Why I asked to be removed from the Techweek 100

Depends on what he means. He could just mean that he made extra efforts to make sure that his candidate pool for the job wasn't just men.

He could also mean that in a tie for qualifications (between a man and a woman), he would hire the woman; which, while possibly illegal to the letter of the law (in the UK, possibly elsewhere), doesn't seem like a horrible thing. He explicitly states that it's to counter-act male-skewed tech work environments, so presumably if the work place were 50/50 men-to-women, he would relax this preference to women (as a tie-breaker).

It's mainly just about the way Techweek chose to present themselves. They had the opportunity to pick anything and that's the one they ended up with - to me that is definitely poor judgement regardless of whether you're offended by the image or not.

The chosen image creates the impression that women at parties are the "entertainment," and/or are sex objects. It also sends a belittling and hostile message to any women who may be planning to attend. And in general, it's in pretty poor taste for an industry event. It feels like the kind of flier I'd expect to have shoved into my hands while walking down the strip in Las Vegas on New Year's Eve.

As men, we are so frequently accustomed to seeing images like this that we don't really see what's so bad about them. That's more of the point of the blog post, at least as I read it. It's a good point. This sort of thing won't strike most male readers as all that big a deal, and that's part of the issue.

The problem is that the women are overtly sexualized. Which is fine if the ad is for a strip club. But it's not...it's for a tech event. Context is key here. We've been desensitized by accepting these images of women as normal...they're not. And especially not for a tech event.

I don't see what good will come of this, but I will try genuinely to help you nonetheless.

Would you be happy (rather than surprised) to see a photo of two male models on your invite to this event in the same style? Maybe with their shirts undone to their waist, sharing a kiss, anything that's approximately equivalent?

If not, you might like to consider why that choice of image would be uncomfortable for you and that this particular choice of image might be uncomfortable for others.

If you bite the bullet (well done!), there are further problems. This is an event to launch a high school seniors employment initiative. High school and sexualised imagery don't belong together.

Were they actual attendees, or is that an assumption?

I believe "1st annual" has a specific meaning which you seem to have missed.

I assure you if they are developers, they would not go to a tech event dressed like that. Unless the tech event had a sexual theme.

What a wonderful strawman.

The problem is not that there are fun, beautiful people, the problem is that using those pictures objectifies women by using them as the draw to the event. Two women in skintight outfits almost kissing is not an appropriate advertisement for the party, as it implies that women are meant to be looked at and longed after, which is counter to the nature of the equality movement.

Those women weren't invited to the party. They were purchased from an agency and used to market a media event to men.

edit: I'm now getting the impression that these photographs were from a previous event rather than stock. Does anyone know?

77.8%.

In the United States, 77.8% of homicide victims are male.

But no, Sean is having a public anxiety attack because a company chose a photograph of two actual attendees in a photo booth who chose chose to dress slightly more provocatively than his sensibilities allow.

Sean isn't being brave. He's sucking up to women in an extremely politically expedient way.

True! It seems slightly hypocritical though. I think Techweek reacted pretty much the same way - accidentally did something offensive and reacted quickly when it was pointed out - but he's not willing to forgive them.

Ok, I'm confused, if that isn't the problem, then what is?

> These typical ads portrait women as play-things to be gawked at rather than someone's daughter, wife and another human being.

Now here's an objectification - why a woman needs to be someone's wife or daughter? Men on similar pictures are usually also portrayed as models, not husbands or sons. Isn't that sexist? Isn't that misandry?

Honestly, I find most of those gender-related discussions nonsense; it's like autoimmune disease - instead of fighting only diseases, the immune system starts attacking everything around it. You just can't say anything at all about women without being labeled misogynist.

I read an interesting essay on the topic today: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html. It's not only (or even mostly) about gender issues, but the key quote from the ending:

"My view on feminism isn't really driven by my view on gender relations or women or men or society. It's driven by my view on applause lights, on inability to urge restraint, on death spirals, on anti-charity, on zero-threshold medical testing, on superweapons, and most of all on epistemic hygiene. I don't care how righteous your cause is, you don't get a superweapon so powerful it can pre-emptively vaporize any possible counterargument including the one asking you to please turn off your superweapon and listen for just a second. No one should be able to do that."

The Mormon church objectifies women albeit with some reverse psychology going on - the need for women to cover up and not dress 'sexy' is just another way to objectify women. Mormon males not watching 'R' movies is the same - reverse psychology. Some women - most women - really do want to be more than some frumpy Mormon daughter/wife/grandma. Furthermore, with the Mormon church there is no room in the priesthood for women - how can you skip that and move on to the objectification debate?

Normally I keep my opinions on the LDS church to myself lest I offend some Mormon, yet, on places like HN I think it is better to encourage the indoctrinated to escape belief in mythical sky gods and false prophets. You need to quit that church and start to see, love, understand and enjoy being with women on a bigger canvas than allowed by your church.

Should women avoid dressing provocatively in public, lest they portray themselves (and thus other women) as non-human beings?

> As long as people care far more about the plight of women than the plight of men ... we're never going to achieve anything resembling equality.

I'm unclear on your thesis here: is your position that the reason women are disadvantaged in society in general and tech in particular because we "care more about the plight of women"? Because that seems illogical.

But the only other interpretation I can think of is that you think men are at a disadvantage to women, which is a laughable assertion.

Your account is 6 days old, of course, so I may be just feeding a troll here.

I have a sneaking feeling that the #YesAllWomen thing might have gone a bit over your head.

It wasn't because more women died. It wasn't because of the plight of the western woman. #YesAllWomen was a more-or-less spontaneous response to the killer's motives. It was because the killer thought that he was entitled to get whatever he wanted from any woman he wanted, and wanted to make them suffer for depriving him of what he felt he deserved (sex with beautiful women). While most men will never go to that extreme, all women have experienced some form of punishment from a male for denying their sexual advances.

If you can't see why society would respond to that the way that it did, I'm not sure that a western society is appropriate for a person with your worldview.