Hacker News Reader

Comment by timsally | Hacker News Reader

Whenever an instance of blatant sexism comes up, an attempt is invariably made to rationalize away the fact that a sexist act has actually occurred. We have had two such attempts made here so far and I expect more. One commentator is attempting to advance the baseless theory that the bully did not care about the sex of his victim. This particular individual even goes so far to say that "the biggest problem" is the alleged misuse of labels related to racism or sexism, as if this could somehow be worse that the discrimination the disenfranchised experience on a day-to-day basis. Another commentator states that it is because of her popularity not her sex. This too is bunk. There are significantly more males in this industry with significantly more popularity. Yet no evidence is presented that these figures also have received this level of harassment.

There is one word for this behavior mentioned above: denial. Unfortunately, there seems to be a part of our community that refuses to call things what they are. This was an instance of sexism that manifested itself in a nasty way.

View on HN

There is a LOT of blatant sexism in the tech sector. The more specialized you get, the worse things get. It's a pretty well documented problem (e.g. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/sexual_harassm... for a collection of security related anecdotes). This kind of culture turns away lots of tremendously talented people, and those who choose to endure a culture which seems to be slanted against them generally either end up targets or else silent lurkers.

It's absolutely accurate to call the general reaction 'denial.' People who complain who are on the receiving end of the harassment are 'overly sensitive' and those who aren't who speak up against the status quo are 'apologists' and 'white knights.' It's difficult to address a mindset which a majority of a community is complicit in at best, or active defenders of at worst.

"It's a pretty well documented problem (e.g. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/sexual_harassm.... for a collection of security related anecdotes"

At this point, I'd say it was the opposite of well documented and that's a problem. We do not have the statistics on this since it is not being reported to law enforcement or another body that collects these statistics. Does tech have more incidents than lawyers, plumbers, or actors? Don't know and I wish I did. I believe that it is a problem, but I cannot point to finding or study.

Thank god, someone that gets it.

We are technologist. Many of us are academics. If someone writes or talks about how a compiler is slow, the community will demand more than anecdotes. We expect numbers, tested theories, and verified results. When people come to us with anecdotes, we often use "less than nice" ways to disregard what they say. hmm, I see parallels...

There looks to be a number of excellent evidence to prove that there is a gender equality issue in IT, but there is no scientific research on what the causes are. Is it the general culture in the world and IT has the same level as other industries? Is it because of the question/answer culture of engineers, which is an aspect currently being researched in regard to gender equality. Is it a lack of respect for women in the IT field?

I can think of plentiful number of ways to test those concept, work that anthropology might want to do if we asked them. We could also pay them to do it. Maybe that could be someones kickstarter project?

I have a strong conviction that if someone would bring scientific data on the issue on what the causes are and how to fix them, in a verifiable way, few would object. Can a strong worded policy document have an statistic proven effect in discourage sexism in a conference? If you think so, verify it with data. Get 10 conference to do it, and collect data from it and 10 other without any such document. If its verifyable, every conference should adapt one after that. Do you think negative IRC comments is the problem? Switch a number of projects to a moderated communication channel and test the concept. Compare a unmoderated IRC with a project page like stackoverflow. Bring data, do some science, show it to the community. Its the exact same thing we expect from anyone else when they want to do changes to the things the community care about.

Not to mention the conspiracy theorist positing that it might have been a woman posting the fake porn pictures. The mental gymnastics some people will perform to avoid facing the obvious truth are amazing. How can we solve a problem we don't all admit exists?

Why worry about the meaning of the terms you use when there is an opportunity to call somebody who disagrees with you names?

Well done you. It's about time somebody stood up for men brave enough to pitch improbable edge-case possibilities in order to anonymously undermine a woman reporting her experience of sexual harassment.

If you actually read TFA, you will notice that Sarah Parmenter is consistently using gender neutral pronouns to refer to the person(s) who put online those pictures and male pronouns for the guys wrote her inappropriate messages. That is very conscious use of language.

Put that in contrast to the person who is calling somebody who is stating that the perpetrator might have been one (sic) female a ""conspiracy theorist"" and talks about "obvious truth".

>Put that in contrast to the person who is calling somebody who is stating that the perpetrator might have been one (sic) female a ""conspiracy theorist"" and talks about "obvious truth".

all the while supposing that there is a consipracy among men to make women feel uncomfortable at tech conferences.

If irony had mass, this thread would undergo gravitational collapse and form a singularity.

Also, it super doesn't matter what the gender of the person posting the pictures was. The gender of the actors does not matter if the gender of the victim obviously does.

> Not to mention the conspiracy theorist positing that it might have been a woman posting the fake porn pictures.

Why is that possibility not worth considering?

Even if it were true that the bully didn't care about the sex of the victim per se, and only attacked her because of her popularity, the nature of what was done is still sexist.

If I were to bash a competitor in public by reference to his homosexuality, it won't make anything better to know that I actually don't have any problem with gay people myself. It's unacceptable and downright evil.

Whenever an instance of blatant sexism comes up

Excuse me, have you even read the article?

Someone uploaded fake porn pictures of her to a forum and then persistently sent the URL to her employers and acquaintances.

This was a targeted attack on her reputation, or perhaps malicious stalking, but how on earth does sexism factor into this?

The porn pictures were merely a vehicle. If the attack had been carried out against a man they would probably have used accusations of child pornography or such.

The parent's point is that she is a target because she is a woman, and society gives such people more tools to abuse women than to abuse men. This makes it a sexist act.

There are significantly more males in this industry with significantly more popularity. Yet no evidence is presented that these figures also have received this level of harassment.

When the OP says that "[women in technology] are scared" it is because they feel that they are in an environment that targets them for harassment and abuse. At this point, we hear arguments like "this could have happened to a guy just as easily" but the fact is that it doesn't. In a world where such events happen with equal frequency across genders then yes, this might be a silly discussion, but we do not live in such a world.

Engineers tend to find it disconcerting that an action's goodness or badness depends on its context. After all, shouldn't we be able to tell just by looking at the inherent properties of the action? What if we can't read the context correctly? Well, the answer is that we frequently do, and the result is these inane argument over whether posting fake porn pictures of a woman is a sexist act.

The fact of the matter is that women in tech are targeted because they are women. They are overwhelmingly more frequently attacked than their male counterparts, and if you think this is silly, then I suggest you go make friends with some women in tech. This attack is another outgrowth of that pervasive sexism, and the fact that it uses a medium that is traditionally associated with denigrating women [1] just makes it even more sexist.

[1] Yes, there is some non-misogynistic porn out there, but it is the exception rather than the rule.

How do we know she was targeted because she's a woman?

This whole jumping to conclusions is just a bit much for me.

Couldn't she just as well be targeted because she rejected some nerd who had a crush on her? Or even by another woman who is jealous of her?

That obviously doesn't make the actions any better, but seems a more plausible motivation to me than "a random guy running a smear-campaign against a random woman, only because she's a woman".

Please, please, please take the blinders off. This is unambiguously a misogynist attack that follows a painfully well-established pattern of targeting and harassing women online - a pattern that nearly every single woman who has a significant online presence experiences.

Please, please do some reading on this - it's not hard to find reports and analyses of online woman abuse, and it's not hard to recognize the recurring themes and motifs, which prominently include image-based harassment.

Please take your blinders of. This attack follows the well-established pattern of targeting and harassing anyone online -- a pattern that nearly everyone with a significant online presence experiences.

That the perpetrator uses the most effective means available doesn't make the attacks misogynist, just because the target is a woman and the means is sex. That's like saying that choosing a knife to stab someone to death is obvious knife-ist behavior by the perpetrator. It's the misogynism of society and culture as a whole that is responsible for this; whether the perpetrator is misogynistic in excess of the culturally given amount is a question that we cannot answer based on the evidence.

>she is a target because she is a woman

We don't know that. This is an assumption made with no meaningful evidence.

Not really. That this doesn't happen to men with the same frequency or degree of severity is enough of a smoking gun to suggest that this is indeed the case.

smoking gun

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Smoking gun is "...a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act."

I'm suggesting that these sort of attacks on men are extremely limited is enough evidence to suggest the perpetrator is likely to be sexist and/or a mysoginist, which is pretty much the definition of a smoking gun as illustrated.

Think about where the term literally stems from. A smoking gun may tell who did something and what he did. I have trouble imagining a gun (smoking or not) explain why he did it.

fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act...

The fact that I'm asserting is that men do not suffer these kinds of attacks suggest the individual was motivated by sexism. I can't say anymore other than to say that you are wrong. I don't think it means what you clearly think it means. Sorry, no snark intended.

How do you know that it doesn't happen to men with the same frequency or degree of severity? The internet is littered with reports of/by men being stalked, harassed and slandered.

> how on earth does sexism factor into this?

According to wikipedia:

> Sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence can be a part of more extreme, expressive, and emotionally impactive forms of sexism.[10]

what happened to her was obviously sexual harassment and extremely misogynistic, so at least according to wikipedia "sexism" is an appropriate word.

> The porn pictures were merely a vehicle. If the attack had been carried out against a man they would probably have used accusations of child pornography or such.

I don't think that's really how that works. This particular kind of attempted shaming / harassment is intimately tied in with notions of gender roles, patriarchal social norms, etc. I think if you're suggesting that attacking a man with accusations of child pornography is also sexist you might be right.

How do you know the motivation of this person? Every time one of these stories come up, someone tries to call other people out for rationalizing. It's not rationalizing, it's calling it as they see it: someone being an asshole.

If you want blatant sexism, FTA: "no offence, I just don’t relate to girls speaking about the industry at all, I learn better from guys". That's sexism.

It's not denial if you don't know the motivation. Why is it so important to label these actions a certain way when we can just call it as it clearly is?

Trying to label everything that may or may not be sexism doesn't help the cause. Most of us know there is rampant sexism. Arguing about this just detracts from the real problem. There are more than enough obvious instances to demonstrate the problem.

EDIT: for the 2 down-voters so far: the point I'm making is that sexism is a major problem but trying to ascribe motivation to something with uncertainty is intellectual dishonesty that does nothing but detract from the real problem.

Do you legitimately think we could remove gender from the situation and it would've played out in the same way?

Cases of men being stalked do exist.

So do zebras. But in this case, if you hear hooves behind you, bet on the horse, not the zebra.

Exists != happens systematically. Something like fully 1/3-1/4 of women are harassed or raped during the course of their life. ONE IN FOUR. Can you imagine, one out of every four men you know in tech being stalked, harassed, or abused? While men being stalked is terrible, it simply isn't on the same scale as the stalking of women.

The question was if a similar scenario could have played out for a man. I don't know what your answer has to do with anything. I am as sorry for women who have been raped as the next guy. Wish I could help prevent such things happening. I actually started researching that a bit. I grant that I am not yet convinced of the 1 in 4 statistics (see http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html for example), but in any case women do have too many bad experiences, and every rape is one too many.

To be honest I really despise this mobbing attitude that seems to surface here. Somebody has been wronged, so now people on the internet have to be hated that have no connection to the event whatsoever. Just because I didn't join the chorus of "it's all the fault of sexism"?

Edit: also, with respect to the 1 in 4 number, have studies about what men experience even been conducted? Since most of those rapes occur for young people, a lot of men could be affected, too (raped as kids). Also men appear to be much more likely to become victim of violence than women, from what I have found so far.

"Could have" is reaching out into the hypotheticals… as other commenters have said, "let's focus on what has happened." I'm not trying to mob on you, but this branch of hypothetical thinking is always brought up in response to this kind of story, usually by men. It is problematic because it distracts attention from the main issue: systematic harassment of women in our community.

Bringing up this hypothetical is a distraction/derailment tactic used by what I will call 'agents of the patriarchy,' un-wittingly or no. So when you say it, just understand why feminists get annoyed…

I'm sorry, but it was actually you who brought up the "derailment tactic": you asked specifically if it seems conceivable that a significant number of men are being harassed. And earlier the question was "would such a scenario be imaginable for a man" and your answer was "but 1 in 4 women are being raped".

I assume you are not aware of it, but it seems very twisted to ask for some aspect and then condemn the mentioning of said aspect.

Also how is the story here relevant to systemic harassment of women by "our" community - how common is it that a women in the community gets flooded with fake nude photographs, and how is that the communities doing (except for providing an online forum)?

With respect to the 1 in 4 figure, surely you are aware that most rapes occur in relationships (relatives, spouses, acquaintances)?

Also I only researched that figure of violence against men yesterday, but for Germany. In the German police crime statistics severe violence against men is much more frequent than severe violence and rape against women. So there is at least one data point.

1/4 is just dishonest. Its like saying that 1/4 of ALL children starve to death (which is statistics wrapped to the point of uselessness, even without then claiming that 1/4 of all children of people in IT starves to death). When using statistics, please use some kind of reference and try to include what the shortcomings of the said statistics are. At least start with something like <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics>; which gives the reader a starting point.

No, not really. It's a rough estimate; given that the "Rape statistics" page on Wikipedia you reference puts rape attempts on women in the US at 1 in 6 (meanwhile, the same article puts rape attempts on men in the US at 1 in 33, largely accounted for by prison rape), adding in sexual assault, street harassment, etc can only increase that number. And 1 in 4 is a meaningful thing to visualize. Think of four women you know.

I'm not claiming that for the statistic for the US at large is 100% representative of the tech community. But unless you have a good reason to believe it to be different, it seems like a reasonable starting point.

Men and women commit rape and are raped in roughly equal numbers, and that is not including prison rape. When do include that, men are the majority of the victims.

The CDC's 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, which looked at society at large and excluded the prison population, found that 1.1% of women and 1.1% or men surveyed were raped in the prior 12 months.

98% of women who had been raped identified a man as their attacker and 80% of the men who had been raped identified a woman as their attacker. This works out to men being 60% of rapists and women being 40% of rapists.

Here is an analysis with all the calculations laid out and tied back to the data tables in the NISVS report: http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victim...

Here is a link to the data tables with the relevant figures circled: http://imgur.com/a/aw0eU

Now, the NISVS's executive summary does not tell this story. It tells the usual story of rape being something men overwhelmingly to do women. The way it does that is by defining rape to be 'being penetrated against your will', excluding 'being made to penetrate', which is what a female rapist would do to a man.

Nevertheless, the study does track how many men were made to penetrate (which it categorizes as 'other, sexual assault'), so it is possible to correct the definition of rape to one that doesn't erase female on male rape ('made to have sex against your will'), and when you do, rape ceases to be a gendered crime.

So yes, I can imagine what it would be like for men to be raped as often as women are. Now, can you imagine what it would be like if female rape victims, like male rape victims, were defined out of existence, and offered no recognition, or help?

>>Men and women commit rape and are raped in roughly equal numbers, and that is not including prison rape. When do include that, men are the majority of the victims.

Statistics have very little meaning without context.

From your first link:

>Men are the vast majority of rapists and women are the vast majority of victims because rape was defined in such a way to make sure that this was so.

Exactly. This is so because the context is that we live in a patriarchal society where it is much easier for men to use their power and dominance to take advantage of women.

You see, that's what rape is about: dominance. It doesn't have anything to do about penises or vaginas or anuses. When Person A rapes Person B it is because they want to establish their dominance on Person B. Men are disproportionately classified as rapists because they are exploiting their already dominant status in society at great harm to the other person. And if we were living in a matriarchal society, it would be the exact opposite.

If men as a group took advantage of women as a group, then why would men define rape to deny their own victimhood? That is not acting in the interests of men.

I agree that the narrative of men being strong serves the interests of the men at the top of the power structure, but that is a tiny percentage of all men.

The average man has no more power than the average woman.

> How do you know the motivation of this person?

It's irrelevant. If you do sexist things, you are a sexist. Maybe you don't know you're a sexist, but you are.

No, the act is sexist. Your intent surely matters in how you're pigeonholed, no?

Intent is not magic. The hurt caused is not just mended because you didn't mean it.

Maybe this is a better way of putting it: Person A and Person B exist. One of the two means to be sexist, and one does not. They both go around and do the exact same things.

What is the difference between A and B, as far as women or our community are concerned? There effectively isn't any. Now, maybe Person not-sexist is more likely to come to understand how their actions are harming people, and be reformed, but before that point, their intent doesn't mean a damn: they're still hurting others.

It's strategic. It's because we're trying to correct behavior, not just punish offenders. We live in a society together and you can't just push these people out and marginalize them and expect benefits. This has been discussed to death, and the consensus is that you address behavior and not identity because attacking identity accomplishes nothing positive.

Which do you think helps remove the behavior in our society: "that sounded racist, is that really what you meant?" or "you're a racist. I can't believe you said that." One of them gives the person an opportunity to evaluate what they said and how they want to be perceived by others, the other immediately puts them on the defensive and marks you and your cause an enemy to their person.

It'd be tactical, not strategic. ;)

> the consensus is that you address behavior and not identity because attacking identity accomplishes nothing positive.

Right! Which is why I care what someone does, not what they say or what they mean. Address the behavior. I'm glad we agree on this.

Torgo, give it up, he's determined not to get it.

Stealing a definition from below:

> Sexism definition: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

I'm not arguing that this isn't a terrible, unwarranted attack; I'm arguing against the dilution of the term. Not every attack against a person of another race is racist and not every attack against a women is sexist.

Where is the "basis on sex" in this story (genuine question, i.e. did her gender motivate the attack)? Without this, you can call it many things but not sexist.

I am not making any statement about who is or is not sexist in this instance. I am solely talking about the role of intent with regards to actions that may or may not be sexist.

Also, note that that definition is not the one that most people who care about this topic use. That would be 'sexual discrimination.' Sexism is a systemic cultural force of sexual discrimination. That said, it's not particularly relevant to what I'm saying either, but I thought I'd mention it.

> Where is the "basis on sex" in this story

The type of attack (porn) seems gender-specific to me.

And it's plausible to me that the "same old face" critique is more prevalent with women speakers than with men. How many talks does a man have to give, on average, to get that response, vs. OP's total of three?

That confuses 'why the attack works' with 'why the attack was chosen'.

If I wanted to harass a female, I would probably choose sexual shaming as a weapon, because it is obviously one of the most effective weapons available to me, because society is sexist. I would be morally reprehensible for choosing to harass someone, but my motivation for harassing her would not necessarily be sexist. Perhaps she ran over my cat, I believe she did it on purpose and want to punish her. The attack would work because our culture is rife with sexism. The attack was chosen because I'm angry with her for killing my cat: not because I'm sexist.

We can call it misogyny, or using misogynist tools and strategies -- the motivation of whoever did this doesn't make that any less true.

Furthermore, it seems clear that the way she was attacked was specifically designed to exploit at least the following :

- the fact that she is a woman adressing a predominantly male audience (the fake porno)

- the ambient objectification of women in society

How can that not count as sexist?

Excuse my ignorance, just wondering: is it established that porn is sexist? Are they demeaning to the male actors in porn, too? Or is the underlying value that it is demeaning for a woman to have sex? It seems to me a universal judgement isn't easy to come by?

"is it established that porn is sexist?"

It is, yes. The vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of porn panders to a specifically, typically male fantasy (and bravado) of sexual interaction.

That seems to imply that male fantasies would be predominantly about humiliating women?

No, it does not. The following makes no claims about male fantasy or porn; it is merely a means of explaining that you have made an incorrect inference.

Imagine if you will that, hypothetically, 10% of male fantasy is about humiliating women. Imagine also, hypothetically, that all porn is based on that 10%. In this way, you can see that it is possible for all porn to be about humiliating women, but that does not imply that the majority of male fantasy is about that.

Put another way, if all cows are black, it does not mean that everything black is a cow. If all porn is based on a male fantasy, it does not mean that all male fantasy is represented in porn.

That would seem like a way to escape the conclusion, but wouldn't it make most sense to talk about the porn that is consumed by most men? I'd assume at least 95% of men consume porn (random guess), so my conclusion would still be valid.

At least for a lot of the males who spend money on pornography.

Most porn so strongly caters to male fantasy that some women turn to gay (male on male) porn and yaoi (a form of male on male gay erotic writing) to meet some of their needs. Porn intended for women is a budding industry. It has to be written and filmed differently. I have seen an interview with a woman director who talked about some of those differences. Most porn is strongly rooted in objectifying women in a way which denies their humanity -- in other words, denies that they have any needs of their own or are anything other than a vehicle for male satisfaction. It is a pretty demeaning stance.

Regardless, I doubt the fake porno was in any way intended respectfully. Sexuality is extremely personal and private. Attacking someone that way is generally a very ugly thing to do. Sexual assault is often included as a part of torture because you can cause enormous physical pain and long term psychological damage without leaving a mark on them.

"Most porn so strongly caters to male fantasy"

That in itself doesn't seem to make it sexist?

"Most porn is strongly rooted in objectifying women in a way which denies their humanity"

Or maybe porn is simply about one, limited aspect of humanity? By chance (might have been YouTube's recommender algorithm) I watched this on Objectification recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUhW41Qpjg

I guess I can settle for "sexist porn is sexist", though - obviously there is a huge range of porn out there... Is a picture of a naked woman sexist, for example?

Let me restate that: I think most porn today is sexist, much of it in a manner which is demeaning to women. I also think it is basically irrelevant. Male or female, attacking someone sexually is generally one of the ugliest forms of attack known by humankind.

I certainly don't want to diminish the attack that took place here. The question about porn was just a side subject.

Generally speaking, across the globe, female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men. A stronger rebuttal to remarks which objectify a woman sexually is not to be all in a huff but to turn it around and talk about men like they are sex objects. I am a woman. I have done that. It is such a powerful thing to do that if I am not extremely careful, rather than teaching men they should not talk that way about women, it teaches them I am some crazily dangerous, disrespectful person whose presence should not be tolerated. Women put up with that every single day. It is such a strong part of global culture that I believe it is the real reason that "Silence of the lambs" creeps people out. I wrote a blog post on that some time ago. This may not be the time or place to go into it. I usually try to tread very lightly on such topics on HN.

Which is a longish way of saying that, globally, it is so common for women to be treated in a demeaning manner that many women view porn per se as demeaning to women. I do not. But I do think a great deal of porn is done in a fashion which is demeaning.

Hopefully that satisfies your side question in some meaningful manner, hopefully without getting me publically lynched for daring to say it.

Oh, and have an upvote.

"female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men."

I must say I have never noticed this, so I am not sure what to say. I can't really make sense of it either. My impression was sex exists to create babies, not to pleasure men. I don't say that to try to be funny, just to express that it seems a very long way from that to "female sexuality exits to pleasure men".

Or do you mean the use of women in advertising, their sexiness associated with chocolate or cars or whatever? I guess it could be interpreted like that, only I wouldn't have referred to a woman's presentation in a (supposedly) sexy way as her sexuality. With "female sexuality" I thought about what arouses women. Maybe I misunderstood.

My interpretation of women is advertising is simply that men desire women, not that women's purpose is to pleasure men. Actually, isn't it rather the other way round? You want that car because supposedly it helps you get the woman, it seems to be more about pleasing women than men?

Edit: also, my apologies, I am getting tired and HN is probably not well suited to this kind of discussion. I am interested in it, though.

If you are truly interested in it... I'll just dump some things here. :)

"Female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men" is a true statement in general media.

So. [Most] Porn. Watch it. Who's orgasm is displayed? Who's orgasm is typically non-existent (to the point it is fetishized when it does occur?) Make a judgment. Why is this true? See my earlier post about "bisexual porn."

Ok. Advertising. "With 'female sexuality' I thought about what arouses women." Good. That's a part of what sexuality is but not what it is framed as in terms of its portrayal in media. "You want that car because supposedly it helps you get the woman, it seems to be more about pleasing women than men?" I kinda hope you don't mean that. :) How in the world does 'getting a woman' as a heterosexual man 'please women?' If you are thinking about answering that question... don't!

It would be pleasing to women if their needs (sexual needs in terms of porn, practical needs in terms of cars) were met in media. However, only the needs of men (getting women somehow in BOTH cases) are being portrayed. That's a problem to men because it reduces us to gullible sex drives, yet it is worse for women because it reduces them to objects of that drive... dismissing any quality that a woman can have as an individual.

This is an example of the objectification you see discussed here. Women are the object, men are the subject, we see this in porn, advertisement, and even employment posters (gee, we wonder why 52% of women drop out of the programming field after college.) It's kinda gross and defeating when you take the "red pill" and start to see it everywhere. Even more daunting when you go against the grain of prevailing thought and start talking about this being an actual problem. It just seems like everybody else took the "blue pill" and just don't want to see it. But it does have a negative effect that has been thoroughly studied.

If we accept these tenets as true, and I do and will strongly suggest that you do as well, then we have to see the attack here as sexist. The attack serves to objectify in the same manner as media: by removing individuality, quality, and self from the person. It uses the sexualized images of women just as media uses for this purpose. It is done against a woman, who as I've discussed are oppressed as opposed to men who are simply (at most) discriminated against. It was done so in an obviously malicious manner (that is, beyond parody) in order to hurt their reputation by targeting the fact that they are female (given the nature of their attack,) not by aspects of their character or refuting the merit of their knowledge. That serves to oppress via discrimination determined by their gender: sexist.

"How in the world does 'getting a woman' as a heterosexual man 'please women?'"

The thinking is "you get her because it pleases her to be with you." The idea behind a car is not "great, now I can chase down women and rape them" it is "hey, they will get so excited by the car that they'd like to hang out with me" And most importantly, status - whether being with a high status male pleases women I don't know, but it seems to be what they often desire (also media wants us to believe that).

"That's a problem to men because it reduces us to gullible sex drives, yet it is worse for women because it reduces them to objects of that drive... dismissing any quality that a woman can have as an individual."

I'm sorry but I don't understand you. So what is the quality men can have as an individual? That they can own cars and chocolate, whereas women can only own nice lipstick and high heels?

As I said before, I suspect it is much more likely that certain media (ads, porn,...) only focus on certain aspects of an individual. I honestly don't understand what is meant by "subject" and "object", unless you mean "active" and "passive"? I know what subject and object are in a sentence (grammar), but other than that, what does it even mean?

Also, another point: why do men obsess about penis length (or are supposed to). Even though allegedly size doesn't matter, it seems to me men thinks size matters and pleasing women is the ultimate status symbol.

Your most recent reply is also showing as dead. So I cannot reply directly to it. And I kind of see no point. I know you said you are short of time, but it sounds to me like you concluded I am some frigid manhating bitch who can't find a decent man cuz I have issues or something. Not a place I care to go and not a discussion that will enlighten anyone.

Best of luck with whatever you were hoping to better understand when this conversation began.

Peace. Out.

Yes. Mainstream porn is very sexist. Do you know what a woman is assumed to be? bisexual. Do you know what happens when you look up bisexual porn? You find a man. Think about that. Understand what that means and who the assumed audience is. This assumption permeates throughout the rest of the industry. (Hint: straight-male.)

A huge discussion within feminist movements has taken place and continues to take place on the subject, and I cannot do it all justice in a short comment (keywords to research: Sex-positive feminism), but my understanding is that it is best to stick with the idea that women (or any human being really) should be able to choose what they do with their bodies and with their bodies' representations -- the question is the extent of real control women are allowed to have compared to men. I'd say that since you have a general context in society where women are not equal to men and are objectified, it makes it all the more difficult to have a porn creation process that doesn't reinforce this, although exceptions exist in feminist porn.

So the assumptions seems to be that most female porn actors are forced to be porn models (and what about playboy models?)? Because otherwise it seems to me they choose their bodies representation already.

There was a study about porn actresses recently (I think for California) and it turned out that they were not less happy than other women.

That people should be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies seems a pretty basic, true demand. I don't see how women are not allowed to choose, unless they are being raped (which is a crime)?

> This particular individual even goes so far to say that "the biggest problem" is the alleged misuse of labels related to racism or sexism, as if this could somehow be worse that the discrimination the disenfranchised experience on a day-to-day basis.

This is one of the most persistent problems when discussing these issues: the idea that if the victim of discrimination didn't get raped or beaten by people wearing white hoods, then it does not qualify as real discrimination.

To be honest I don't understand what this has to do with sexism. I would think this is actually a crime (stalking?) committed by some deranged individual, whose real motivations we don't know anything about. Even if they were "hatred of women" or whatever, I fail to see what the lesson to be learned from that should be? Is the implied assumption that the deed was encouraged by rampant sexism in the industry?

In the last story I read about stalking the stalkers were people who had personal relations to the victim. No idea if this is common for stalking (as for rape), but I wouldn't be surprised.

I don't mean it to defend anything (what?), just trying to understand the "xyz is sexism" mindset?

Sexism definition: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

This was clearly sexism since it was demeaning to the woman and her gender was used as a part of that (e.g. the fact that pictures of naked women were used in the attack).

If the same happened to a man, we would probably call it harassment, not sexism, since men at large are not discriminated against based on their gender. A female posting pictures of a man at the conference wouldn't be signaling that men don't belong in the group, since the group is dominated by men to begin with.

Either gender can be stalked, but there are FAR more female victims, a symptom of sexism at large in society. FAR more women are harassed as well. 1 in 5 college women are raped during their college years.

To take some of your words, the deed was encouraged by and reflective of rampant sexism in society at large.

I don't think I've done a good job explaining this, but hopefully provoked some thoughts on it at least.

"since men at large are not discriminated against based on their gender."

Uh, hello there - that's a huge assumption. I think they are discriminated against very much, but I guess no point to discuss on HN :-/ I'll only say that I don't enjoy having to spend time away from my kid.

"A female posting pictures of a man at the conference wouldn't be signaling that men don't belong in the group"

Very confusing? I thought the problem was that the pictures where fake nudes? In any case I think in general a swath of postings of somebodies picture would be disturbing. Also I don't understand "it's sexism because in the pictures she is a woman"?

"1 in 5 college women are raped during their college years."

This has been debunked, I only googled for that yesterday: http://www.responsibleopposing.com/comment/1in4.html (originally I had a better link but this was the next best I found yesterday - the stats actually seem to go back to some manipulated study in 1985). (Edit: this link from the article is probably the better debunking, but longer http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html )

"the deed was encouraged by and reflective of rampant sexism in society at large."

They don't even know who did it, so how can they know what inspired it?

Yes, men are discriminated too. I'm sorry about your situation. I encourage you to write about your experience and we can talk about how to help you.

Your experience doesn't mean we shouldn't work together to support women who are being discriminated.

The survey questions used in the study certainly don't reflect what we normally think of as "rape". But even if the statistic were 1 in 10, it is still a huge problem faced by women, and it's indicative of a society that doesn't treat women very well.

I don't understand why the "inspiration" behind the harassment matters. It doesn't even matter if the perpetrator was male or female. A woman was demeaned in a sexual way in front of a mostly male audience of her peers. Does the person have to tweet "I hate women" in order for this to be considered sexist?

"Your experience doesn't mean we shouldn't work together to support women who are being discriminated."

I never said that I wouldn't. In fact I googled those links yesterday because I am interested in the subject and like to research how to help. Understanding what is really going on seems to be an important first step, and throwing false numbers around won't help with that in my opinion.

"I don't understand why the "inspiration" behind the harassment matters."

That was my original question: what does it matter if it was sexist or not? To classify it as "sexist" seems to be an extremely awkward way to describe a crime of harassment. Imagine somebody with a blue shirt was murdered, and the conclusion was "the murderer really didn't like blue".

I thought sexism was bias or discrimination against people based on their gender. How is posting fake nudes of somebody on the internet bias or discrimination? It's just harassment/stalking. Sure, make it a data point in how likely women are to be victim of such a thing. But I don't see the point of calling it sexist. I don't think anybody at that conference applauded those actions, for example - even if they were sexist (except for the perpetrator, if he was indeed among the audience). Because those actions were simply criminal harassment.

Was it really rooted in sexism? Or was it just a convenient way to attack? I'm not even sure it matters. It was definitely a cheap tasteless tactic to employ.

"since men at large are not discriminated against based on their gender"

Some examples at random: percentage of males in teaching professions, and/or daycare?

Breast cancer funding and research versus prostate cancer funding and research, despite the relative frequency of each? Hint - 1:6 men will get prostate cancer, 1:8 women will get breast cancer. But the National Cancer Institute allows for $1,318 worth of research into prostate cancer per new case, and $2,596 for breast cancer (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does...)

Just some thoughts...

That's totally a valid point. I wish more men would speak out against this and, honestly, that it is not used to diminish the equally valid point of sexism in technology.

But we have to understand that in those situations it is not oppression. And that is a key point. Men are not oppressed by society when they are discriminated, because by-and-large, men make more money, have more opportunity, stay within their industries longer, are (perhaps due to last point) promoted more often, tend to be selected with a gender bias to speak about their subjects. Women currently get more college degrees in general today, yet the gender pay gap remains. That's evidence of systemic oppression. That's why we can say men at large are not discriminated against.

Men die earlier.

Go volunteer at a homeless shelter - they must be sexist as they are full mostly of men.

Go to a morgue in a place of heavy industry - mostly men.

Go on a cargo ship, spending weeks at sea in less than comfortable conditions. Oil rig, mine, etc

>Women currently get more college degrees in general today, yet the gender pay gap remains. That's evidence of systemic oppression.

No, that's a correlation of two things.

And if a man's wife has the illegitimate child of another man, even while married to the first man, the first man is financially responsible for the child. Cuckolding blames the male victim.

"Women currently get more college degrees in general today, yet the gender pay gap remains. That's evidence of systemic oppression."

That's just bad maths, sorry. First you have to look at what subjects men and women chose and what average pay is for careers in those subjects. Some people graduate in computer science, other people graduate in "do you want fries with that" liberal arts or whatever.

"percentage of males in teaching professions, and/or daycare?" I agree it isn't fair. But this can be seen as misogyny/sexism backfiring against men. One main reason why men are discriminated against in these professions is that for a long time many societies have considered that women should only care for children and domestic work. These societies have adapted to that, elevating gender roles and hierarchies, and making it hard for people to escape their grip. And although this has mainly been to the disadvantage of women, many men have also suffered from being limited to male jobs/roles etc.

You did a good job of explaining this, and thank you for doing so.

I've read all your comments on the various threads and a central theme seems to be the following question: how does sexism fit into all of this, isn't this just harassment/stalking? It's a fair question. Recall that sexism is discrimination based on sex OR behavior that fosters stereotypical/hurtful attitudes and roles. The attacker did both here. He attempted to drown out the technical ability of the victim by, during her technical presentation, spamming pictures that quite literally turned her into an object. This is a manifestation of classic behavior where men value women for their appearance only and everything else is ignored. Had that attacker had his/her way, this would have been the reality; all the attention would have been on her appearance and no attention would have been paid towards her technical presentation. His/her goal could not be more clear. To tie the goal back to sexism: what the attacker wanted is both a distinguishing treatment based on her sex (the first definition) AND a behavior that encourages ignoring the technical ability of women in favor of focusing on their appearance (the second definition).

I hope this makes my use of the word sexism clear. I welcome further communication here in this thread or at my personal email, which can be found in my profile.

Sorry if I only reply now, I was traveling. Also, I can't think of a useful comment. I just see it very differently, and the reason I ask "why has it to be categorized as sexist" is that I worry about the implications. For example if it is assumed that it is demeaning for a nude picture of a woman to be posted, but not if it was a nude picture of a man, the implication seems to be women should somehow be ashamed of the way they look nude.

I probably can't describe it very well, but I sense lots of weird implications of calling it "sexist" which I think are not really what the people calling the sexism flag had in mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com