Hacker News Reader

"It may not be PC to say this, but it's important to distinguish unpleasant, but fundamentally innocuos flirting from awkward people, from bona fide sexual harassment like groping or inappropriate touching."

Sexual harassment includes the comments like the "how much for a sexual favor?" example. That constitutes bona fide harassment.

Here's my example from the last 2 years. I'm blanking on the conference now, but there was a live IRC session running on the overhead, and each time a question was asked by a woman, IRC would be filled with lude and aggressively sexual remarks. It was totally uncomfortable! I think this situation qualifies as bona fide sexual harassment.

Touching or groping someone in a sexual manner is assault (at least it can be in the US.) It's so far beyond mere harassment that it's not the point of the article...

EDIT: for clarity...

Are you perhaps thinking of Ian Bicking's "Topics of Interest" talk [0] from PyCon 2009? It definitely veered into the uncomfortable, but there was some reasonable handling of the situation during the talk, IIRC, and was definitely a catalyst in the PSF adopting a formal diversity statement [1] and trying to be encourage inclusivity in the community.

[0]: http://us.pycon.org/2009/conference/schedule/event/76/

[1]: http://www.python.org/community/diversity/

Yeah, that's the talk I was thinking about.

UPDATE - after watching it again, they handled it pretty well.

> Sexual harassment includes the comments like the "how much for a sexual favor?" example. That constitutes bona fide harassment.

I wasn't implying otherwise. Sexual remarks like the ones you describe are certainly uncalled for and a form of sexual harassment.

What I meant is that it's important to draw the line between "awkward flirting" and harassment/assault of a sexual nature, so that severe and proper corrective actions can be taken when actual episodes of harassment or assault happen, and so that they cannot be easily dismissed.

(I wasn't going for the distinction between harassment and assault in my comment, and I used the word harassment as an all-inclusive term for any form of sexual, inappropriate behavior).

The same even happened in the chat during the start-up school webcasts. Very disturbing.

I think you make a point that’s over looked here.

As much as it’s PC to portray men and women as completely equal I think men who witness this behavior have a greater responsibility to step in. Our society has always defined “being a man” as taking on certain responsibilities and I think this is one of them.

Further I think every father should teach his sons that they have a responsibility to be protective of women. That means not just respecting them but stepping up and dealing with a jerk who thinks he doesn’t have to. That’s part of being a man in our society (or at least it should be IMHO)

I’m not saying women can’t do it too but I wouldn’t think less of a woman if they didn’t. I would think less of a man (and again I know how un-PC that sounds but it doesn’t make it less true)

This post needs more up voting, re: the responsibility of those around the conferences (or any every-day situation) to step in (as men) to the aid of a women being harassed. Women, physically (at a 99% level), are weaker then men (this may spawn a large discussion), but at the simplistic level, deserve to feel safe within public and private places.

I like to use an analogy when explaining the female mind to men who are not respectful of women's private space: imagine an 8 foot giant of a man whose only thoughts, leers, and actions speak to wanting to have sex with you (or rape you). Visualize that in your head, you may have a better appreciation for the "why's" of women and how they act in social circumstance.

I definitely disagree with this. I cannot see how women can be both things to be protected, and be taken as seriously as their male peers.

I think this is a false dichotomy. Women are, generally, weaker than their male peers. That's not sexist, or discriminatory, it's how things are and (on a biological basis) probably how they will be for some time. To fail to acknowledge that, or pretend that the sexes are equals on all levels, is not only ignorant but in my opinion harmful to the progress of "equality".

It is perfectly possible to regard someone as physically weaker, but intellectually equal or superior. If I'm making a decision on whether I'm "taking someone seriously", physical strength isn't going to factor into that in many situations. In the context of FOSS conferences, their physical stature is completely orthogonal to whether I give a damn.

From here I only need make the assumption that those physically weaker than their peers may need assistance sometimes, and we're basically there. Of course, I would not assert that all women need assistance, or that some women need assistance all the time - I know some girls that play rugby and I'd wager they could beat 95% of HN readers in a showdown.

However the fact remains that many people believe that stronger people have a duty to protect weaker people, that many women are weaker than many men, and (importantly) that women are being targeted because they are women. I for one am going to step in if I see any shenanigans, because I am a man.

Note on male camaraderie and bravado: I'm not sure whether it is constructive, de-constructive or neither for men to place themselves as protectors and aspire to such ideals as "be a man" and "man up", but in situations like this such phrases serve as good motivators to get people to do the right thing, so unless I find evidence of such phrasing being harmful, I think it's a useful tool to inspire decent behaviour.

And there are larger men (example: me at 6'5", 275) who can literally wipe the floor with most other _men_. Of course, I have to protect them, because they are weaker and smaller. Can anybody say bullshit?

I'm up for equality, and I mean real equality. We will be equal when a woman hits a man in the face, and the man responds in kind by punching her, and nobody says anything about "hitting a woman".

Lastly, I have a duty to protect all those I care about, male or female. I would just as well die (or kill) for my guy friends as I would my female friends. What you have between the crotch doesn't matter to me.

I agree with some of what you said, but not total equality. There are differences between the genders, and I think some gender roles are more helpful than harmful (and some are undeniable, until we invent male pregnancy at least).

And yes, I would also protect my male friends. As it stands though, they are not the ones being sexually assulted (mostly - and in those rare situations, generally the guy is able to get himself out of it), and the article only talked about male on female assault, so that's all I really addressed.

> And there are larger men (example: me at 6'5", 275) who can literally wipe the floor with most other _men_. Of course, I have to protect them, because they are weaker and smaller.

From other people your size, yes.

> Can anybody say bullshit?

Sure, but it's not coming from ZoFreX.

If person/entity A is being coercive towards (or just randomly assaulting) person/entity B, you should generally intervene to protect person B if possible. This applies to men protecting women from other men, stronger men protecting less-strong men from other stronger men, the police protecting the general populace from violent criminals, the various forms of consumer-protection laws, employment law, civil-rights protesters and some revolutionaries, teachers breaking up playground fights, ....

I'm up for equality, and I mean real equality. We will be equal when a woman hits a man in the face, and the man responds in kind by punching her, and nobody says anything about "hitting a woman".

There's a reason that social moor exists. Until women catch up in physical power, or men regress, most men will have the power to seriously injure a woman and walk away unharmed, unless the woman is trained or armed. As such, it is a man's duty to take responsibility for this difference, and that is where the taboo on striking a woman came about. There's a partner taboo as well- regarding children- that exists for exactly the same reasons.

Would you argue that someone more powerful does not have a responsibility to manage their strength, and using brute force on women and children should not be considered reprehensible?

I take my little brothers seriously (well, that's not precisely true- one of them is only 14, so you can't always take him too seriously- but if you have brothers you probably know what I mean) and I've defended them in the past.

An unwanted flirtation is not sexual harassment, but repeated advances after the target of the advances has said "no" are sexual harassment.

Absolutely, but it's important to understand that a guy hitting on you is not sexual harassment. When you have made it clear that you are not interested, the guy needs to leave you alone though, or it can easily become harassment.

Harassment is not simply unwanted attention: agreed. However, this is not sexual harassment:

"A presenter had a title slide followed by a slide of bikini-clad women holding laptops, which he said was just to get people to pay attention."

That doesn't make it acceptable.

Naturally, but we do need to keep the distinction.

It is creating an inhospitable environment. I know, it seems odd that people would be so sensitive to something that seems so minor, but think of it in terms of a group of bullies. There are very few actions that a bully takes that are out and out awful. Instead, it's the little things that accumulate. Those little things that, designed or not, let you know what others think your place is.

It's rarely attractive men in speedos holding the laptops. The lunch isn't being held at a strip club where men are dancing. It's all these small things that add up to an intolerable environment. It's like little pricks of a needle. It's not that any individual one is "that bad", but it's the bigger picture when society looks at you as a voodoo doll.

I disagree. That sort of slide (and its associated comment) is absolutely sexual harassment, in that it automatically sexualizes what is supposed to be a professional environment. Given the technology world's long and unpleasant track record of sexist behavior towards women (as well as towards... well, pretty much anybody who isn't, cisgendered, heterosexual, and male), I personally can think of very few ways that sexualizing a public technology presentation can do anything other than create (or contribute to) a hostile environment for a good chunk of the audience.

Furthermore, that sort of slide sends a clear message to the audience about who the speaker thinks they're speaking to. In this case, it says that the speaker thinks that his audience is composed of heterosexual males[1], which <sarcasm>I'm sure feels just great to any women who might also be in the audience.</sarcasm>

[1]: I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the author of those conference slides did not include them in an attempt to appeal to the audience's lesbian members. I am, of course, willing to be corrected on this point.

We just need to recognize the difference between harassment and offensive.

I was not there, and I do not know if it was done in the spirit of things--had the conference been in Miami in August, bathing suit clad models wouldn't be terribly out of context--but if pressed to decide whether the presenter acted criminally or in bad taste, I'll err on the bad taste side.

Having said that, and having been to many conferences, and having had large staffs, I can say that I've seen both offensive behavior and harassment proper. I'm not a lawyer, and I've never been an HR professional, but my experience dealing with both tells me this specific situation would not have escalated. Perhaps poor judgement (context considered), but certainly not harassment.

> difference between harassment and offensive

I've read somewhere that using the words "offensive" or "offended by" puts the emphasis on the person who has expressed concern about the situation. It focuses on the negative: "what can we do to be less offensive?".

The article I read suggested using terms like "unwelcoming" or "exclusive" instead--as it puts the focus on the community. This allows us to focus on the positive: "what can we do to become more welcoming?".

So rather than considering whether this is a question of harrassment or offensiveness I find it useful to think of actions being "welcoming" or "unwelcoming" toward members of our community.

I don't see how you square that with the assertion that "harassment is not simply unwanted attention." Given that premise, it's almost an a priori fact that a sexualized environment is not cognate with harassment, since AFAICT the issue with a sexualized environment is that it brings or constitutes unwanted attention.

It might be uncomfortable, but it is not (in and of itself) harassment. Distinguishing is important, even if you agree that both are a problem.

Totally agreed : had the presenter replaced the "bikini-clad girl" by a tough looking dark-haired muscular-type guy in boxer short holding an iphone, i wonder how many men would've found this offensive? Rethorical question : None. They would've found it funny. Had the conference room been full of women, would the guys still have found it funny? Answer : Yes. And what if the women started to comment on the guy's 'features'. Hilarous.

I whole-heartedly agree that repeated verbal and physical assault are totally unacceptable, and anyone around must take urgent action against it. But as said above please dont see harassment in everything, just because men find something funny, or because they show a girl on a slide, it is almost never meant to be offensive to anyone. It just isnt, and the poor guy hasnt even thought it could offent anyone. it is just a means of trying to avoid Death by Powerpoint.

And just in case anyone wonders. I do not mean to offend anyone :)

Your mirror-world example leaves one important factor out: context. That is, the larger social context is a world of unequal gendered power dynamics. I think your thought experiment is accurate in its depiction of what that flipped situation would look like, but you are implying the difference is in sensitivity or disposition.

I think the difference is actually that men can laugh at that stuff because a) it's ironic in that those images are typically the other way around and b) that sort of objectification of the male body isn't reminding them that they're at greater risk for sexual harassment and assault. Because they aren't.

The problem is that those images and that humor, in public, about women, happens in the context of a world where women are more easily abused, assaulted and harassed, and men more easily get away with it. So context matters, and in this social context, that "humor" shouldn't be acceptable.

I wish I could take every upvote I've ever given to someone else on Hacker News, and put them all on this post instead. But, I can only upvote it once. So it'll have to do for now.

A downvote...?

Should I have e-mailed the parent commenter instead of posting publicly how strongly I agreed...?

> * This is one of the most factual, well written articles that I've encountered on the subject.

As an aside, LWN is great and has lots of well written articles, technical and otherwise.

> * Sexism and unprofessionalism can be avoided without being prudish about the content of your presentation. This is a slide I used in one of my Italian presentations.

Actually, even something like this is still considered offensive. See http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment

A sexualized presentation will most likely disproportionately offend women over men particularly in a male dominated audience.

magamiako didn't delete his own comment — he was banned several months ago, all his contributions since then are [dead] on arrival

I've written a number of comments about articles about sexism in tech and elsewhere that have been duly down voted. I find many such articles to be self-absorbed prudish feminism that turn innocuous events into harassment. However this is the first article to focus largely on real harassment and I generally agree with your sentiment.

I don't think conferences are a place to have an entirely dry professional existence, but women should feel comfortable that they can interact with men without persistent come-ons. As immature as it may be, men make sexual jokes with men that they don't mean - the "how much for a #%^¥" comment in this article may have been such a comment directed toward a women in an attempt to relate, or it may have been sexist harassment. It's hard to say which from the article. Either way it's immature and reflects badly on the speaker but in only one instance is it real harassment.

I suggest women give these men, many of whom are unsure how to relate to women, the benefit of the doubt that they are joking or just naive, possible even give them some straightforward advice. If someone is persistent, rude, physically assaulting, or otherwise clearly violating you, I think it's your responsibility to report this as well as not to blame the behavior on the entire conference.