Things You Think Aren’t Sexist, But Really Are | Hacker News Reader

Things You Think Aren’t Sexist, But Really Are

ruthburr.com

31 pointsjennita36 comments

I'll give a nice subtle example of sexism that I committed.

Back in the 1990's I helped teach a AI Systems course. It had a fair few female students - probably more than average for that sort of course actually now that I think about it.

Part of the work I did was helping in the practical labs. I thought I was doing a pretty good job - until one of the smarter students took me aside and pointed out a rather dumb unconscious behaviour of mine.

I was systematically helping the women more.

The men I'd help when they asked, or when they'd obviously hit a wall and were making no progress. With the women I'd step in almost as soon as they hit a problem. Anybody who has done teaching will tell you that students progress by solving their own problems - not by having the teacher step in and solve 'em for them. I was hurting those students progress by stepping in too early. I was stopping them learning.

I'd love to say that I immediately saw this as a problem... but I didn't. Because - y'know - despite the 70's being my first decade I was a pretty right on guy! I wouldn't be doing sexist things! Uh uh. Not me.

Fortunately some vague remnant of intelligence kicked in after about 20m of muttering (backed up by some personal memories of the problems that being helped too much can cause) and I accepted that I had fucked up and started fixing that behaviour. And thanked the student who had pointed it out. To be honest it's still something I watch myself for when teaching today. A chunk of my social and cultural programming is still trying to tell me that women need to be helped more.

And that - to some extent anyway - is the problem I see with some folk when the sexism topic comes up.

These days the majority of people I encounter don't think men are superior to women, or that women are incapable of being in technical fields, etc. Compared to 20 or 30 years back the incidence of "women in the home" or "women don't do computers" folk I encounter is very small.

The problem is with the folk like me ;-) The folk who think behaviour X can't be sexist - because they're not a sexist! Because the behaviour is almost - or even entirely - unconscious and shaped by the previous N decades of culture and society.

Things do change - but oh so slowly.... and those habits can be a complete sod to break.

As a normal male I find it perplexing how anyone could find the majority of these things appropriate.

I can't speak for women, but it seems a little extreme to assert that women should be shielded from innuendo in case it reduces the males into a pack of sexually charged morons.

I'm a guy. That all offends me, too. The difference is that as a male I'm not so likely to have trolls from all over the web threaten me (with violence, no less) for saying it's inappropriate. There's the "a little extreme" for you and that's why everyone might seem like they're overreacting. They're not.

Certainly - the comments on the original article are eye-opening to say the least. Having never been to a tech conference I haven't experienced the type of atmosphere.

To restate my comment with that in mind; I don't think banning innuendo will solve any problems. Perhaps it might improve the atmosphere, but it won't fix the underlying attitude problems placed in the spotlight for the last week.

Innuendo is a really really hard one, because a lot of women appreciate a dirty joke as much as men do. I wish the solution could be "let's go ahead and all be grown-ups about it" but that doesn't seem to be working. So instead I'll say "let's think about the things we say and whether or not we're contributing to a sexually-charged environment at work events." Again, context matters: go ahead and make innuendoes among your pals in your own time, Lord knows I will.

As I've mentioned before, culture matters too. I've mentioned before that in France, sexual tension at the workplace is pretty commonplace in big cities. It's kind of a way of enjoying oneself at work among colleagues. It's typically viewed as harassment, though in some cases it can become so in France as well. Also, imagine the 70s when, at least young unmarried, people were a lot less preoccupied by what previous generations found sexually acceptable and not. Lots of people were more into romping off (of course this was before the wide spread of diseases) --it helped that in the late 60s easy contraception became available.

So, I think a lot of how sexual innuendo and repartee and double entendres is received is dependent on society and mores. I'm not saying contemporary America should emulate any other society, just saying it's not necessarily a given that our way of understanding this is the one way to view this.

Here's a different example. For some people male circumcision is seen as the right way and even extol health benefits --to others it's tantamount to mutilation and undue suffering such that some locales have considered banning the practice.

It upsets me that we are only able to share sanitized parts of ourselves depending on the situation. I realize that it is a necessity to tone down our ancillary personality traits when among strangers and acquaintances, but setting arbitrary rules and guidelines about expected social behavior seems to be killing a fly with jackhammer -- neither effective nor practical.

I also sympathize with those that feel alienated in environments that should be welcoming to people of all demographics. I would not personally partake in any of the things this person speaks of (with the exception of sexual innuendo and only if I was in known company). The parenthetical may seem hypocritical, but it's part of my personality. For better or for worse, toilet humor is something I find funny. Blame it on my upbringing or my public education, but it's a part of who I am. I cannot turn that off, no matter what the setting is.

Ultimately, if someone is making you uncomfortable or crossing any sort of personal boundaries you've set, it's your responsibility to let that person know. If they ignore and persist, it warrants elevation to a higher authority. We must remember that human interaction is human interaction. There are too many variables involved to write a guide book.

All of that being said, I appreciate posts like Ruth's. Anything that helps me expand my own world view is invaluable and praised as a great asset. If the debacle at PyCon has taught me anything, it was that we all need to sit down and listen to each other.

I think the parenthetical actually is your most important point. All of the behaviors I've described are perfectly acceptable among known company, but unfortunately not everyone has that fine awareness. I also find sex jokes and toilet humor funny, but not in an environment that's already a sexual harassment minefield to me. I could take a step back and say "don't make innuendoes to people you don't know very well because it's rude" and that would also be true.

I agree that we should let people know when they transgress our boundaries, but putting the onus on women to constantly call people out on their behavior (which we should all do more, even though it's really hard and uncomfortable and scary to do) removes men's agency to also help with the problem - something I sincerely believe many men would like to do. I think approaching how we interact with a bit more thought and awareness of the unintentional impressions we may give off will go a long way for all of us, as humans, to interact better.

You've certainly given me some food for thought. I had not considered that it could potentially be a full time job informing those around you that they are being crude and/or disrespectful.

It also seems that we are agreement on everything except the agency of men. While I would personally call someone out if they were being overtly sexist or disrespectful to anyone, I cannot expect others to do so. For some people, the thought of calling someone out in public is a terrifying proposition. Which, as I typed that, I realized that this was exactly your point as to why the onus should not be put solely on women. It seems that I have won and lost an argument with myself.

My point about the agency of men is more: I know so many men to whom I've pointed out things like the huge gray area presented by compliments, who were glad to have their awareness raised. Not saying men should be policing other people, just being more deliberate about their own language and actions. So, for that matter, should women.

> Rule of thumb: if I think we’re on hugging terms, I’ll go in for the hug. Otherwise please don’t touch me.

Looks like you're sexist too!

You should check your double standards at the door if you want to be taken seriously.

> You should check your double standards at the door if you want to be taken seriously.

You say that as though male-male, female-female, male-female, and female-male interactions are all identical; they're not. I really don't think that she's saying she's going to indiscriminately grope people based on "whether or not she feels they're on hugging terms".

As far as a double-standard goes, it's a fact of (Western) life that a man going around offering unwanted hugs to women is seen as significantly creepier than a woman who offers an unwanted hug.

You're more than welcome to try to change that! Next time you receive an unwanted hug from a woman at a tech conference, make as much of a fuss as you want about it. Report it to the conference organizers.

Thanks tonyarkles, and to clarify: I'm not saying that it's OK for me to indiscriminately go around hugging people, either. I'm saying that in general the only people I hug are people that I know well enough to know that a hug will be OK from both sides.

That's not remotely what you were conveying in your original piece, despite whatever intentions you may have. Go read your original words about offering a hug vs what you just wrote as the parent of my comment -- they're just plain not the same.

That fine-grain material, your incorrect use of the word "sexist"/"sexism" and your stated desire to create a COMPLETELY de-sexualized environment in places that have thousands of people (PyCon this year had a larger population than the town in which I grew up) just makes this stuff really hard to read.

We're missing out on REAL sexism by people complaining about getting hit on and hugs and shit. It's depressing.

> Again, context matters: you’re not just hanging out at a bar drinking with your buddies, chatting up the attractive woman sitting next to you. You’re at an industry function, talking to women who are your industry peers. They’re simply not there to be hit on – even in ways that might not be creepy in another setting.

Wait a second. Is the bar reserved by the conference organizers for the exclusive use of conference attendees? Or is this just the regular bar at the conference hotel, open to not only conference attendees, but attendees of other concurrent events there, and open to individual hotel guests there as not part of an event, and open to anyone who cares to wander in off the street?

If the latter, then I can't agree with some blanket rule against asking someone about considering a romantic relationship. Quite a lot of people, of all sexes, genders, and orientations, want romantic partners who are their peers, but must exclude the possibility of such partnerships with their co-workers because of the problems that can cause in their work place. Many such people (of all sexes, genders, and orientations) congregate at parties and bars at conferences because those are one of the few occasions to meet peers in a social situation that allows seeking romantic partnerships.

Use common sense. People who are at the bar because they have switched from "conference" mode to "social" mode and are looking to meet new people for social purposes should be distinguishable from people who are at the bar because they wanted to find a place that they could drink while they continued discussing the subject of the conference. The former should not ask the latter for dates. When in doubt, play it safe and don't ask.

I agree with everything she wrote.

But please stop with the "Dude" this and "Dude" that.

The reason I use "Dude" is an abbreviation for "Type of Dude to Whom This Post is Addressed," as I say in the beginning of the piece - i.e. assuming you're already one of the good guys.

That's fucking bullshit and you know it. You did it to be cute, dismissive and to satisfy your passive aggressiveness. Dude.

Dude. Y U SO grumpy?

Oh, did I sound grumpy? I was totally going for sweet and agreeable, but I guess I chose the wrong words.

At most of these conferences many of the attendees DO go out to the local bars after the conference hours are over for the day. I assume at that point "normal" bar behaviour is OK?

There's a pretty fine line there. It's hard to define specific rules for it, and it seems that "use your best judgement" seems like a poor statement, given how little good judgement seems to surround this kind of stuff.

To be honest, I've sat here staring into space for a while trying to think of a good answer, and the best I can come up with is: At a tech conference, leave it up to the women make the first move, if there's going to be any moves made. That's by far the safest bet for making everyone feel the most comfortable, even if it means missed opportunities.

I'm more than open to debating this though, it's a super tough issue. I've never been in an awkward spot at a conference like this, but I've definitely experienced it with women in my undergrad Computer Science program (both personally and as a third party).

I would have to say in the majority of cases the answer is still no. Let's face it, when a group of people head out to the bars after conference hours there is plenty of networking going on. People form business relationships and friendships that continue after the conference. A female shouldn't have to choose to tolerate unwanted sexual advances simply to participate in these bonding experiences.

Thanks match, and I agree. You're still not just out at a bar with buddies, you're there with people you've met at a professional event and the professional context should still apply. I think match says it well:

>when a group of people head out to the bars after conference hours there is plenty of networking going on. People form business relationships and friendships that continue after the conference. A female shouldn't have to choose to tolerate unwanted sexual advances simply to participate in these bonding experiences.

I imagine this is going to be controversial:

> Listen, guys. You have to stop trying to pick up women at conferences. You just have to stop doing it. Again, context matters: you’re not just hanging out at a bar drinking with your buddies, chatting up the attractive woman sitting next to you. You’re at an industry function, talking to women who are your industry peers. They’re simply not there to be hit on – even in ways that might not be creepy in another setting

I think the problem here is that hitting on someone is sexual, not sexist. However, in an environment where the gender balance is so skewed, what is sexual almost unavoidably leads to a sexist atmosphere.

To put it another way, the problems of being hit on apply to gay men. It is not inextricably linked to male-over-female dynamic.

So I agree with the overall intent of the OP here. I think many reasonable guys would be defensive about acting like normal sexual creatures...however, it is important to not vilify sex, but to point out how it can lead to unintended consequences in this kind of environment.

So rather than saying that the "pickup game" is sexist, I would just say that it is inappropriate at an event where the participants are ostensibly there for professional reasons, no matter if you're male, female, gay or straight

I think you've made an important distinction here. An action is sexist if it is a material discrimination against a person because of their gender. However, there are emergent patterns in environments with large gender-asymmetries which cause one gender to have a very different experience than the other.

One man making an advance on a woman might be okay, but several making the same advance on the same day is going to become very uncomfortable. Do we call this sexist? No individual is making any action to cause discrimination, there are simply environmental factors that create an imbalance.

I think a lot of the issues surrounding women in tech are emergent from this asymmetry, and not strictly "sexism" as I have defined it above.

Hi guys, a lot of people have made the point that the behaviors that I'm calling out are not so much "sexist" as they are inappropriate, sexual and in general skewed toward women. I agree, "sexist" may not capture all of the shades of meaning I address in the post. Inappropriate captures it better. I'll jump in and update the post to say as much later today. Really appreciate your thoughtful responses.

Not to mention that conference generally generate a lot of "sex" -- the result of a successful mutually acceptable pickup. I personally know of two marriages with 5 "by products" of conferences.

There are some good points in that post, but they get watered down by the much weaker less thought out ones.

> not that that stops some men from gaily trampling over that line

Women don't step over the line? This is sexism.

That's true, women do, but not having been on the receiving end it's harder for me to speak on that, and it's not what the post is about. I think that we can discuss the behaviors of one group of people without the implied assumption that they're the only ones who behave in that way or that every other group is inherently blameless.

It frustrates me to no end that people can't sit and talk about "things men do that make women uncomfortable" without diverging off into talking about double standards, fairness, etc.

In the 5 years that I hung around the university, I can remember exactly once when a woman made an unwanted advance towards me. I told her that I wasn't interested, she looked a little hurt and backed off, and things were fine. In no way did I feel threatened.

Looking at it from the other side, I know I definitely made more than one woman uncomfortable with unwanted advances (I was pretty awkward back then and didn't even know what I was doing). And I definitely observed (and sometimes stopped) very obviously uncomfortable situations where male classmates were being wildly inappropriate and either oblivious to that or just not caring.

So yes, there's the possibility that there could be negative female-male interactions at conferences, but that's not the discussion we're having. And it's not really a problem that is facing our industry to anywhere near the same scale as "men doing things that make women feel uncomfortable".

Thanks Ruth for having the patience to throw your hat in the ring. Hopefully, eventually, people will get it :)

i wonder how often things like "the pick up" happen in other industries as well. I would imagine women just see it in practice more often in the tech industry simply because of ratios. When you're the only woman there you're more likely to get hit on 500 times than if there were 500 women there. I also wonder if it's less acceptable in tech industries because you have bright women who would rather be respected because of their minds than their bodies, and are willing to say something about it. Not to mention, how often does the whole "boss having affair with secretary" happen? The problem is systemic everywhere. I just have a feeling it's more pronounced in tech because the same women see the problem over and over, versus a lot seeing it here and there.

Most of us here are probably geeks. We're geeks who work closely, collaboratively with other geeks. But we're not hired for our social skills. I think that probably makes a lot of human relation problems more pronounced in tech. Unintentionally making someone uncomfortable is probably just one of the symptoms.And no, I have no data to back that up; just anecdotes and conjecture.

Since the author accepts that these things are not sexist, but rather inappropriate - can the title be updated? Or why not call them racist, evil, etc?

> But you, Type of Dude to Whom This Post is Addressed, would never do something like that.

"We really tie the room together..."

Great post and right on the money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com