating they are cheap sexual property while addressing them in the third person is at the very fucking essence of violence. Jokes don't justify violence, oppression does.

Idk about a punch to the face specifically (that sounds likely to cause injury) but a small pain inflicted as retaliation for being wronged does not really seem all that terrible to me?

Especially if there is a social convention for how it is to work.

Of course, the amount of pain would have to be significantly less of an offense than what it is prompting it.

But when pain is sufficiently small, I think the meaning behind the pain is more important than the actual pain.

>Especially if there is a social convention for how it is to work.

So, like lynching blacks back in the day?

Or beating your kids?

"Social convention" or not who said violence is justified in a non-violent setting?

It's like you read the Wikipedia article on "tu quoque" and decided to use it as a playbook to run on this thread.

Or as if I am a pacifist -- also having written frequently here against all kinds of violent retribution, including the death penalty.

Imagine that.

OMG how noble of you

The social convention I was thinking of would be more a formalization of how things would work when there is a striking.

Not as a "who is it ok to strike".

So, kind of like challenging someone to a duel, instead of someone trying to harm someone, they would only be trying to inflict relatively small, and short-lived pain.

Something like , one announces that one intends to strike the other person, allowing them the chance to object, explains that if they cannot agree on whether they may strike the person, that they will not object to being struck in response with a proportional amount, adjusted for different levels of pain tolerance, and will not strike further in response to being struck in response. Then if the person does not object, for example, then they strike once (with not excessive force), and wait to allow the other person to strike them (with proportional force) if they so choose.

There is not currently any social convention like this, but provided that the force used and amount of pain are small enough, and not excessively frequent, and people respond to objections reasonably, it doesn't seem like it would be that bad if there was?

Pushing my fingernail against my other finger causes pain, but it does not cause suffering. When pains are small enough, I think the meaning/interpretation of the pain is more significant than the pain, so the actual pain is mostly irrelevant, except in that it stands for what it does.

It is hard to fathom the grotesque nature of people. It used to be one could count on a certain amount of civility and comportment. Modern society has lost some of its inhibitions and people in general have become old adolescents where their most puerile and despicable behavior is reinforced in popular media as well as niche interest providers.

Yes, I defended photography on another part of this thread, as I think it's important to understand its place in society, but that was not an excuse for grovelers and oglers.

It's a sad statement on modern society we have descended so low. At least previously we (as a society) put on a mask of modicum, that mask has vanished greatly. Now, we don't care much about hiding our inhibitions our most base instincts.

Shaming people doesn't hurt (the cause), but it does not help either. I think there is something bigger at play. Moral compass is something so-called conservatives like to toss around, but I do think we have failed the younger generations in ensuring they have a robust understanding of morality --yes, one, while shifting, we should have some basic understanding of injury, remorse and to quote a long dead chief counsel for the army "decency".

I would argue that we as a society have become much more civil and the assholes stick out more as a consequence of that.

30 years ago nobody complained about stuff like this because a)no woman at these events and b)it was absolutely acceptable. And that's without the honey/darling/grope your coworkes time old media tells me about (was that real by the way? I'm from Europe and to young to have had any contact with that )

>It is hard to fathom the grotesque nature of people. It used to be one could count on a certain amount of civility and comportment.

When? Every generation has assholes. Name me a time when people were more civil than now.

Everytime something like this comes up a portion of men will respond with either "It's a public place, people are free to look at and talk to strangers, etc" or "Men are like that, deal with it." Oh, and also the "It's no big deal" rendered in so many ways. Here's a mental exercize for all the men who think this way: You have to go to a conference, and the whole place is filled with big, muscular, thug-looking men. You walk around and you notice they're all staring at you. Every now and then when you stop, one or two will approach you, and they will do it with that look in their eye. You know, like you're their prison meat. So the huge thug comes up to you and starts some small talk, asks your name, what you do, if you're there by yourself, and then, you know, he says you have a nice little ass, and wouldn't you want to go there in the back with him. He's just talking, you know, didn't touch you or anything. Plus, it's a public place. You're just unconfortable because he is a huge guy, looks like a mma fighter, but, hey, he's just talking to you, saying he wants to have sex with you. No big deal, right? You just deal with him and all the others and won't make a fuss about this behavior, and I'm pretty sure you'll attend all future conferences with a great mood and won't think there's anything wrong with all the thugs wanting to have sex with you. Thugs are like that. No big deal.

I heard this exact same thing on Bill Burr podcast.

God, I am sick of this sterotype, everywhere I seem to turn people fall back on that classic tech sterotype about everyone being a thuggish 6'4" homosexual MMA fighter with an attitude like Pepé Le Pew.

This article just plunged down the front page.

Calling out the jerks that think this isn't relevant tech material. Bullshit. Tech culture is frequently mentioned. Articles about work-life balance don't get downmodded this much.

I watched (and commented on) this happening to an extremely similar article six months ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9322540

A lot of these articles just create pointless conversations that make people go backwards rather then be productive, it's common to be down-voted because of this.

You are already calling people jerks.

Funnily enough, that seems to be a common reason to suppress discussion of many issues of rights and fairness, whether its been about same-sex marriage or sufferage.

And people get called jerks in those discussions, too.

> And people get called jerks in those discussions, too.

Do you think it helps if you believe in a cause to start off by calling people jerks. I feel sorry for you if you do.

This isn't the "start" of the cause - this cause and problem has been going on for literally years now. Perhaps you are only just becoming aware of this because of this HN thread, but a lot of people have been fighting this for a long time.

It seems like you think people don't have a right to be angry about this problem. I think that shows how much you really care about how it hurts people.

I care about solutions not others anger.

The top comment ATM is about punching someone in the face.

Do you think suffrage was solved by childish flame wars or hard work?

>>Do you think suffrage was solved by childish flame wars or hard work?

Actually, I don't need to just wonder. There's plenty of historical evidence to show that suffragettes not only engaged in physical violence, but vicious rebukes of their opponents. At this point you've really shown that you don't know that much about the topic.

Articles about work-life balance don't get downmodded this much.

Is that even possible? I don't see a downmod button available on any articles.

Two things are probably happening here.

First: there are people who flag these kinds of stories, for more than one reason (some people, for instance, just don't want to see ugliness on the front page).

Second: not enough people have upvoted the story to counteract the number of comments on the thread, which is part of the signal HN uses to automatically detect threads with flamewar characteristics.

Yeah, I believe HN probably uses large number of downvoted comments and downvotes in general to also identify flamewar fodder, and these topics spawn a lot of those. I do believe this article deserves to stay at the top longer, and mods should do something about it.

I +1'd your comment, but I think the algorithm hasn't worked in this instance.

The fact there would be a flamewar about someones experiences at a tech event says more about the culture of tech than that article about michelin star reviewers that is on the frontpage at the moment.

edit: But I did like that michelin-focused article :D

Oh, I'm not saying it's working. I mean: this comment thread is a full-on unproductive flamewar, but I think the immune system on HN should probably let this particular fever burn itself out.

Why is it wrong to ask someone if they are technical?

Programmers, engineers, scientists go to tech conferences to talk about work, projects, side interests. They dont want to get sucked into a sales pitch.

I especially dont understand why this would offend the author- the resume on her website implies that she actually is more of a marketing person / copywriter than a technical person.

One thing that guys don't tend to realize is how much more often women get asked this question than men. Gamers that are women are generally annoyed when someone exaggeratedly asks "Will you marry meeee". Once, its a funny joke. Happening a dozen times at one event, not so funny. It seems reasonable as a once-off, but the frequency of the statement is what makes it hard to deal with.

How are men supposed to know this without taking some type of sensitivity class and why should being "ultra sensitive" be a pre-requisite to participate in society?

They could try listening to women about their experiences.

The answer is in panel 6 here: http://achewood.com/index.php?date=12112007

most men have a mother. Many have wives, sisters, daughters, aunts, female coworkers, and so on.

By listening to them, we can learn what sorts of things they experience, and perhaps learn not to do things to other women that we know would bother our mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, etc.

That's kinda the whole point of the article - to raise awareness of an issue that women face. This is not about taking sensitivity classes, it's about accepting that there is a problem, and doing something about it as part of a community that wants to be more accepting towards women.

It was "actually technical" as quoted in the post, as in "really? You?"

She wasn't "asked" if she was technical. The person assumed she wasn't based on her appearance and behaved accordingly. Why twist the narrative to make a point unrelated to the story?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The "Are you actually technical" quote is not part of her anecdote, its in the list of things "men have said straight to my face at tech events" and it is quoted directly as "Are you actually technical". There is not context or narrative that can be twisted.

Sorry, I was fixated on the comment that directly preceded that one (which is obviously much more memorable).

I'm sorry for suggesting that the comment twisted the narrative.

I'll add, though: "are you actually technical" is an unpleasant way to phrase the question. It implies surprise that she might be.

Yeah I agree. I would be annoyed too if people kept saying those things to me.

What is wrong with assuming she was not technical? Doesn't tech industry has more technical men than women?

Because the assumption that women at technical events are not technical is one of the things preventing women from joining the field. It's also extremely condescending, and being condescending is rude and unpleasant. So please don't do that.

Making assumptions based on state of the real-world is condescending?

Also, please present your thoughts instead of telling others what to do based on your world-view.

You've been on the site an hour. Lurk more.

Yeah, I don't really understand this, either.

Most of the sales folks (just look at her resume..) I've worked with 'look' like a non-technical person. They absolutely look like they're trying to sell me something - whether it's through mannerisms, appearance, attitude or way of speaking. I'm going to ask them if they're technical if they're giving non-technical vibes as they try to sell me a complicated piece of software. Why wouldn't I? Why does it suddenly become sexist if she's a woman?

One of the most impressively technically proficient sysadmins I've ever worked with was an extremely attractive, high-energy woman. She's often not taken seriously because she's a woman. How does she prove her gender isn't a factor? She does good fucking work and never, EVER, brings her gender into it because it's not relevant. That's how gender equality gets solved, dammit.

I understand that she's basically being treated as a piece of meat at these places.. But the focus of her article is that she's not being treated seriously as a technical person at a tech conference, despite NOT being a technical person! Fluff and more fluff.

How does she prove her gender isn't a factor? She does good fucking work and never, EVER, brings her gender into it because it's not relevant. That's how gender equality gets solved, dammit.

Gender equality would be solved if more women were doing good work while being silent about gender inequality? I … don't buy it.

Gender equality gets solved by making gender inequality unacceptable. Men are the primary imposers of inequality; it's our responsibility to fix it.

Sorry, should've been clear. It's one of the MANY ways to make it less acceptable to be shits towards others based on gender.

Also, It's "our" responsibility to fix it? Can we let "them" help out with fixing this, too? :)

It is literally impossible not to bring your gender with you to work. The best you can do is lie about it, conceal it, or downplay it heavily.

What's more, it's a tragedy to even imply this is what we should do. Our unique life experiences are what we're all supposed to draw on in the startup world to make great products. Yet mysteriously women are supposed to pack most of it in because it's controversial when a man is an ass to them.

We reach "gender equality" when it is not a disadvantage to have any gender. Not by pretending gender doesn't exist and forcing everyone to homogenize.

I find your viewpoint a bit strange. You acknowledge the problems your coworker faces, but instead of thinking of how to fix what is obviously a systemic problem, your solution is basically, "suck it up."

And I think your immediate reaction to my comment is also strange, but also knee-jerky and shallow. :).

You're implying that I'm suggesting she's being weak by "sucking it up". That's not the case at all. Being strong and sucking it up are two WAY different things. By doing the former, she's able to get the stupidity of sexism out of the way. By doing so along with advice when asked, she's also personally helped many other women in her workplaces become more confident. That sort of thing spreads, and I've seen the effects she's had on others first hand. It's incredibly cool to see.

How do you stop a bully? You don't give them the satisfaction that they hurt you.

I think she is mixing two categories of comments:

One category of comments are sexual in nature and any respectful person would take a strong stance against these. Everybody understands they are just a few bad people.

The other category of comments come from not-knowing a person in advance. In such case, people generalize and assume things. Calling such conversations sexist is basically taking political-correctness to the extreme. It will make conversations with women-in-tech difficult.

What is lacking is, women-in-tech, like the OP here, not acknowledging the facts before proposing their solutions. Tech industry is male-dominated because more men than women built the industry. Why it was the way is beyond us. We cannot wrong current generation for how the world was before they were born. This is the nature of the world/industry and nobody is at fault.

Instead of calling tech industry sexist and turning everything political-correctness debate, women-in-tech need to give it enough time and teach tech to more women so that things will become gender balanced.

It is difficult to teach tech to women when there is a perceived bias against women in the tech industry. That is the point of this article, and others like it.

There are many efforts going into positive reinforcement for women entering the tech industry, but this is a problem that can and should be attacked from multiple angles. One of those angles is educating men about the effects of their actions toward the few women who do brave the tech community.

Also, creating assumptions based on gender, race, and other physical qualities has a name: prejudice. While there may be more women in sales roles than technical, assuming that every woman in the tech community is in a sales role until proven (vociferously) otherwise, is sexist.

There's nothing wrong with asking what a persons role is, but there are very simple ways to do that without causing offence. For example "What does your role at company XYZ encompass?" Is much nicer than "Are you actually technical?".

Men and women in tech need to be sensitive to this issue, because it is an issue which detriments the community as a whole. Better acceptance of women, and their diverse skills and opinions, will strengthen the community as a whole, and this is a goal we should work towards.

Something important to mention is that the author felt really supported when her co-workers called out bad behavior. If you haven't already, maybe its time to have a discussion about how your coworkers feel about these issues, and if they have been effected. Make them know they are being listened to!

This is how to bring about a tipping point - get men to recognize and call out sexism. While this kind of behavior is sadly quite commonplace, attitudes and behaviors can change quite quickly. Just think how much more common it was ten years ago to have "gay" as a widespread pejorative - I almost never hear it now. I think the rapid reduction came from straight people recognizing the offense it caused and starting to call out people who used it.

On the other hand, I've worked with an astonishing number of men who live in a state of rather tortured denial of the outsize challenges women face in the workplace. I've even known a couple of women who deny it. It's even more stupefying than those who insist that racism is a solved problem in America.

I'm not sure where it comes from. Personal experience, background must be important factors. But it strikes me as a fairly activist, difficult position to take. I think some of these folks think they are just fitting in by voicing denial and anger about patently obvious forms of sexism. A lot of it comes from political group identification, too.

"It's even more stupefying than those who insist that racism is a solved problem in America."

disagree w/ that statement, in that i'd say it's equally stupefying. but yes, otherwise totally agreed.

I hear you. It's hard to understand, but at least I can imagine how someone could reach that conclusion.

But I've known full well that men had a better deal since I was 10.

I work in a male-dominated office with only two women and have been trying to share these stories with my coworkers at every opportunity. I can see it starting to make a difference. Just the other day one of my male colleagues came up to me and said "I can't believe I used to think like that," referring to a comment where a man justified sexist behaviour by calling it "normal." There is such a long road ahead of us.

If you're looking for more stories of difficulties faced by women in tech, a previous colleague of mine wrote this account of her internships and university degree: http://words.samipeachey.com.au/?p=77

Sexism is normal in our society. The top rated television shows are filled with sexist and off color jokes, but you rarely see the feminists trying to take down The Simpsons. So how can you take them seriously when they seem to be focused on calling all programmers who aren't proactively brigading for their political ideology a "racist" or "sexist" while not paying much attention to the root causes of sexism?

The reality is that media from the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc was much more racist/sexist than media today. Society has come a long way. Society is still progressing. Things aren't going to change over night. But the feminists seem to suggest that things are getting worse or are worse now than they've ever been.

In my post I suggested things are getting better, but we still have a long road ahead. It sounds like you agree.

Jokes in TV shows are absolutely not what I am referring to. I am referring to situations in which your colleagues — or even your bosses — make value judgments of your person on the basis of gender. I am referring to what the parent article and the article I linked directly confront.

> But the feminists seem to suggest that things are getting worse or are worse now than they've ever been.

I'd guess that it's because the feminists see the progress, and therefore start having hope that women might not be forever stuck with a worse deal than men. And then, once you have hope, the existing situation seems more intolerable than before. It's not worse than it was, it just feels worse, because you now allow yourself to hope for better.

I always feel weird when I read (especially the comments on) stories like this. Hearing folks who assume that, if a woman is at a technical event, she is either incompetent, only there for the sake of her husband, or both, open their mouths is irritating enough to witness as an outsider; I can hardly imagine how annoying it must be to be the recipient of such baseless disrespect.

Hell, I almost incited a screaming match at my last job because one of my coworkers, who is a proud Republican, wouldn't shut up about politics and his only criticism of Hillary Clinton wasn't that her opinions would have negative consequences or her logic was poor, but because "she's got kankles". The only reason it didn't escalate is because he ignored me. It still pisses me off to even recall how stupid this was.

Maybe I've been fortunate enough to know plenty of great people throughout the years, not all of whom were men, that exuded technical knowledge and practical wisdom.

How many infosec folks can, in the subject of cryptography, hold a candle to Dr. Tanja Lange?

How many PHP programmers can hope to even approximate the Herculean efforts of Andrea Faulds to make PHP 7 something great?

We didn't get to where we are today, in terms of technological progress, because sexist ideas or behaviors have any merit.

My personal favorite of the ones that I've gotten...

"Normally, when a woman is dressed like that, I'm paying her to whip me."

(What I was wearing included but was not limited to a leather jacket and black shoes.)

Isn't that a self deprecating joke?

Sure. But just because something is self-deprecating and a (just barely funny) joke doesn't make it acceptable. Context matters, and this was literally the first thing the guy said to me.

It's not at all appropriate in a business setting.

I guess it depends whether you see tech events as business setting or social setting.

Also, wouldn't the aforementioned dress code be deemed inappropriate in a business setting?

If you're there for work it's business. (and what's so inappropriate about a leather coat and black shoes?)

"Normally when I'm hanging out with someone that looks like you, I'm playing Dungeons and Dragons." Is that purely self-deprecating (assuming playing Dungeons and Dragons is such..)?

It is extraordinarily creepy.

No, it's an implication that the OP is dressed like a prostitute. That's not cool.

This is my experience as well. Often I'll be the most knowledgeable person at our booth (for Neo4j) and people always look to my male coworkers when asking questions.

And one of my personal favorites: "So I'm guessing you're in marketing?"

This behaviour needs to change, it really does. But (ugh, here we go..) this particular instance is probably learned behaviour from past conferences or situations some people have been in. I haven't been to many conferences, but there's been a few times where I've spoken to a woman at a booth just to be passed off to someone else when I've asked technical questions. I'm finding this happens less and less though. Really though, it doesn't hurt to ask the question you want to ask first, even if you do end up having to ask it again of someone else.

It's funny to me because looking at the resume of the article op, you see she is in marketing.

OP: Did you find that the age of the man made a difference?

So are older or younger men the worst offenders? I would like to think that older man are worse and the younger generation are more aware and less sexist. But maybe that is not the case.

If male engineers had to endure similar stuff said to them, I wonder how they'd feel - 'hey nerd', 'are you this socially awkward in every situation?', 'do you shower daily?', 'do you have any hobbies?', and the list goes on.

OP: I'm happy that your good experiences outweigh the bad ones.

Funnily enough I have noticed that this does actually happen. My current position is at a company that works in the building industry and we often get non-IT members of the company saying stuff like that about IT people.

But I don't think really compares to the sexism though. Being in a different department means they do not have any actual control over us and we actually make more money than other departments (not including management positions). So I am sure it does not feel as threating and demeaning as the sexism experienced by woman.

It definitely does. I'm 27, look 20, and work as a senior linux engineer at a relatively high profile trading company. Until people see the work I do, they think I've been hired entirely through nepotism. It's incredibly frustrating, but I'm finally starting to "get used to it".

We do endure it. We just don't care and don't talk about it.

I'm lucky that as an adult male engineer, I've never been asked whether or not I was a "real" engineer and horrible things like the woman in the original post was. However, I paid dearly for my choice in interests as a child when I was physically bullied to the point that I was forced to change elementary schools. I was also ostracized significantly (by both men and women) in high school for being "a computer nerd". Don't assume that no male engineer understands what it is like to "endure similar stuff".

Yeah, um this happens all the time. I never wasted time worrying about it.

Heading off an extremely unproductive subthread:

It's not that women (or people in ethnic minorities, or older workers, or demonstratively observant religious people) experience flak from peers at conferences or in their workplace.

It's that they experience that flak while being a member of a tiny minority. It's the power imbalance that makes this toxic.

Also: "are you this socially awkward in every situation?" and "do you shower daily?" cracks would be infractions in a lot of workplaces. If you did it repeatedly after being warned, you could get kicked off a team. It is absolutely not as if guys just hear this stuff all the time and deal with it. Probably nobody who believes that has ever managed a large team.

So it doesn't actually matter whether "they" (whichever "they" we're talking about at the moment) get more or less or the same amount of flak as everyone else? The ONLY thing that matters is that they are a minority, and that automatically makes them persecuted whether or not they're treated differently?

Here's the part where I don't get it. Doesn't this happen to other industries, like banking, politic, entertainment, etc?

The framing it as “hey tech, we have a sexist problem” is making it sounds like there's no sexist problem in other industry.

I'm not supportive of sexism in the industry, but when it is framed that way, a part of me just couldn't bring myself to align with it.

We can say, hey sexism is a society issue but we tech industry can do better than others. We proud ourselves as the progressive front runner of civilization, so let's make sure we show it.

If you remove [tech] from the title, this article will still make sense, doesn't it?

Just a point about "taking pictures without my permission"

In public spaces there are few restrictions against this (ex. military zones). In private spaces this can be regulated by the organizer, I believe, but that prohibition must be posted. This is how the "street photography" gender of photography can exist.

Now, to be fair, there are regulations against commercial use of photos from "street photography" without permission. There you can sue for compensation if your likeness was used to advertise and sell (selling a book with street photographs does not require permission, as that is not "commercial use", that's to say, it's "art")

It becomes an issue if the photographer videographer follows you and thus engages in harassment (in some jurisdictions).

Remember that videographer who taunted people at an outdoor restaurant. They had little recourse against him.

I don't think the author was implying that taking one's picture without permission in a public space is illegal, merely that it's rude or weird. Which it often is.

Something doesn't have to be illegal to be rude.

As to norms, there is a big difference between someone appearing in a crowd shot or background, and someone being the sole focus of the picture.

The courts say otherwise see sole focus picture in case of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia[1]. If it were not possible, we would not have "street photography" we would not have Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Meier or Arbus. Picture in question[2] We also would not have documentary photography.

Certainly it can feel rude to us, but the law allows it and moreover the feeling of rudeness comes more from believing we "own" our likelinesses in public spaces, which we do not. So, yes, I could feel intruded upon by a documentary or street photographer, no question, but at the same time, they have the right to take my picture, no question.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

[2]https://wmuphoto.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/nussenzweig-v-dico...

If you disagree with the position, post a link to law which states otherwise. There is lots of case law asserting the right of photographers to take pictures unimpeded in public spaces.

I don't see your citations speaking to rudeness. Moreover, even if they did it is not generally the place of the courts to dictate what is and is not rude. I very much agree that this kind of photography is not illegal. In no way does that mean it is not rude.

C.f. I can hurl a long stream of insults at you. Rude? Unquestionably. Legal? Also unquestionably. On those grounds you could rightly complain, choose not to associate with me, choose to avoid places I might go, tell others you find me to be a rude person. You could not enlist the government to fine or imprison me. What was being discussed here, before you brought legality into the picture, was actions like those on the former list.

Rudeness is one of those things that's very unique to the individual claimant and I think for art and expression in general, we tend to give the artist (in this case the photographer) lots of leeway. I'm sure lots of religious people would think my thoughts on religion are quite rude, but that does not and should not deter my art or anyone else's art depicting religion unfavorably.

Basically, I don't want photography thrown under the bus on this one.

Nobody is throwing photography under the bus. Please stop using a thread about sexual harassment as a coatrack to hang your concerns about photography on.

I think people have misconceptions about photography. I.e. the photographer needs permission --they don't.

If you want to go against sexual harassment do so, I have no objection. I do object to people thinking that photography is automatic harassment. It's not.

How did we get from "unsolicited selfies with, or down-blouse shots of women at tech conferences" to "art"?

The problem we're talking about is creeps, not photographers, no matter what the creeps claimed motivation is - it's blindingly obvious to almost everybody that there is a difference (and posts like yours are really hard not to read as defending/justifying creep's behaviour).

In a word, "permission"

It comes from knowing street photographers and the flack they get. People ready to beat them up (occasionally they do get beaten). At times it's men "protecting" someone. At time it's men themselves who feel offended. Sometimes it's women themselves who feel offended. You also get people who feel flattered. But overall they are simply "subjects"

I am a "street photographer" and have filled income gaps with wedding photography and film portraiture. Mysteriously, this issue has never come up with a woman.

Maybe if we were talking about the right to photograph a building from across the street, but if you think it's legal, ethical, or reasonable to take pictures of people they do not want you to take that are invasive of their privacy... Well... You will not win that case in a court of law, a debate on ethics, or in this forum of your peers.

Because it's a nonsensical talking point trying to turn everyone else into a victim but the actual victim.

I disagree. americansuburbx[1] is a good place to start as any into the culture of street photography and it's many supporting genres [documentary, staged, portraiture,etc]. Also burn mag [2]

[1]http://www.americansuburbx.com/

[2]http://www.burnmagazine.org/

You're welcome to disagree, but keep in mind exactly the context and conversation you've decided to take up championing photographer's rights in.

This is what sexism is made of. Just fyi. Your principles protecting an abstract group of people outweighs even entertaining the condemnation of a very real and very outrageous violation of personal space and rights.

We're having a discussion here. I's not a singular track. We can discuss ancillary things.

Yes, totally people who act immature and grotesquely should be called out and that behavior not tolerated. Still, I do defend photographers who yes, get harassed by uninformed people. They really find it unbelievable that photographers have a right to take pictures in public without permission.

You, a self described street photographer, seem unaware of the long street photography tradition, so how do you expect a bystander to understand photographers' rights[1] backed by the ACLU?

[1]https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights

And by "discuss ancillary things" you mean one non-committal post about how bad those people are, but how they have a right to do it. Mysteriously, the vast majority of your posts are on this vein of the topic.

P.S., I've no need to entertain your bullshit about how my photography isn't street enough for you. Find something useful to add to the conversation.

If you feel you need to do something people consider rude for the sake of your art, you can do it and suffer the consequences. Those consequences should certainly not extend to physical violence, should not extend to the involvement of law enforcement.

You should be able to mitigate those consequences somewhat by treating your subjects like people - explaining what you're doing, engaging with them respectfully. They may still feel uncomfortable.

In this case, the person complaining felt violated, and that's not unreasonable. She is plenty within her rights to complain.

>treating your subjects like people - explaining what you're doing, engaging with them respectfully

No qualms with that --most experienced photographers will follow that advice. Still, all photographers have the right to photograph in public.

A tiny minority of the time people don't give the photographer time to explain, fortunately most times, people act indifferently, but sometimes annoyed and self righteous and seldomly violent.

There is a misconception however, by some people, even the ones who are agreeable that a photographer needs permission. It's simply not true. But yes, I agree they need to respect people as much as they can. (if you're going to photograph a man passed out in vomit for some kind of documentary, avoid showing their recognizable face, for example, but that's not a fast rule.

"Still, all photographers have the right to photograph in public."

I've always agreed with that. What I have been saying is that there are ways they can exercise that right that will be perceived as rude, and that that perception is definitely not made unreasonable by any absence of law on the matter, and is often in fact reasonable.

There's a broad grey area which includes both "being legally within your rights" and "being a fucking creep".

If you don't understand that, there's a very good chance you are _way_ too close to the latter.

In photography there are all kinds of people. Yes, some people are creeps, some people like taking upskirt photos (illegal in most places). I get it, some people take advantage of telephoto lenses to take creep shots, I know.

What I'm getting out there is that people have a misconception that you need permission to take their (regular) photo. You do not.

> The courts say otherwise see sole focus picture in case of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia

Well, first, the question wasn't of legality, it was about rudeness irrespective of legality; second, even if it was, that's a New York case applying New York law (e.g., many states, including California, have right-of-publicity laws that are more extensive in their protection than New York's.)

Is this behavior worse than just being around a bunch of guys in general? I'm not condoning the behavior, but we're all animals and sex is a thing - it gets the best of many of us and we end up acting like baboons. I'm curious if the tech industry is actually worse, because I would expect us to behave better considering we actually give it a voice and properly label it as negative behavior.

Yes. In my place of work that sort of behavior towards anybody would see you instantly excluded from every social circle, not by regulation just because we have some moral core and empathy. If people are being made uncomfortable by others for any reason, that's a problem.

  I would expect us to behave better considering we actually 
  give it a voice and properly label it as negative behavior.

If only this were true. Apparently the greater (male-dominated) culture surrounding technology doesn't dissuade this behavior enough.

  I'm not condoning the behavior, but we're all animals and 
  sex is a thing - it gets the best of many of us and we end 
  up acting like baboons

Despite your disclaimer this still echoes the "boys will be boys" sentiment, one used to justify harm / mistreatment of women by dismissing their actions as part of male nature. This is a lie and needs to change; individuals are responsible for their words, actions, and any harm they cause.

I don't think toolz was trying to say "boys will be boys", I think toolz was saying we should try to fix society, rather than pretend this is only a problem in tech

  I think toolz was saying we should try to fix society, 
  rather than pretend this is only a problem in tech

Who's pretending the problem is only in tech? Attacking the problem in our industry is part of fixing society as a whole (it's a subproblem).

how could you possibly have interpreted that as 'boys will be boys'? I never mentioned a gender, in fact I was pretty explicit about including everyone. My statement applies to all genders.

edit: this is a good example of unintentional sexism - when talking about negative sexual behavior, people assume it's a guy. This needs to stop just as much as any other negative behavior. If we setup expectations for guys to behave badly, don't be surprised when they do.

"we're all animals and sex is a thing - it gets the best of many of us and we end up acting like baboons"

We're primates with a large cerebral cortex. We can think about morality and altruism, and how not to hurt each other, in spite of what our animal minds might be signaling.

Stop making excuses for you or your group's inability to exercise self-control. By hinting that the situation -- making another human uncomfortable -- is somehow natural, you are implicitly condoning the behavior.

We're all animals but we (mostly) refrain from shitting on the foor. We clearly have the brainpower to abstract away our animal selves at a tech conference, so there's no excuse for letting sex 'get the best of us' unless we allow it to happen.

I don't believe the tech industry is necessarily worse than other male-dominated industries, but that's not really an excuse not to try and do better, is it? I like to think that geeks are slightly more enlightened than our business, law, and finance brethren, who all have a bad rap when it comes to sexism.

There will always be sexual differences, and that's fine and healthy, but we should be aiming to treat women as people first in a professional setting.

> “He treated you so differently!” he said. “His whole tone changed!”

Depending on what was meant by "tone", this could be due to very deeply-ingrained learned sociolinguistic customs. I don't mean that justifies it, but it could be very subconscious, is not specific to "tech", and seems much less offensive than some of the other examples.

To whatever extent men adopt a different tone when talking to women, it would probably take quite a lot of conscious concentration to control, and generations to eradicate (possibly never, if they can be picked up again by watching our contemporary media.) So, I guess it's something to keep an eye on and fix where you can, but not so simple as eliminating stuff like "They only let you work here ’cause you’re hot."

Edit: tl/dr: If "tone" meant treating her like an idiot/non-technical, bad. If it meant different pitch of voice and body language, not good per se but not that bad either.

P.S. Actually, maintaining gender-based differences might be desirable. Women probably don't want to be treated exactly like "one of the guys", right? Modifying your message and presentation based on your audience is a part of effective communication. If it's offending your audience, change that, but maybe it's not a bad starting position.

Thoughtfully written, concise, and helpful. Thanks!

As coding and technology become more prestigous it will draw in the top female talent that has been pulled into companies with much more societal respect. Below is a list of a few companies that were built by a female founder/co-founder. The unpopular view that this "problem", will fix itself, is somewhat true in my opinion. There will be a day when a list like the one below doesn't exist, there will be a single one. Females (and everyone really) realize tech. is one of the most important components of the future and there are many shows/movies/media that reflect this societal change.

Until then, if you think the world would be better off with more woman in tech, help get young people excited about technology and entrepreneurship. The ecosystem is primarily men who started companies internet companies in the early days, which have splintered into tons of new ventures and startups largely comprised of people from those companies.

The list below are great companies (well, a couple have rough patches but what doesn't) and there doesn't need to be a qualifier like "woman" founded. Get out there and kill it, and if you are out there be civil and rational in your appraisal of others.

* Theranos, $9B Biotech

* Y COmbinator, >$4B VC/Tech

* Fanduel, ? Skill Based Wagers

* 23 & Me, ? Genetics

* Kabam, ~$1B Gaming

* CloudFlare, ~$1B Cloud/CDN

* NastyGal, ? Clothing

There are a certain percentage of the population who are just assholes.

Let's assume for a moment that both men and women are assholes in equal proportion, that say 10% of the population of either gender are assholes.

For a 50 person company, 80% male: 40 men total 4 male assholes 10 women 1 woman asshole

Take that ratio up to 90% male as many tech conferences are: 45 men of those 45 men, 5 will be assholes, rounding up 5 women 1 woman asshole

In that scenario there actually the same number of male assholes as ALL of the women.

This is why changing the ratio of male and female matters.

downvoted. ha. keep it classy, HN.

This suggests improving the ratio, but honestly, if the rate is genuinely 99% good and 1% bad, then the truth may be that you're at a point where you won't notice improvements.

Say we make a huge effort and halve the rate of such harassment. That's a change from 99% good to 99.5% good. Will you notice the difference? Maybe, but it's likely you won't. You're still guaranteed to have bad experiences at regular intervals if you go to tech events.

I was at at a conference recently (codeconf for github Atom) and I noticed there were a number of women (30%?). I commented to a women next to me that it was happy that there was such a good turnout of women. (I have been to many conferences where there were none). She said she was there representing women in technology and she did not give me a happy look. I thought it was an improvement.

One step at a time.

I don't understand why this is a tech industry issue? I can imagine this being a problem in all industries (esp. finance). Douchebags aren't exclusive to the tech industry.

Why is your first response to get defensive about the tech industry and not to respond to the problem in the post? If its a problem everywhere, fine -- we have a chance to make it less of a problem in the tech industry than everywhere else. Wouldn't that be something?

I'm not defending anyone, my point is that this is a societal problem. How do you propose to change people's thinking? People in the our (tech) industry fight over coding standards, programming languages, frameworks etc.; good luck changing their outdated views on something that's been ingrained for years.

Because gender parity is far better in the finance industry than it is in technology, which is unique not merely among all careers but among science and math careers specifically for having a terrible gender imbalance.

Sexual harassment happens everywhere, but we care about about it in this field in particular because we are still trying to figure out and repair the imbalance. And, in addition, because sexual harassment of women in a male-dominated field is particularly toxic, due to the power imbalance.

Recollecting a few situations I’ve experiences in the workplace.

I remember in my first job out of uni (early 90s) our team was having lunch. I don’t remember the discussion that lead up to it, but one of my fellow male colleagues said there was no such thing as rape, because a women enjoy the sex anyway. The only woman at the table just got up and walked away.

I must admit I just completely froze. I was just stunned that someone said something so insanely ignorant. Being a shy young man at the time I really just didn’t know how to react. Afterwards I did go check that my female colleague was okay and express my disbelief at what happened.

That incident pretty much made me ready to believe any terrible story about male behaviour.

At a software vendor’s offices for two days of training on their product. Walking out of the training area, through the cubicle farm to use the washroom facilities up the back, and seeing explicit pornographic images being used as desktop wallpapers on employees’ computers.

One office I worked in, a female colleague had a beefcake photo as her desktop wallpaper. Although I felt this was as inappropriate as say, a male employee using a swimsuit photo, nothing was said, by me or anyone else.

At a conference, out getting coffee on a warm day and chatting with another attendee. Four young women in smart business attire, including reasonably tight skirts, walk past. This guy’s focus was completely lossed on the conversation, coffee, sunlight, or me smacking him in the back of the head, while he stared unblinkingly at these women until they went around the corner. Ugh. [1]

Another job working in the city, the building across the alleyway from us was an apartment building, and it appears several of the residents were young, nubile, not fully clothed and forget to close their curtains.

Was not uncommon to look up from my desk and see two or three guys standing at the window staring across. They were not actually licking the glass or otherwise being a nuisance, and being a visually oriented young man myself I understood the distraction it was. Still, I’ve always seem to have had more self control then my contemporaries. Perhaps I just have enough blood in my circulatory system to be able to power both brains at the same time.

Same job, Lotus Notes was used for email for the company. This had the feature of replication for offline access and such. Male colleague, who was sharing use of a loptop for email access with a female colleague when they were off-site at the customer’s office, turns to her and asks, “Do you want me to replicate your box?”

Absolutely innocent, but a contagious fit of uncontrolled giggles spread around those within earshot. Aside from an observation or two that the enquiry should probably have been phrased differently, nobody made any stupid follow-up comments, and everyone took it in good humour for the unintentional faux pas it was.

Last one, and my favourite. Dropping my librarian wife off at her workplace at the start of the day. The library had just opened and about ten or so people were drifting in. One of her colleagues was clearing the overnight returns chute when she exclaims at the top of her voice, “‘Fantastic Sex,’ I was looking for that last night!”

She looks up into the sudden silence were you could hear a pin drop, then goes, “The book! The book! Someone wanted the book!” while waving the titular tome.

[1] That conference was about the same time the “Shit people say to XXX” meme was doing the rounds of the internet. At the time I thought it would be funny to do a “Shit people say to programmers” version where every forth or fifth one was, “Can you fix my computer?”

I also thought one on “Shit programmers say to women” where it would just be five minutes of awkward guys staring at womens’ chests would be too distressingly realistic. Apropos?

This happens everywhere. Tech is nothing different.

I don't understand why the emphasis is on the tech community. If this were an automotive convention it would probably be worse. A hansom male at a beauty convention will likely be ogled by some of the women.

I also don't understand why feminists rarely attack mass media like the shows they have on Fox and Comedy Central, which are probably much closer to the root cause of "sexism" seeing as they make it seem like casual sexism is okay.

It's very hard to take the feminist seriously when their biggest enemy seems to be the 2% of pasty awkward nerds who happen to make a cultural faux pas. They weren't born sexist. They're victims of society. Blaming them is blaming the victim. Most of them probably have not had much interaction with the opposite sex and don't even know how to initiate conversation.

> I don't understand why the emphasis is on the tech community.

Because that's the industry that the author (and presumably, most of us readers) are in.

> If this were an automotive convention it would probably be worse.

Probably, but like... do you go to automotive conventions? I don't, so what goes on in them is really outside of anything I know about or can change. So... I'm not sure the relevance.

> Most of them probably have not had much interaction with the opposite sex and don't even know how to initiate conversation.

Well, hopefully some of them will read this article and find out some things not to do.

Don't take this too critically, but what you wrote gives the impression that you aren't familiar with feminism as it extends beyond the tech sphere. HN is a tech news site, not a feminism one, so the posts you see about feminism here will be naturally related to the former. All those shows you mentioned are criticized.

> A hansom male at a beauty convention will likely be ogled by some of the women.

I'm not handsome, and I don't get "ogled" a lot, but when I do, it NEVER has this slimy, condescending air it too often has when men hit on women. It's either friendly sympathy or friendly lust, and I would assume if I was super handsome, there would be more friendliness, not less. The closest to getting uncomfortable is when someone is into me whom I find very uninteresting; that's just "awkward", and so extremely tame compared to having to wonder whether she is just a bit creepy or maybe capable of rape. When women invite me to somewhere or strike up a conversation, I can just be relaxed without having to keep one eye on the exit. I consider that normal but it's, sorry for saying it, a privilege. It really is.

My point is, it's not the "being considered attractive" by itself that offends and hurts people. I dare say everybody likes that, if it's respectful and unassuming, like a genuine compliment without expecting reciprocation or any other rewards. The problem is when it's not.

> I don't understand why the emphasis is on the tech community.

Because that's the indsutry that is the major growth sector for the US economy, and a category that is threatening to swallow or change literally every other aspect of the economy.

Our community receives added scrutiny because we're where people desperately want to (and arguably, need to) be in order to thrive. And yet we have constructed a giant edifice that turns people away in droves. Those few that run the myth-laden, idolized, unscientific gauntlet called "the interview process" are then subject to "cultural forces" that are generally just elaborate power structures identical to every other industry.

Only we are the gatekeepers of one of the very few industries that is considered accessible to young people AND that is growing AND that can be entered without a 4 year college degree.

Are you truly so surprised that you need to ask this question?

Why is this getting downvoted by mods?

Don't question the mods, they'll down vote you.

See?

It isn't. Users have flagged it.

Things women have actually said to me a tech events after I said hello: "I have a boyfriend." "Sorry, I'm waiting for someone." "My husband will be here in a minute." -says nothing, pulls out her phone and pretends she didn't hear me-

Possible band aid: a webcam at each booth, recording the entire conference audio/video, which will then managed by the convention/conference organizers. If sexual harassement is noted, the person who was harassed can go to the organizers who can then review the recordings which they can then use as a rationale to blacklist that person at their conference (but not at all).

Reasons why this might not be a terrible idea:

1) It's a public place and you are interacting, often times, with complete strangers. While I can't speak for everyone, these social events make me be on my best behavior, which is conveniently the same behavior I would have if I were on camera.

2) By virtue of being handled by the conference organizers, one company won't be singled out. One company recording people is strange, but an accepted practice by a third party would be far more forgivable.

That's going to be problematic, lots of people at conferences talk in low voice about confidential things. Surely there's better ways to combat harassment than pervasive surveillance.

If 99% of males are decent as the article describes, all this does is creates the illusion that all police officers are racist. It's only news because it's sensational.

> It's people being assholes to each other.

This.

One's freedom ends where another's freedom ends. I don't see anything wrong with asking a member of the opposite gender out for dinner - in fact, going to dinner is a far better socializing experience than at a crammed event - but outright sexual harrassment is totally not cool.

edit: yeah, I know it's against the rules to complain on downvoting, but seriously? Up, down, up down. And shit, no one tries to explain why he/she tried to downvote me into oblivion. Where has the discussion culture gone?

This is a terrible idea, and is basically like a cop out towards "I don't want to have to think about this // it happens everywhere so stop talking about it."

The community/work atmosphere around tech, and the implications that atmosphere has on acceptance within the tech community, has direct implications for the future of education and work within the field.

It's absolutely vital that people (especially women) have a relevant place to discuss these things, so that people who read tech news are not ignorant to the ongoing discrimination and oppression within the industry.

If 99% of males are decent as the article describes, all this does is creates the illusion that all police officers are racist. It's only news because it's sensational.

Do you actually believe that 99% of males do not take particular actions against women that could make them feel oppressed in some way?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com