Hacker News Reader

Comment by silentbicycle | Hacker News Reader

61 pointssilentbicycle103 comments

Nothing wrong with calling out any person or persons for offensive behaviour. I'm biased, of course: I live and work in Ontario, where showing some of these slides in the workplace could be construed as violations of the human rights code:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/sexual_harassment

That being said, Ruby the language was created by Matz, who is not named in the indictment. The other persons involved are simply persons who use a tool and have gained some notoriety for creating things or saying certain technical things that other people have found valuable.

They are not officers in a corporation. They have no authority to speak for me as a "Ruby Programmer," therefore I reject any suggestion that misbehaviour on their part reflects upon me or any other person who chooses to use Ruby and/or Rails.

I think the people to call to task are those who either take inappropriate action or those who act as gatekeepers of a sort and fail to filter. For example, if I were "curating" a conference of any kind in Toronto, I would demand that presenters respect the laws in place in Ontario. That's my responsibility.

But beyond that, these people are not leaders in any non-technical sense. They do not speak for me. I respect their technical accomplishments but I don't follow their every example.

There's a lot of gender insensitivity and macho attitudes in software in general.

Ruby attracts flamboyant, outspoken and bombastic personalities.

These two things collide to make rubyists look more sexist as a group than other developers.

For the record, I'm a rubyist, and think Aimonetti's presentation was titled offensively. Dr. Nic's tweet was also pretty fucked up.

Hanson's comment wasn't so bad, the man respectfully said he liked breasts on his private twitter account. I think that has to be the least controversial statement ever, unless you're an overly PC whack job. That would be offensive if he said it during a presentation at rails conf, but on a private twitter account talking about your personal opinions is completely fine.

So, we have 2 rubyists out of god knows how many acting like jackasses. That's really no reason to slander the whole community.

  Hanson's comment wasn't so bad [..]

and she shouldn't have mentioned it at all, because one bad example among four means people will write it off as petty feminist whining.

  Dr. Nic's tweet was also pretty fucked up.

It may have been intended as subtle criticism. He probably didn't make the image, just found it and made a connection. Let's not judge hastily.

Good point about Dr. Nic, I do hope he meant it that way. That said, being sarcastically sexist/racist/nudist in public is a bad idea, because other people don't know your true intentions.

nudist?

> He probably didn't make the image.

It's a brand of candy bar in Europe, probably just pulled it from Google images or similar. I can definitely see it as criticism or a slightly insensitive joke. Either way, hardly something to get upset about.

FYI Aimonetti's title wasn't the worst part about the presentation. Unfortunately the slides are now "private" so you can't see that.

I think its a bit much to find Dr Nic's tweet "fucked up." Nestle deserves this particular complaint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkie_(chocolate_bar)

That said, Aimonetti's slide was in very poor taste.

I think Nic's tweet was more of a "Are you a fucking idiot. Is this REALLY what you meant to say because it's what people took away"

I agree with you on the first bit of DHH's message, but at the end he's basically advocating that we should give up on trying to be professional / polite and just let women deal with being marginalized.

That's reading a hell of a lot into "suppressing all our animal instincts is futile."

Hanson's comment wasn't so bad, the man respectfully said he liked breasts. I think that has to be the least controversial statement ever, unless you're an overly PC whack job.

He went a fair bit beyond a respectful appreciation of the female form. He said that "suppressing our animal instincts is futile", which is a whole other ball of wax, especially when coupled with the aforementioned comments on the female form.

  which is a whole other ball of wax

... that you are reading into it. We lack any form of context and that soundbite could mean any number of things. For all you know he was just expressing the idea that promoting teenage abstinence is futile, with his own feelings (and the expectation that the addressee shared those feelings) about female forms as an argument.

Care to explain the other ball of wax because I don't see it even after you point it out.

So what if DHH said in a Twitter comment that he liked breasts and that we should give in to "our animal instincts". Is that sexist? Was he speaking for the whole RoR community?

Here are my assertions: (i) Just because some idiot created slides with naked women on them for his conference presentation, you cannot argue that the software community is sexist or male privileged or whatever. (ii) Prof. Spertus' comment includes reverse bias: When she writes "[I was] wondering if he had either not expected any women to be there or had discounted the importance of directing his remarks to the women in the audience", she's automatically assuming that those slides would be offensive to women only, i.e. all the men in the audience are brainless cavemen that drool over the oversize pictures on the screen.

I agree and disagree.

(i) True, but from my own experience the software field is plenty sexist by itself, with or without the naked slides.

(ii) Agree. Tons of reverse sexism happens.

Hell, I volunteer at a transitional shelter for women (cooking duties) and get a lot of weird looks and conversations. I certainly get a lot of attitudes about being the only guy there - that I must be looking to hook up/get laid because there's no conceivable way a man could ever want to work for a female cause!

Having experienced both sides of the coin, I think it's fairly safe to say that this sort of sexism is not inherent to software, or males, it's human nature and will happen in any place with a lopsided gender balance.

I agree. Also about (ii), she was assuming that she could speak for all women in the audience - that just because she found the slides offensive, that all women necessarily would be offended by those slides. A central tenet of feminism is that you cannot ever take the words of an individual and extrapolate them to represent the views of an entire group.

That list of 'male programmer privileges' is unhelpful, and not better than a sexist 'ha ha, only serious', for two reasons. Firstly, it depends entirely on the idea that the only difference between people is whether they are male or female and that only females stand out. Secondly, it suggests this is a problem we (HN programmers or some other applicable group) can and should solve.

I'll criticise a few:

  1. Not having to wonder whether you're well-known in your
     community simply for being "the female one".

Because the gay, black and scarred guy don't have that problem. Half of the people are known as "the ... one".

  4. Joining in appreciation of the sex object du jour
     without having to be gay or bisexual.

Denying that women do the exact same thing. They also gossip about, and drool over, the celebrity hotshot of the day.

  6. Never being asked by a job interviewer whether you
     would mind being the first male employee in the company

Because asking someone whether they mind being the first sysadmin, non-programmer or employee, period, isn't a normal thing? Because we acknowledge that, you know, there actually is a difference that tends to cause the kind of issues we are dealing with right now and you may want to say something about it?

  10. Attending job fairs without having anyone suggest you
      look for secretarial work instead

I refer you to the 'male nurse' list. This problem is not restricted to your sex and occupation. We deal with the exact same problem.

These kinds of lists make me think: stop whining and start trying to change something. You're not succeeding at that by making a list of how bad you have it, completely disregarding that the lives of other people aren't easy either, for scores of other reasons. It's reducing problems to something simpler than they are and expecting others to be suddenly enlightened by the obvious simple truth and changing things. It's barking up the wrong tree.

Here's a discrepancy. You said:

"it suggests this is a problem we (HN programmers or some other applicable group) can and should solve."

But then you said:

"stop whining and start trying to change something."

This list is absolutely on the right path - by recognizing and bringing attention to a list of privileges that male programmers might not have thought of, this list (and the people behind it, following in the footsteps of many other feminist/egalitarian privilege lists that have been created), they are doing something about the problem. Raising awareness is action - arguably the most important action in ameliorating sexism in this space.

Calling weirdnesses and idiocy "privileges" is exactly that: asserting that females are disprivileged and putting the blame on males as a whole. This may be feminist (for some value of feminist), but it's hardly egalitarian -- if you wanted that, you'd need a list of female privileges.

The grandparent poster was making the point that XYZ-ism (including sexism) frequently occurs as a byproduct of someone being in a rare minority (including males in a primarily female domain). And it should be everyone's duty to put an end to the behavior that leads to this, instead of standing on a cloud of feminist delusions of superiority.

FWIW, Aimonetti (deservedly) got called out by both male and female colleagues, as well as the conference organizers, because his slides were just oozing bad taste and douchebaggery. If there's anything to be learned here, it would be Renae Bair's example on how to get the inclusive mood that he tried to get, without being exclusive against anyone. http://www.renaebair.com/2009/04/27/perform-like-a-frag-star... (Because, not only is Bair's proposal much cooler, but also, for some reason, pacifists can look at a BFG9000 - especially a BFG9000-wielding Tux - without getting worked up about it and delivering the standard speech about all weapons being tools of killing and mutilation. I object to weapons being seen as anything else but killing and mutilation tools, and have strong contempt if Elsevier as a scientific publisher has a subsidiary that organizes arms fairs, but I can walk around without forcing the topic on anyone).

Pointing out privileges that a group experiences does not mean putting the blame on that group. The purpose of this kind of list is to bring awareness of privilege, not to place blame. How can a person work to eliminate XYZ-ism if they are not aware of how it happens?

Most the points on the list have a subtlety, I think, and are non-obvious. They all require imagining yourself in the marginalized minority's shoes. They aren't the glaringly obvious examples of sexism that (really infrequently) happen, like Aimonetti's slides. That's where the real work can be done, because eliminating obvious sexism is the easy part.

I think part of what gives the ruby community its unique spirit is its sense of playfulness or whimsy. (Disclaimer, I'm a rubyist) While perhaps these particular jokes are in poor taste, I think this is really a case of people being oversensitive. If he had presented with slides of half naked men, people would have thought it was funny and moved on with life. When you attend a ruby conference, you know you're not in for the same kind of experience as say a Java or a .NET conference. If you want something with a more "professional" atmosphere I suggest you look there. If we start telling people what they can and can't feature or joke about in their presentations we lose some of what makes the ruby community great. Its unfortunate people were offended, but then again, lots of things are unfortunate: that's life.

This article is well over a year old -- what do we gain by revisiting it now? There was a huge debate and discussion at the time, and the vast majority of the community has moved on.

> what do we gain by revisiting it now?

The problems are not solved?

Did anyone think they were?

I still say it's more harmful to dredge this up from 17 months ago, as opposed to any of the discussions that've been held since then.

I found the The Male Programmer Privilege Checklist they linked interesting too (http://lafalafu.com/krc/privilege.html)

Most of these aren't an issue in just programming, but in all professions that weigh one way or another towards a gender.

#24 contradicts with the whole message though: you're supposed to be just another programmer, which includes not being seen as cool or progressive for what you do.

21 is a bit strange... that only makes sense because right now we can assume the other person is male. If it were split evenly, men would think the same thing if a woman took them out...

That's it? Four anecdotes of sexism over 19 years? That sounds like a great record.

You appear to be confusing my article with a comprehensive document of all incidents of sexism in the Ruby community.

Perhaps this will be more to your liking:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents

That list of privileges isn't particularly relevant to Ruby. Again, the evidence here is scant, anecdotal, and misdirected. And I support feminist ideals.

I repeat: not relevant to Ruby.

Re: your question about women and computer science, who knows? These kinds of questions are for psychologists and sociologists.

I know that many many feminists like to claim that they are not "logical" or "linear" and so do not like computing.

I doubt that claim is true, but that is the popular idea in academia...

Read the last link on the bits about male privilege that go under the radar. You'll learn something.

Proof's in the pudding, gents. If there's nothing wrong with computing and women, how come more women aren't doing it? There are proportionately more women in physics, math, and other "harder math" disciplines than there are in CS, let alone the number of women in the life sciences where it's either 50/50 or maybe even more women than men. So what's different about CS?

Proof's in the pudding, gents. If there's nothing wrong with computing and women, how come more women aren't doing it?

I don't think it's that simple. There is definitely sexism in CS. There's sexism everywhere. But your argument is that there aren't more women in CS because of inherent sexism. What other profession removed sexism from its ranks before gender integrating? Women have had to fight to get into other professions and still face open sexism in many fields. But that hasn't stopped them from getting jobs in many fields and excelling despite glass ceilings.

I don't know why there aren't more women in CS and I don't think anyone does. I always find it interesting that the word first 'computers' were women sitting at mechanical adding machines computing artillery and other mathematical tables. They were all women.

A woman, Grace Mary Hopper, wrote the first compiler and coined the term 'debugging'. If people had viewed programming then like they do today would that first chance been given to a woman? The first 6 programmers of the ENIAC were women. Is that because people viewed programming like we view typing today?

I wasn't making that argument -- I was merely suggesting that those who swear that they're not sexist for putting T&A all over slides at a supposedly respectable conference might want to reevaluate a few things. Sexist or not, I mean, we all know women, right? How do they typically react to you blatantly objectifying them in serious settings? Especially brainy settings?

Agree on viewing computing then like we view typing today. Says something about us then and now. And what it says is not "hey, we're a postmodern society, i'm a white male and I don't feel any exclusion, so all you PC whiners should shut up".

Right on. Glad that we're basically on the same page.

I found this oral history interview of Jean Bartik one of the 6 original ENIAC programers. Read the anecdote from page 41-42 for a view of how it was for women in computing back then. http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/Ora...

It's a crazy read where they discuss the invention of the concept of parity in memory, late 40's sexism in the work place and McCarthyism. I find this absolutely fascinating.

I'm not sure why, but when I replied to this comment earlier, HN wouldn't let me actually reply under the comment. See my answer above.

There's a timeout before replying is allowed, and it grows with thread depth. It's intended to slow down flamewars.

Interesting. Simple as it is, I feel like I learn something new about HN's system every day.

There's actually a straightforward workaround, but it still probably works well enough to slow down people furiously responding.

The timeline is interesting.

"Launchpad users encouraged to use real names"

"Also in 2001, Schwartz wrote an article for WebTechniques magazine about how to make a "hot or not" style voting system in Perl. Originally, his article referred to Hooters..."

"Amaya Rodrigo Sastre asked the candidates what they were planning to do to encourage women in the Debian project...The responses frequently harped on meritocracy,"

"Marvel [sexy] halloween costumes"

Meritocracy and sexy wonder woman, oh noes! Those mean geeks. I hate them so much.

It seems like most of the objections to the OP boil down to "if they're offended that's their problem." The trouble is that it's _our_ problem.

How many articles on HN complain about the lack of qualified programmers or complain that programmers aren't contributing to open source? Why, then, do we not seem to care about driving programmers away from cutting edge tools and open source projects? Whether you think they're reacting correctly is irrelevant. It's outcomes that matter here and the outcome is that women drop out of open source involvement or never even consider it in the first place. When a fair-sized segment of programmers feel ill-treated, the community itself does not prosper as it could.

Very interesting and worth taking a look at, but as a male programmer who doesn't go to conferences (where it seems the most striking instances of sexism occasionally occur), how am I privileged? End users don't care what gender I am, and the end users will ultimately determine how my work is valued.

An answer to the question of how you may be privileged is provided:

http://lafalafu.com/krc/privilege.html

Most of these "privileges" are the privileges of the majority. Majorities and minorities are a fact of life, whether you distinguish gender, education, skillsets, race, age, religion, fitness, lifestyle, etc.

i.e. there is not much specific about maleness or programming. Programming happens to be majority male, so it's easy to think this checklist is more specific than it really is.

    1. Any majority
    2. Any majority
    3. Not true.  Male partner does not get a free nepotism pass
    4. Consider a male nurse, appreciating McSteamy.
    5. Consider a technician in coveralls.  Janitor?
    6. Any majority
    7. Reasonable.  c.f. Horny
    8. Any majority
    9. Reasonable.  c.f. Pilates / Yoga
    10. Reasonable.  Assholes exist
    11. Reasonable.  c.f. Pilates / Yoga
    12. Asinine.
    13. Context?  c.f. Pilates / Yoga
    14. Asinine.  Only distracts females?  Products and systems are 
        anthropomorphized female as well.
    15. Asinine. I've witnessed open door talks.
    16. Completely asinine.  How on earth could one possibly sleep one's way 
        into a bug fix?  Assholes exist.
    17. There exist male programmers who are not appreciated for their 
        professional competence.  There exist male employees who are 
        appreciated for their dispute resolution skills.
    18. Completely asinine.  More context needed.
    19. Asinine.  Computer programmers are unattractive dorks who live in 
        their parents' basement.
    20. Any majority.
    21. Unfounded.
    22. Reasonable.  c.f. Sex and the City
    23. Unfounded.  c.f. skateboarding
    24. Unfounded.  c.f. Porcelain dolls
    25. Unfounded.  it happens both ways
    26. Asinine.  We all have to Dress For Work.
    27. Unfounded.  e.g. DHH [citation needed, but it can't be too hard to find]
    28. Straw man.  Not the same as LOLcats.  False dichotomy regarding 
        colleague perspective.  Did anyone really laugh at this?
    29. Reasonable, but is there any evidence any attendee saw another attendee 
        primarily as a sex object?
    30. Any majority.  c.f. male nurse
    31. Completely unfounded.
    32. Reasonable.  c.f. Joe Sixpack
    33. Reasonable.  c.f. Forums / 4chan
    34. Unfounded.  Why are males exempt from this discomfort?
    35. Unfounded.  Males are not exempt from this worry.
    36. Asinine.  Everyone without a chip on her shoulder has this freedom.
    37. Straw man.  *Pure* meritocracy, really?
    38. Completely unfounded.  Males are in no way exempt from death threats.  
        e.g. crypto / security researchers
    39. Dubious.  Let's see the responses to this very comment ;)
    40. Dubious.  c.f. the privilege to promote the privilege of the male 
        programmer

As a numbered wall o' text, it looks formidable, but a lot of these items are mere rephrasing or restatements of the same complaint (valid or not). I must admit this list is thought provoking, and it is good to enumerate these sorts of things.

However, there are some extremely weak claims here, and their very presence undermines the overall effort. I was interested to know just how privileged I was, but after scanning a few of these, it's hard to take the author seriously.

Wish I had the time to extensively rebut in this way, but completely agree. Privilege exist everywhere at all times, with all kinds of complexity, and goes both ways many times. It is overcome through character, not complaint.

"34. The freedom to listen to speakers use gender fields in database schemata as an example of an attribute that never changes and only has two possible values without having to sit on your hands."

This one doesn't seem to belong as I'm sure most women would be just as likely to make this assumption as men, wouldn't they? This seems like it should be on a separate "Non-TransGender Programmer Privilege Checklist".

I believe the author of this list is, in fact, trans-gendered. This is mentioned way down at the bottom.

The bit about using a gender as an example of an attribute that never changes doesn't seem like a specifically male error. I'm sure there are any number of women who would also make the same mistake and I don't think it's about gender, it's about assumptions that we all make. An equally good example is the way people store names of people in databases.

This list and the parent article are both, in my opinion, way off base. Some people are juvenile and obnoxious and we can pick them out of a crowd by this very behavior. Turning around and telling everyone else in the room that they are just as juvenile and obnoxious is unreasonable and unfair. Part of being an open group is letting pretty much anyone who's interested into the room.

I can understand why many of these criticisms would be characterized as whining. Some of these items seem like nitpicking when compared to some of the very real injustices that women face in the workplace, for instance, the fact that they aren't paid the same wage for the same work. Better curation of this list might help ameliorate that issue.

I read the checklist. Isn't it presumptive to assume that I play video games?

It's also presumptive to assume that I won't be judged by the way I dress because I'm a guy, that potential partners don't immediately consider me a dork with no social skills because I work with computers, that I'm considered a hero rather than lazy when I put life ahead of work, that I get to walk home unafraid after a late night coding spree (because guys are never harmed, or raped, right? and I'm never worried that I'll be unable to defend myself since I'm a big strong man, right?)

No assumption are made about your video game preferences in that linked page.

>Getting invited to play video games with people, because they haven't assumed you won't be interested because of your gender.

Link at the bottom provides a decent list: http://lafalafu.com/krc/privilege.html

Here's a copy of Matt Aimonetti's "CouchDB: Perform like a pr0n star" presentation, for those who aren't familiar with it: http://omploader.org/vNWNrNg/gogaruco-couchdb-090418194027-p...

There are no more and no fewer social issues in the Ruby community as in any other. The difference is that the Ruby community and its members are easy to identify. You don't get large groups of Java developers buddying up on Twitter or becoming real life friends merely from the virtue of using Java, so any sexist/racist/other comments that Java developers make aren't as easily tied to the "Java community".

The article is bizarre. Pointing to sporadic events as a sign that times haven't changed is disingenuous. You can still point at examples of racism, murder, or god knows what, but it's not a sign of a lack of improvement in the world.

I recently participated in a Ruby conference (SunnyConf) and was shocked to see that out of ~100+ attendees, not a single woman, other than an organizer.

At local code camps, the balance is not quite that extreme, but still, heavily slanted.

A far cry from when I broke into the field, back in the '80s, when women outnumbered men in the development shops (or as was termed "Data Processing", and then "Systems…" in them days) I worked in.

Is the same condition as with Java, Python, .NET gatherings?

This again?

It irritates me to see the same rehashed blog posts submitted every week, decrying the reign of male terror while offering no new insight whatsoever. I crave insight. I want to see fresh theories on how entrenched social norms can be turned on their head. But none are to be found on HN. My current, deeply cynical but so far correct assumption is that the only way to see more women in tech is to let social entropy run its course -- in other words, wait. I sincerely hope someone will prove me wrong.

The Pr0n Star presentation was forever ago. The "recent development" which supposedly shows Matt's misogyny is somebody ribbing Matt over the embarrassing incident and Matt taking it in good humor. FFS, this is a simple hatchet job on a very nice hacker who once made a joke that unintentionally hurt some feelings. Very poor form.

I think the blog post is over a year old too, so it was relevant then. No idea why it's been reposted now.

Oh, you're right. Shame on me there for not looking carefully enough.

* If foul language offends you, then don't read articles by Zed Shaw.

* If blasphemy offends you, use monit instead of god.rb.

* If drnic's picture of a candy bar offends you, unfollow him.

* If adult entertainment offends you, then don't attend a talk title "CouchDB: Perform like a pr0n star".

Any large community of people has individuals with a large range of backgrounds. If you're easily offended, then you're bound to be offended by somebody in the group.

Just because you're offended doesn't mean that the people who offended you need to change. It means you either need to avoid those people, or (even better) look past the parts that offend you to see if any of the underlying information has value.

I think there are obvious male privilege issues in programming in general but singling out Ruby is silly. The only correlation I can see perhaps is that Ruby programmers tend to find humor or other forms of informality acceptable in presentations and that might carry over to a few more distasteful incidents like this on average but the core issue is that this article cherry-picks only one language. This article seems to have hedged its bets on motive between yet another language war and misrepresenting a broadly sweeping issue i the industry.

Like "pimp my X", "X like a porn star" is offensive more because it is such a tired meme than because it is actually offensive. The "uproar" reminds me of that post where they took away that one developer's cargo shorts and dressed him up like an elementary school teacher, and all the comments were raging about how they turned him into a "hipster."

I remain consistently unclear what is the take-away is with discussions of Male Privilege. Are men supposed to feel guilty, and by carrying around that guilt they will act better? It's often said that it "should be acknowledged" but what then? A lot of men (at times myself as well) bristle at this stuff, but at least for me it's the sense that there are unspoken accusations underneath the discussion. I don't get the point of acknowledgement alone, and since I don't understand the point I'm inclined to infer there's an unspoken motivation behind the discussion.

If the point is "we should be sensitive to one another" then yes, absolutely. I personally try hard to do this, towards women, towards beginners, towards people with other domain expertise, towards people with social anxiety... there's a whole bunch of people who have different needs, and programming communities have their own quirky mix. It's hard, I forget, other people forget, finding a balance between empathy and boundaries can be awkward at times... but eliminating the awkwardness or uncomfortable events is something I personally don't try to do. Maybe because my own personal demon is alienation, and I know those boundaries are dangerous for me -- they allow me to stick to a comfort zone that I know I need to push my way out of.

But... privilege... I just don't know where that fits into this. There's lots of specific issues I understand and can engage with. Impostor syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome) for instance -- this is something I've heard a lot of women feel quite strongly, even in cases when I know the person should not feel that way. I've felt it too, but I know it's felt more strongly by many women, and if I keep it in mind maybe I can do something positive with that knowledge at some time, to reassure, or perhaps to push someone further knowing they might be self-limiting themselves for the wrong reason.

And in these discussions I've heard other useful anecdotes... but in these lists (the article and the list of Male Privileges)... not really. It feels like there's two categories:

1. Don't be a jerk. Fine, I'll try not to be. Sometimes I might be. I'm sorry, I'm only human, I will accept criticism if it is offered.

There's also a message: don't let other people be jerks. I'm not sure how I feel about this. If I feel strongly like both I and the possible-jerk are really members of the same community, then I would like to make the community better. But I have no interest in getting outraged because some dude somewhere said something offensive. Like the comment sections in many gender-diversity-related articles get filled with sexist bullshit (or worse)... I don't know who those people are, I don't recommend anyone even read that shit, and having absolutely no investment in that transient community of commenters I don't see what I (or frankly anyone) should try to do about it. Just shut the fucking comments down.

2. The message to respect boundaries and be professional. I'm simply not okay with this one. This isn't just a profession for me, and that's true of my community (and most open source related communities). I see other professional communities and I am totally disinterested. To be fair, in those professionalized communities there are a lot more women. But that's a tradeoff I'm not willing to make. If I or any other member of the community wishes to profess, on a personal channel (like a Twitter account) that they find women attractive, so be it.

Truly misogynist stuff isn't okay (and that does occur, IRC can be particularly bad) and some awareness could be useful there, though I think outrage is not particularly helpful -- it invokes defensiveness instead of empathy. Outrage strikes me as more to the emotional benefit of the person who is outraged than it is of benefit to the community.

I don't use couchdb, so can someone explain what that candy bar picture is in reference to?

* Matt Aimonetti gives a talk entitled "Perform like a pr0n star."

* This upsets a lot of people, not least because it served to make women feel excluded from the Ruby community.

* Presumably as a way of diffusing the tension, somebody sends a picture of a Yorkie bar with its "It's not for girls" slogan to Aimonetti, suggesting it could come in useful the next time he gives a talk.

* Aimonetti responds with "haha, good one thanks."

Coda Hale's implication (as I read it) is that Aimonetti had learned nothing and wasn't taking the issue anything like as seriously as he ought.

The Yorkie is a chocolate bar that is sold in the UK only (I think? I'm not sure) and is quite chunky in terms of the amount of chocolate you get per chunk.

I think the reasoning behind the marketing 'it's not for girls' was because in the 80s/90s the best selling chocolate bar in the UK (and still is) is the Cadbury Dairy Milk and their marketing campaigns pushed the bars as being a woman's best friend, which I guess Nestle felt there was a gap in the market to push a so-called 'manly' bar of chocolate. I guess you could compare it too Diet Coke vs. Coke Zero.

It's kind of hard to explain and from an outsiders perspective it does seem wildly offensive to women, but here in the UK it's more of just a bit of humour that people don't really take too seriously

It's sold in the US, too.

Matt something-or-other gave a presentation at golden gate ruby conference titled something like making couch db perform like a porn star. He then filled the slides with gratuitous pictures of mostly-naked women. When told that women were offended by seeing a supposedly professional conference covered with T&A like a frat boy circle jerk, Matt basically told them they were being too sensitive. He finally apologized, though I'm dubious about the sincerity and doubt most people understand why filling slides with mostly naked women like that is a problem. Given he's now cracking jokes about it on his twitter page, I'm pretty sure my doubts were right.

Cue the internet mysogynist brigade to bitch on behalf of Matt for getting called on acting like a 12 year old asshole who's lived in the basement with his dad's playboys for his whole life.

The point of the pictures was not to titillate — they were precisely equivalent to the silly cat pictures and Dilbert cartoons used to add levity to many presentations. It didn't go over well, but it's going way too far to insult Matt over a joke that fell flat — there was nothing woman-belittling about it, just some people aren't comfortable with silly pictures of (clothed) porn stars, including a male actor IIRC. Modulo that one presentation, Matt's contributions to the Ruby community have been quite substantial and always a class act.

Give a presentation at a Ruby conference, put photoshoped images of Matt Aimonetti and DHH as pr0n stars on each of your slides, problem solved ;-)

NWS warning please, was not expecting giant ass pictures.

Fittingly, I'm sure they would have been linked if those were male asses.

This response will probably be downvoted, as I'm guessing I have less respect (should I say more disdain?) for political correctness than most HN'ers.

I think the expectation that any reference to sexuality is inherently machismo and sexist is disheartening. Nude bodies are beautiful. To acknowledge this is not a sin, not discriminatory, and not automatically immature. To joke about it should not be "politically incorrect." If it makes you uncomfortable, you might look within yourself and not point fingers. We fear what we do not understand. We hate what others have, and what we can nothave. Knee-jerk reactions to sexual references are usually a symptom of jealousy - more bluntly - not getting any.

I don't know the context of this particular case, but to me, sexuality is a big part of life and part of what makes it worth living. It is a large part of what drives us, and I make no apologies for it. The more comfortable we are with discussing it, the better. We don't need to be vulgar, crude, or overly open, but we also don't need to be overly sensitive to prudish sensibilities and people who can't have a laugh.

Showing a nice ass on a slide is not a sign of male privilege. It may or may not be juvenile, depending on the context, but it should not discourage women from becoming interested in computer science any more than the statue of David should discourage men from being artists. This sentiment strikes me as part of our culture of victimhood - as if, after all humankind, individually and as a whole, has overcome, a slide of a beautiful ass can keep a good man or woman down.

#getalife

we also don't need to be overly sensitive to prudish sensibilities and people who can't have a laugh.

You slipped in an unfounded claim. It is possible to disapprove of showing T&A on a slide without being prudish. I also like human bodies and spent part of my upbringing in a clothing-optional environment. I don't self-identify as a prude, I self identify as someone who has empathy for other people.

I'm comfortable discussing sexuality when sexuality is the topic. Sexuality is not the topic in a programming conference or forum. We bring other topics in as metaphors or similes to illustrate a technical point by choice. And it's our responsibility to consider all of the ramifications of our choice when we make it.

You know about "Godwin's Law," which has evolved into a dictum that comparing something to National Socialism ends the argument. As a responsible adult, I think about that before I compare anything to National Socialism.

In the case of women's bodies and sexuality, bringing this up in a professional setting is wrong. Not because we aren't sexual beings, but because we're supposed to be able to rise above that when circumstances demand. In the case of sexuality, the male-centric stuff being discussed by the OP creates an environment where many women feel that their sexuality is a distraction to their contribution as colleagues.

If you walk up to a woman at work and say that sexuality is a big part of life and part of what makes it worth living, you are creating a poisoned workplace environment. Donny, what does any of that have to do with Vietnam?

Finally, who are you or I to say what should or shouldn't discourage women from doing anything? That is blame the victim thinking writ large. It is enough for me that it does discourage some women.

Is the freedom to be juvenile more valuable than the contributions of those who don't want to be a part of a community that disregards their feelings?

> who are you or I to say what should or shouldn't discourage women from doing anything?

Those who are truly motivated are not discouraged by minor indirect impediments. The cage of political correctness and over-sensitivity is far more stifling to innovation than the minority of folks who are discouraged from entering a profession by this sort of thing. It is the source of bureaucracy, drones, intrusive HR, politics, and all the other things we love to hate about big corporations where no one can say what they think.

I agree that personalized sexuality can be a serious distraction and should be generally avoided in the workplace, however general bantering and references to sexuality are just that.

Do you espouse the same views with respect to colour and religion? Am I being overly sensitive if I quit a job where people routinely draw attention to the natural fact that some people, myself included, are not "White?"

There is a difference between being singled out for being different on a regular basis, and someone bringing up basic facts of life.

One situation where I might quit - an overly religious environment. I would not like constant references to Jesus and religious judgement around me, however it's not my choice whether my co-workers want that. I can ignore it, fight it, or quit. If I am not a good fit for the company culture, I need to figure out how to deal with it. Same if the company is obsessed with sports betting, video games, soap operas, or any of the other things I prefer not to be around me.

Showing a nice ass on a slide is not a sign of male privilege.

I strongly disagree. Seeing that image immediately tells any straight women or gay mean in the room that she or he is not the expected audience for the talk. The ideal audience for a Ruby talk is "people who are interested in Ruby," not "people who enjoy looking at pictures of near-naked women." The former is mostly, but not completely, made up of the latter.

I'm not the only one who disagrees with you. Here's an entry from the first hit on Google for "male privilege":

41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

BTW, if anyone's interested in the whole topic of privilege, I strongly recommend taking a look at the "Helpful Resources" section over at the Border House:

http://borderhouseblog.com/?page_id=54

I tick pretty much every privilege box there is (I'm a white, straight, middle-class male from western Europe), but I like to think I'm pro-equality. Reading some of the articles there challenged a lot of my assumptions and behaviours.

"I strongly disagree. Seeing that image immediately tells any straight women or gay mean in the room that she or he is not the expected audience for the talk."

It does something else as well, especially in a male-dominated conference or profession - it makes women or gay men in the audience feel like the Other, rather than a like-minded colleague/member of the group/just another conference attendee.

Their attention shifts from the topic of the conference to, in women's case, preparing to fend off diverting, unwanted advances, and in gay guys' case... well that I'm not sure.

It changes the entire group dynamic for the rest of the conference for them, but the straight guys doing it are usually totally oblivious to it. The 'Others' leave the conference with their perception of that community as a group to which they will always be an outsider.

It does another thing too that you allude to in #41 - it offends straight men who know there's a time and a place for such stuff, that a programming conference is neither (at least not during the sessions or as part of a presentation), and that see cheap 'sex sells' strategies of manipulation for what they are - lazy, boorish, non-intellectually stimulating excuses for a lack of a truly good presentation.

Some of those are really lame.

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.

I don't know where the author came from, but I don't think thats true. Maybe in the black community (oh look, now I'm a racist as well...), but definitely not where I grew up. Any father who wasn't involved in the raising of their children was seen as a bit of a deadbeat.

Yeah, that is a pretty damned racist thing to suggest.

Ughh.

A gay man with a presentation throwing up a sculpted chest to make a point would not tell me that I'm not the expected audience. Again, the impediment is in your head, not the presenter.

Does a Python programmer using a slide of Python at a Ruby conference insult the audience? Give me a break.

Just because there are lots of people who love to be offended, blog about it, organize around it, and generally make a life of it, doesn't mean it's right.

A gay man with a presentation throwing up a sculpted chest to make a point would not tell me that I'm not the expected audience.

What if you were the only straight person in the room? Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable attending a Ruby talk full of homosexual innuendo in such a situation?

No, homosexual innuendo is hilarious. It gives license to participate via another role or character.

If you feel uncomfortable when surrounded by homosexuals that's your prerogative.

I'm straight and I enjoy homosexual innuendo. Like all innuendo, I find it amusing more than I find it titillating.

No, not really. Why would I?

No. I wouldn't.

I've been dancing in gay bars quite a few times, which is a much more challenging situation for a straight guy (brought there by girl friends, or gay friends.) I only feel uncomfortable when I get hit on heavily or fondled, all of which has happened many times, but even then, it's not a big deal.

This response will probably be downvoted, as I'm guessing I have less respect (should I say more disdain?) for political correctness than most HN'ers.

Congratulations, you're a contrarian! How's being the smartest guy in the room working out?

A contrarian takes the opposite position whenever possible. I think my record of comments does not expose me as a contrarian, however contrary opinions are often the most interesting ones and worth expressing.

And I'm quite sure I'm not the smartest guy on Hacker News.

Also, not really sure what point you're making.

It's too bad you ended your comment by telling me to get a life. It's a bit of an insult to suggest that people who disagree with you aren't living, isn't it?

I will respond to your main argument in another comment.

As far as I can deduce that comment was not directed at you. I don't quite know why you'd take such a personal offense to it either.

In my opinion this response is an example of what aneth is referring to in thier comment.

I said it was an insult and that I thought it devalued a comment that was otherwise worth discussion. That isn't exactly the same as suggesting I take offense whether personally or as part of a group.

I have a number of minor free libraries on the go, two children, and I'm heading out to do some very technical mountain biking in the morning. I have what I consider to be a life, although I accept that others may consider all of that worthless if I don't agree with their perspective on what is and isn't appropriate in a professional setting.

Therefore, telling me personally to get a life--which the author may or may not have done--isn't even an insult, it's simply wrong.

A prime example of the type of over-sensitivity I refer to.

First - It's a jab, because I do think those who constantly make a point of being offended need to get a life. We all do it sometimes, but we need to recognize it as a flaw instead of making excuses and complaining.

Second - I'm not sure how it was directed at you personally.

Third - It most likely struck you because you fear there is some truth to it - if you knew it was untrue, it would not even begin to bother you - you probably wouldn't even notice. I find most of the time, when someone is offended, myself included, the cause more within the offended person, than the offender.

You dilute your message when you resort to namecalling. You don't have to be personally offended by it, or even disagree with it, to recognize it as lowering the level of discourse.

First, the difference between a jab and an insult escapes me. But here's what I have to say to you: If you are being offensive, that's wrong, period. You can't go around being offensive and then dismiss your critics as being easily offended, that just doesn't wash. It's an ad hominem.

If you need an example, try calling me a nigger. I won't be offended, however I will tell you that you're being offensive, even if nobody who hears it takes offense.

Elsewhere you have tried to defend your point, and that is the correct line to take. If your point is valid, it is irrelevant whether your critics are easily offended. They are wrong. And if your point is invalid, again your critics don't enter into it.

Second, I don't care if an insult or jab is directed at me personally. Ad hominems poison the HN community. They create an environment where ideas take a back seat to things that may well be the staff of life outside the office, but are irrelevant to the business at hand. They create an environment where people who disagree with you expect to be insulted for their trouble. They may fear the insults, or they may simply prefer not to lower themselves into a mud-slinging match. Either way, the community loses their voice if they turn away from comments that contain insults or "jabs."

Therefore, I choose not to shrug and say "How rude, but since he wasn't talking to me personally, no biggie."

Your third point is not worth a direct response, except to suggest that having reached the rock bottom of rhetoric, your comments have begun to dig. If your points have substance, make them and defend them. Discussing the psychology or motivation of your critics is the age-old misdirection of playing the man and not the ball.

See how I respond to your words without making suggestions about what kind of person you are or why you write what you write? You defend your ideas without belittling your detractors elsewhere in this discussion and it is far more credible.

I stand by my point. Those who scream offense should more often look within themselves. This is especially true of people offended by sexuality because we are a culture so ridden by sexual guilt that most of us are confused and repressed.

That is not "ad hominum." It is not directed at anyone here. It is as true for me as it is for the author of this post and yourself, and it is a philosophy I practice myself and from which I have learned a great deal.

I am not discussing the psychology of my critics any more than myself. This entire conversation is about psychology, so it's a difficult subject to avoid. If you feel the conversation is about you personally, it is not my intention.

I came into this knowing full well my opinions are not politically correct. For better or worse, I simply don't agree that we should all tiptoe around each other's sensitivities.

#getalife is awesome, we aren't in debate school, it's an informal discussion and getalife sums up the sentiment well.

Keep going and keep ignoring #overly-sensitive.

I know you are getting down voted for these comments (these threads are a magnet for the overly sensitive), so I've decided to go through your comment history and up vote others where appropriate.

Being offended on behalf of another group is the new chivalry.

edit: w00t, at zero, keep the downvotes coming. can i get a neg 4?

Thanks buddy. I'm here with you in the coalition of #peoplewhocanrollwiththepunches.

Speaking of which, aren't entrepreneurs supposed to be the people who can take a beating and bounce back up instead of complaining? Isn't every good idea shouted down from day one? Doesn't every great leader meet resistance and naysayers.

Getting beat up on a bit gives you the skills to deal with the real world. Being coddled by sensitivity yields weak spirits. Adversity breeds strength. That's what sport is all about. It's what freedom is about. #braveheart

> "to me, sexuality is a big part of life and part of what makes it worth living."

Me too.

But I would prefer if people did not make my sexuality, or the sexuality of those around me, into an issue when it shouldn't be. This isn't a matter of jealousy, "not getting any", political correctness, or being uncomfortable discussing sex; it's a matter of being uncomfortable with sexuality being brought to the forefront and kept there when I'm trying to talk databases or do other professional work. At best, it's a distraction, but as raganwald said, it can create a poisoned work environment, especially if it's part of an ongoing pattern. You describe it as a "minor impediment" elsewhere; note that it can become a major impediment either due to increased severity or increased frequency.

I don't disagree with this.

However I also think being overly sensitive, and taking yourself too seriously, is poisonous. Like bringing up politics or religion, there is a gray area. Nobody wants to hear a talk about ruby laden with penis jokes (actually I'm not so sure about that,) however a few jokes or sexual references can lighten things up and "keep it real."

I'd put jokes and sexual references in similar categories - distracting, but also helpful.

I'm starting to see more women in the SF ruby community. There has since been a more concerted effort by Gogaruco (among other Ruby functions) to be more female-friendly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com