Feminism and Adria Richards's PyCon experience

[Sethala]

I know there's another feminism thread, but that seems to have stalled out after derailing to talk about the crusades, so I think a fresh start is in order.  (Mods, feel free to merge the threads if that's an issue.)

Anyway, recently this month was a programming convention called PyCon where there was a bit of a commotion.  While I do have some strong feelings about this, I want to first try and summarize the event in as unbiased of a tone as possible, to make sure everyone has enough factual information before I describe my own reaction.

During one of the talks at PyCon, a woman named Adria Richards overheard some other attendees talking behind her.  Nothing unusual, until one of them started to make a joke about a "big dongle".  Adria turned around, took a picture of the men talking, posted it on her Twitter account, and talked to PyCon staff about the incident.  They intervened and talked to the men; it's unclear what exactly they did after that, and I don't know if it was just a "warning" or if they were escorted from the conference.

It's important to note that both Adria and the men she was talking about were employed by companies that sponsor PyCon.  Adria works as a "developer evangelist" for SendGrid, and the two men were employed by PlayHaven, though I'm not sure what their position was.

Shortly after the convention, PlayHaven published a blog post stating that one of the men involved had been "let go".  Soon after that, SendGrid started receiving threats (including both DDOS attacks and comments from clients that stated they would be taking business elsewhere).  SendGrid responded by publicly stating they had fired Adria.

Information sources:

Adria's blog post of the event: http://butyoureagirl.com/14015/forking-and-dongle-jokes-dont-belong-at-tech-conferences/
PlayHaven's blog post: http://blog.playhaven.com/addressing-pycon/
SendGrid's blog post: http://blog.sendgrid.com/a-difficult-situation/

Now, on to my thoughts.  There are a few questions I want to think about, such as whether Adria was correct in posting the picture on Twitter, whether SendGrid and PlayHaven were right in firing their respective employees, and whether jokes about "big dongles" should be allowed in professional areas.  I also want to talk about the role of feminism in all of this, and whether or not it's an issue of gender as well.

First however, I want to ask whether Adria was actually offended by the comments made, and if her outcry was to stop someone from making comments, or to further her own agendas.  One detail I didn't point out (again, because I wanted to make the first part of the post as unbiased as possible) was that Adria never attempted to address them directly.  Instead, she went straight to public shaming and talking to staff.  Now, this doesn't mean she had malicious intent; it could simply be that she didn't know any better, or that she was afraid of repercussions.  I can certainly say that if she tried to ask them to stop and they continued (or worse, started making jokes directed at her), I would be far more sympathetic towards her.  However, not having the basic sense to ask the person offending you to stop does little to help her case.  (Further, as a "dev evangelist", her job involves a lot of public relations, which makes me even less likely to believe she "didn't know better".)

The other issue is that it seems Adria's not the type to be easily offended after all, at least when it comes to her own comments: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425.  I know "being a hypocrite" isn't reason to write off someone's argument, but when their argument relies on a piece of information that's very subjective ("I find X offensive"), pointing out the hypocrisy of that statement does undermine their evidence.  (If anyone wants to point out that her comments aren't "in the convention", I'm going to also say that she put up a few Facebook pictures of herself playing "Cards Against Humanity", a tongue-in-chick but highly-"offensive" card game, in one of the public areas of the convention; sadly I can't find the pictures of that right now.)

I have also heard of other issues where Adria seemed to care more about making a scene than discreetly taking care of an issue, though it'll take a bit for me to find links to things.  Overall though, I don't think she was anywhere near as offended as she claims, and she doesn't seem sorry at all that the PlayHaven employee got fired (she made a statement about it some time later, though any mention of the PlayHaven employee or any regret that she did the wrong thing was noticeably absent: http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/27/adria-richards-speaks-on-women-men-and-tech-but-not-a-certain-fired-developer/).

Next, about the unnamed employee of PlayHaven that was fired.  I can think of two scenarios where this is acceptable, and one where it clearly isn't.  The first is if the employee has a past history of problems with the company.  It could very easily be that he was on his "last warning", and this pushed it over the edge and got him fired.  The second acceptable scenario is if the company let him go, but with either a very generous severance package or support for finding a new job (possibly helping to set up interviews with other companies in the field).  Essentially the "firing" is a PR move with no real desire to actually get rid of him.  What I can't find acceptable though, is if he was in good standing with the company and left out in the cold because of this.  I don't think this is a very realistic scenario however, as he could very easily turn around and sue the company; I find it much more likely that he's given a generous settlement, instead.  Regardless, there's not really enough information to go off of here, as we don't know what actually happened to him.

Now, on to Adria and SendGrid.  This is a lot more public, and a termination I'm much happier about.  For one, Adria's job is public relations.  Having a firestorm like this with her at the center of it is definitely not good for business (in contrast, the unnamed employee of PlayHaven is, as far as I can tell, only a developer and not someone that worked with the public at all, so it's much easier for him to brush things off once they settle down).  By keeping her employed, SendGrid sends a message that they tolerate the public shaming of other employees for a generally minor offense, which can make other companies less willing to work with Adria (undermining her entire position with them), and possibly less willing to work with other employees of the company.

Fiinally, does this have to do with feminism?  Well, the bare-bones story itself likely doesn't have much to do with it, but a look at Adria's blog on the issue shows that she definitely thinks it is (despite, oddly, not wanting to call herself a feminist).  Admittedly I don't have much to add here, but I have a feeling that the topic will go down this road pretty quickly anyway, so I'll wait to weigh in on this one until I hear others' replies.

[Vanity Evolved]

I know there's another feminism thread, but that seems to have stalled out after derailing to talk about the crusades, so I think a fresh start is in order.  (Mods, feel free to merge the threads if that's an issue.)

Anyway, recently this month was a programming convention called PyCon where there was a bit of a commotion.  While I do have some strong feelings about this, I want to first try and summarize the event in as unbiased of a tone as possible, to make sure everyone has enough factual information before I describe my own reaction.

During one of the talks at PyCon, a woman named Adria Richards overheard some other attendees talking behind her.  Nothing unusual, until one of them started to make a joke about a "big dongle".  Adria turned around, took a picture of the men talking, posted it on her Twitter account, and talked to PyCon staff about the incident.  They intervened and talked to the men; it's unclear what exactly they did after that, and I don't know if it was just a "warning" or if they were escorted from the conference.

It's important to note that both Adria and the men she was talking about were employed by companies that sponsor PyCon.  Adria works as a "developer evangelist" for SendGrid, and the two men were employed by PlayHaven, though I'm not sure what their position was.

Shortly after the convention, PlayHaven published a blog post stating that one of the men involved had been "let go".  Soon after that, SendGrid started receiving threats (including both DDOS attacks and comments from clients that stated they would be taking business elsewhere).  SendGrid responded by publicly stating they had fired Adria.

Information sources:

Adria's blog post of the event: http://butyoureagirl.com/14015/forking-and-dongle-jokes-dont-belong-at-tech-conferences/
PlayHaven's blog post: http://blog.playhaven.com/addressing-pycon/
SendGrid's blog post: http://blog.sendgrid.com/a-difficult-situation/

Now, on to my thoughts.  There are a few questions I want to think about, such as whether Adria was correct in posting the picture on Twitter, whether SendGrid and PlayHaven were right in firing their respective employees, and whether jokes about "big dongles" should be allowed in professional areas.  I also want to talk about the role of feminism in all of this, and whether or not it's an issue of gender as well.

First however, I want to ask whether Adria was actually offended by the comments made, and if her outcry was to stop someone from making comments, or to further her own agendas.  One detail I didn't point out (again, because I wanted to make the first part of the post as unbiased as possible) was that Adria never attempted to address them directly.  Instead, she went straight to public shaming and talking to staff.  Now, this doesn't mean she had malicious intent; it could simply be that she didn't know any better, or that she was afraid of repercussions.  I can certainly say that if she tried to ask them to stop and they continued (or worse, started making jokes directed at her), I would be far more sympathetic towards her.  However, not having the basic sense to ask the person offending you to stop does little to help her case.  (Further, as a "dev evangelist", her job involves a lot of public relations, which makes me even less likely to believe she "didn't know better".)

The other issue is that it seems Adria's not the type to be easily offended after all, at least when it comes to her own comments: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425.  I know "being a hypocrite" isn't reason to write off someone's argument, but when their argument relies on a piece of information that's very subjective ("I find X offensive"), pointing out the hypocrisy of that statement does undermine their evidence.  (If anyone wants to point out that her comments aren't "in the convention", I'm going to also say that she put up a few Facebook pictures of herself playing "Cards Against Humanity", a tongue-in-chick but highly-"offensive" card game, in one of the public areas of the convention; sadly I can't find the pictures of that right now.)

I have also heard of other issues where Adria seemed to care more about making a scene than discreetly taking care of an issue, though it'll take a bit for me to find links to things.  Overall though, I don't think she was anywhere near as offended as she claims, and she doesn't seem sorry at all that the PlayHaven employee got fired (she made a statement about it some time later, though any mention of the PlayHaven employee or any regret that she did the wrong thing was noticeably absent: http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/27/adria-richards-speaks-on-women-men-and-tech-but-not-a-certain-fired-developer/).

Next, about the unnamed employee of PlayHaven that was fired.  I can think of two scenarios where this is acceptable, and one where it clearly isn't.  The first is if the employee has a past history of problems with the company.  It could very easily be that he was on his "last warning", and this pushed it over the edge and got him fired.  The second acceptable scenario is if the company let him go, but with either a very generous severance package or support for finding a new job (possibly helping to set up interviews with other companies in the field).  Essentially the "firing" is a PR move with no real desire to actually get rid of him.  What I can't find acceptable though, is if he was in good standing with the company and left out in the cold because of this.  I don't think this is a very realistic scenario however, as he could very easily turn around and sue the company; I find it much more likely that he's given a generous settlement, instead.  Regardless, there's not really enough information to go off of here, as we don't know what actually happened to him.

Now, on to Adria and SendGrid.  This is a lot more public, and a termination I'm much happier about.  For one, Adria's job is public relations.  Having a firestorm like this with her at the center of it is definitely not good for business (in contrast, the unnamed employee of PlayHaven is, as far as I can tell, only a developer and not someone that worked with the public at all, so it's much easier for him to brush things off once they settle down).  By keeping her employed, SendGrid sends a message that they tolerate the public shaming of other employees for a generally minor offense, which can make other companies less willing to work with Adria (undermining her entire position with them), and possibly less willing to work with other employees of the company.

Fiinally, does this have to do with feminism?  Well, the bare-bones story itself likely doesn't have much to do with it, but a look at Adria's blog on the issue shows that she definitely thinks it is (despite, oddly, not wanting to call herself a feminist).  Admittedly I don't have much to add here, but I have a feeling that the topic will go down this road pretty quickly anyway, so I'll wait to weigh in on this one until I hear others' replies.

It's mainly a story of a woman doing something stupid, getting called out on it, then trying to backtrack by covering her 'stupid bullshit which got her in trouble' with 'I'm the victim! I'm a hero!'. As a lot of videos I've seen have pointed out, if she's that offended by 'dongle jokes', she wouldn't be making them on the same Twitter feed as the one she complains about them on. If she wanted to 'set an example for that little girl who'll never get into computing now, because men make jokes about penises to themselves', it certainly would have helped to show that 'public insults behind someone's back' isn't the way you do things, when you have official channels to voice your complaints, channels which she distinctly made an effort to avoid.

[Oniya]

Can I just say that my first thought was 'People still use dongles?  How quaint.' 

Probably would have been my response, too,  if I were present to hear the original comment.

[Trieste]

... jokes about forking and big dongles don't belong in a professional atmosphere with strangers. Period.

Jokes about forking and big dongles are expressly against the conference's code of conduct. "All communication should be appropriate for a professional audience including people of many different backgrounds. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks." (Emphasis mine.)

It's in black and white. It doesn't matter if she was offended. It doesn't matter if she's a feminist. They're sitting there at a tech conference; if they were bored, they could have whipped out their smartphones and sent lewd text messages. They were stupid, they broke the rules, and it's utterly stupid for a company to fire an employee for speaking up about someone who is being stupid and breaking the rules.

[Vanity Evolved]

... jokes about forking and big dongles don't belong in a professional atmosphere with strangers. Period.

Jokes about forking and big dongles are expressly against the conference's code of conduct. "All communication should be appropriate for a professional audience including people of many different backgrounds. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks." (Emphasis mine.)

It's in black and white. It doesn't matter if she was offended. It doesn't matter if she's a feminist. They're sitting there at a tech conference; if they were bored, they could have whipped out their smartphones and sent lewd text messages. They were stupid, they broke the rules, and it's utterly stupid for a company to fire an employee for speaking up about someone who is being stupid and breaking the rules.

Except she didn't do this; she didn't report the problem through the proper channels set up for this sort of problem, but decided to publicly try and name and shame -then- play it off as if this was some sort of crusade against the eeeevil men who dare to joke about their penises, which stops Little Suzie Bridges getting into this line of work and how she's a -hero-. They were stupid, they broke the rules; she was then equally stupid and -ignore the rules set in place to deal with these issues- and got fired for doing so. I think it's utterly right that someone should be fired for breaking the rules, which she also did.

[Silk]

I'm getting pretty tired of the activist feminists at the moment to be honest, it seems like for every legitimate case of discrimination, there ten others which are just women crying out because they didn't get their own way.

[Kythia]

But from the same code  there is a well-defined procedure for handling this which isn't "go straight to twitter".  I agree that the two males in question should have been disciplined, I agree their joke was utterly inappropriate regardless of who, if anyone, took offence.  The sacking of the male - well, I don't know the company's policies but I would have got scaked if I'd made a similar joke.  But, I think there is some blame for her as well for a badly handled situation.

[Sethala]

... jokes about forking and big dongles don't belong in a professional atmosphere with strangers. Period.

Jokes about forking and big dongles are expressly against the conference's code of conduct. "All communication should be appropriate for a professional audience including people of many different backgrounds. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks." (Emphasis mine.)

It's in black and white. It doesn't matter if she was offended. It doesn't matter if she's a feminist. They're sitting there at a tech conference; if they were bored, they could have whipped out their smartphones and sent lewd text messages. They were stupid, they broke the rules, and it's utterly stupid for a company to fire an employee for speaking up about someone who is being stupid and breaking the rules.

If all she had done was talk to PyCon staff about the issue, I would have no problem with it.  They would have taken care of the issue quietly, possibly notified their employers, and the employers may have taken things further.  (I would have preferred if she had simply told them to quit it first and brought it to PyCon staff if they continued or got worse, but I understand some people are intimidated by things like this and would rather involve a neutral third party.)

What she did, however, was public shaming and mob justice.  That's acceptable under certain circumstances, but never as a first response in my book.  That's the main issue I have with how things happened.  I think what also bugs me about it is that she's completely unapologetic about things; she's not sorry at all about going straight to public shaming first.

As an aside, if she did do things quietly and still got fired, I would totally agree that it's stupid and they shouldn't fire her.  She was the one that took things public however, and especially since her job (and thus, her value to the company) involves dealing with the public, being the creator of such a controversy is definitely not good for her job qualifications.

[Sethala]

well, I don't know the company's policies but I would have got scaked if I'd made a similar joke.

That's interesting, actually.  Do you work in a similar industry where going to conventions is part of the job?  Currently I only work at Walmart, and I know doing something like that in front of customers when I'm currently working is likely to at least get me in trouble, but I'm also the "face" of the company when it comes to customers near me.  But when I'm off the clock, even in the store, things are a lot more lax and I can do mostly as I please (barring things that would get a customer kicked out of the store, at least).

[Kythia]

Well, I don't have my contract to hand obviously.  But the core point is that I'm a representative of the organisation at any time when people (reasonably) think I am, not nine to five.  So if I were at a conference on behalf of my employer then I think they'd expect me to remain professional throughout, not simply during working hours - at the bar afterwards or whatever.  As my actions, words, etc, could well cause a negative image of my employer regardless of whether I'm being paid to represent them at that precise second or not.

For example, I write for a newspaper and I have to use a pen name for that to stop anyone thinking that anything I say in the newspaper - which is solely album reviews, so hardly controversial - is anything to do with my other job.

[Trieste]

Except she didn't do this; she didn't report the problem through the proper channels set up for this sort of problem, but decided to publicly try and name and shame -then- play it off as if this was some sort of crusade against the eeeevil men who dare to joke about their penises, which stops Little Suzie Bridges getting into this line of work and how she's a -hero-. They were stupid, they broke the rules; she was then equally stupid and -ignore the rules set in place to deal with these issues- and got fired for doing so. I think it's utterly right that someone should be fired for breaking the rules, which she also did.

But from the same code  there is a well-defined procedure for handling this which isn't "go straight to twitter".  I agree that the two males in question should have been disciplined, I agree their joke was utterly inappropriate regardless of who, if anyone, took offence.  The sacking of the male - well, I don't know the company's policies but I would have got scaked if I'd made a similar joke.  But, I think there is some blame for her as well for a badly handled situation.

Twitter is considered a normal medium for complaints and customer support. Companies specifically have Twitter accounts to address customer complaints. (@Netflixhelps, @Hulu_support, @Amazonhelp, etc)

Tweeting publicly about someone isn't necessarily going to name and shame them any more than blogging about them will, or posting on Facebook, or writing a comment on the Con's webpage - even if you have a fairly high following on your blog, it usually doesn't have that big an impact until/unless it goes viral within your relevant community (or viral in general, in which case everyone is all over it).

Moreover, the PyCon instructions for handling incidents ask you to submit complaints in writing, but the contact info for the Con handlers are all phone numbers - and while it's PROBABLY a safe bet that they can all receive text messages, there is no guarantee that they can. Soooo... she complained in writing. Further, she was in the middle of someone else's talk, and while it's acceptable at such talks to have a low murmur of commentary, it's really not generally acceptable to whip out your phone and start yakking on it. It's rude to the speaker, and it's rude to the people around you.

And, last but not least, I'm not sure why this is (again, sigh) being given the "well, she acted poorly so clearly she has no right to judge their behavior" treatment. The code of conduct does not mention anything about "please don't tweet about the assholes you meet", or anything of the sort. It specifically mentions sexual imagery and innuendo. Which is explicitly banned from the conference.

I... I don't even know why it's still a Thing, here. The controversy appears to boil down to "Bah, it's a joke, get over it". Well, it was an offensive joke, and it didn't belong at a professional conference. So, uh, get over it.

That's interesting, actually.  Do you work in a similar industry where going to conventions is part of the job?  Currently I only work at Walmart, and I know doing something like that in front of customers when I'm currently working is likely to at least get me in trouble, but I'm also the "face" of the company when it comes to customers near me.  But when I'm off the clock, even in the store, things are a lot more lax and I can do mostly as I please (barring things that would get a customer kicked out of the store, at least).

The thing is that conference attendance is often part of professional, developing jobs, and many attendees - especially if their company is a sponsor - very much are the face of their companies while they are in attendance. Depending on the company, it's probable they were getting paid for conference attendance, or expensing some of the costs, or possibly their job was actually paying for their travel, time, cost of attendance, lodging, etc. While attending a conference as a developer, as a scientist, as a journalist (at a journalism conference, assuming there are such things), etc - you very much are expected to act as if you are in an office atmosphere, on the clock, in uniform, etc. It's a time and a place for your professional demeanor, not your dongle jokes.

[Sethala]

Twitter is considered a normal medium for complaints and customer support. Companies specifically have Twitter accounts to address customer complaints. (@Netflixhelps, @Hulu_support, @Amazonhelp, etc)

Interesting note, and I didn't consider that.  However, while I'm possibly willing to concede that putting the picture on twitter for the PyCon staff to access may have been the best course of action after all, writing a full blog post where she glorifies her actions (in a melodramatic way of stating that she was at a point where "the future of programming was on the line" - her words, not mine) is going much further than simply having PyCon staff take care of things.  (As an aside, her blog post was on March 18th, and the blog post announcing that the developer from PlayHaven had been fired was on the 21st, long enough for her post to go viral and influence what happened at PlayHaven.)

And, last but not least, I'm not sure why this is (again, sigh) being given the "well, she acted poorly so clearly she has no right to judge their behavior" treatment. The code of conduct does not mention anything about "please don't tweet about the assholes you meet", or anything of the sort. It specifically mentions sexual imagery and innuendo. Which is explicitly banned from the conference.

My point there was that there's a likelihood that she was doing everything only for her own ego and cared nothing about whether people were actually offended.  As an aside however, one of the discussions I came across mentioned an updated CoC that also requests that people not resort to public shaming of others who break the CoC; I'm not able to track it down at the moment however.

The thing is that conference attendance is often part of professional, developing jobs, and many attendees - especially if their company is a sponsor - very much are the face of their companies while they are in attendance. Depending on the company, it's probable they were getting paid for conference attendance, or expensing some of the costs, or possibly their job was actually paying for their travel, time, cost of attendance, lodging, etc. While attending a conference as a developer, as a scientist, as a journalist (at a journalism conference, assuming there are such things), etc - you very much are expected to act as if you are in an office atmosphere, on the clock, in uniform, etc. It's a time and a place for your professional demeanor, not your dongle jokes.

Noted, and for the record I've never been to any kind of conference as part of a job, so this is mostly foreign to me.

[Kythia]

I... I don't even know why it's still a Thing, here. The controversy appears to boil down to "Bah, it's a joke, get over it". Well, it was an offensive joke, and it didn't belong at a professional conference. So, uh, get over it.

Yeah, errrm, literally noone has said that.  I mentioned I'd get fired for doing the same, VanityEvolved's point was that she didn't go through the channels set up, Sethala mentioned that he would have no issue with it had she raised it with conference staff only.

I'm not certain who you're arguing against, here.

[Vanity Evolved]

Twitter is considered a normal medium for complaints and customer support. Companies specifically have Twitter accounts to address customer complaints. (@Netflixhelps, @Hulu_support, @Amazonhelp, etc)

Tweeting publicly about someone isn't necessarily going to name and shame them any more than blogging about them will, or posting on Facebook, or writing a comment on the Con's webpage - even if you have a fairly high following on your blog, it usually doesn't have that big an impact until/unless it goes viral within your relevant community (or viral in general, in which case everyone is all over it).

Moreover, the PyCon instructions for handling incidents ask you to submit complaints in writing, but the contact info for the Con handlers are all phone numbers - and while it's PROBABLY a safe bet that they can all receive text messages, there is no guarantee that they can. Soooo... she complained in writing. Further, she was in the middle of someone else's talk, and while it's acceptable at such talks to have a low murmur of commentary, it's really not generally acceptable to whip out your phone and start yakking on it. It's rude to the speaker, and it's rude to the people around you.

And, last but not least, I'm not sure why this is (again, sigh) being given the "well, she acted poorly so clearly she has no right to judge their behavior" treatment. The code of conduct does not mention anything about "please don't tweet about the assholes you meet", or anything of the sort. It specifically mentions sexual imagery and innuendo. Which is explicitly banned from the conference.

I... I don't even know why it's still a Thing, here. The controversy appears to boil down to "Bah, it's a joke, get over it". Well, it was an offensive joke, and it didn't belong at a professional conference. So, uh, get over it.

The thing is that conference attendance is often part of professional, developing jobs, and many attendees - especially if their company is a sponsor - very much are the face of their companies while they are in attendance. Depending on the company, it's probable they were getting paid for conference attendance, or expensing some of the costs, or possibly their job was actually paying for their travel, time, cost of attendance, lodging, etc. While attending a conference as a developer, as a scientist, as a journalist (at a journalism conference, assuming there are such things), etc - you very much are expected to act as if you are in an office atmosphere, on the clock, in uniform, etc. It's a time and a place for your professional demeanor, not your dongle jokes.

Companies do have Twitters - however, she didn't do this. She used her own, personal account (with 13k strong followers), looking to shame a couple of guys. Not only this, but she then went on as if this was a crusade - not something which just insulted her, but setting herself up as a hero, a pariah who was fighting some evil corperate machine because 'penis jokes are the problem with this company! All the little girls won't get jobs now because of this evil world of penis jokes! Someone had to do something!'

Which makes it even more silly and laughable that her idea of 'We need to do something!' isn't to approach an official channel or actually make sure the people in charge know about the problems; she decided putting one douchy post attacking a couple of guys on a social media website. This is the equivilent of saying 'Things need to change!' and your idea of change is 'make a personal attack at some guys on my Facebook'.

[Trieste]

Interesting note, and I didn't consider that.  However, while I'm possibly willing to concede that putting the picture on twitter for the PyCon staff to access may have been the best course of action after all, writing a full blog post where she glorifies her actions (in a melodramatic way of stating that she was at a point where "the future of programming was on the line" - her words, not mine) is going much further than simply having PyCon staff take care of things.  (As an aside, her blog post was on March 18th, and the blog post announcing that the developer from PlayHaven had been fired was on the 21st, long enough for her post to go viral and influence what happened at PlayHaven.)

Okay - I'm trying to get a clear idea of what your thesis is here. I think it's that she was wrong for using controversy to self-promote? If so, that's somewhat a matter of opinion, although I would probably point out that as she is in PR and you don't go into PR without a bit of an ego and a willingness to self-promote, that's somewhat the nature of her job. I don't disagree that such tactics seem slimy - I dislike Michael Moore's persona for similar reasons - but it also doesn't excuse the actions of the developers she reported. Derp, or I could just read the next paragraph, which I originally thought was a separate thought.

My point there was that there's a likelihood that she was doing everything only for her own ego and cared nothing about whether people were actually offended.  As an aside however, one of the discussions I came across mentioned an updated CoC that also requests that people not resort to public shaming of others who break the CoC; I'm not able to track it down at the moment however.

Noted, and for the record I've never been to any kind of conference as part of a job, so this is mostly foreign to me.

Difficult to say. She said the jokes made her uncomfortable. Then she said they didn't. I'm not even sure if she even knows how the hell she felt. However, she's not some folk hero who has to be pure of heart to win the day. If anything, her foibles and faults make her more human.

I'm still not entirely sure why this is being linked to feminism specifically, by the way, since Ms. Richards specifically says she is not a feminist.

Yeah, errrm, literally noone has said that.  I mentioned I'd get fired for doing the same, VanityEvolved's point was that she didn't go through the channels set up, Sethala mentioned that he would have no issue with it had she raised it with conference staff only.

I'm not certain who you're arguing against, here.

I literally didn't attribute it to anyone here. I can probably rephrase as, "The general controversy appears [...]".

Companies do have Twitters - however, she didn't do this. She used her own, personal account (with 13k strong followers), looking to shame a couple of guys. Not only this, but she then went on as if this was a crusade - not something which just insulted her, but setting herself up as a hero, a pariah who was fighting some evil corperate machine because 'penis jokes are the problem with this company! All the little girls won't get jobs now because of this evil world of penis jokes! Someone had to do something!'

Which makes it even more silly and laughable that her idea of 'We need to do something!' isn't to approach an official channel or actually make sure the people in charge know about the problems; she decided putting one douchy post attacking a couple of guys on a social media website. This is the equivilent of saying 'Things need to change!' and your idea of change is 'make a personal attack at some guys on my Facebook'.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Twitter, but all your tweets are made with your own account, and show up in your own feed. Your Twitter feed is a little bit like if you went into someone's Elliquiy profile and clicked "view posts" - to follow conversations, you used to have to bounce back and forth between the two (or three, or four) Twitter accounts that were involved, although at some point they put in a "view conversation" function that allows you to view peoples' responses to each other in context.

The rest of your comment... I'll just... You know, I'm not sure if you're trying on purpose to minimize the amount of marginalization that women (and minorities, including male ones) face in tech in general, or if you're just not familiar with it, or what, but you come across in this comment as passing judgement from a very uneducated position and it's mostly kinda depressing. It's difficult to describe the situation that takes place in both the science and tech fields (both of which I'm an active member and/or student) without either giving you the statistics and hoping you connect the numbers with real people or trying to humanize it by giving anecdotes. Neither of which I'm inclined to do. So that's about all I have to say about that to you.

[Sethala]

Okay - I'm trying to get a clear idea of what your thesis is here. I think it's that she was wrong for using controversy to self-promote? If so, that's somewhat a matter of opinion, although I would probably point out that as she is in PR and you don't go into PR without a bit of an ego and a willingness to self-promote, that's somewhat the nature of her job. I don't disagree that such tactics seem slimy - I dislike Michael Moore's persona for similar reasons - but it also doesn't excuse the actions of the developers she reported. Derp, or I could just read the next paragraph, which I originally thought was a separate thought.

Difficult to say. She said the jokes made her uncomfortable. Then she said they didn't. I'm not even sure if she even knows how the hell she felt. However, she's not some folk hero who has to be pure of heart to win the day. If anything, her foibles and faults make her more human.

Sorry, my thoughts kinda blended together.  The point I made with the first paragraph (well, tried to make; I tend to not be as eloquent with words as I'd like to be once I actually write them down) was that posting the picture on Twitter wasn't all she did, she did other things to publicly shame the guys, so I can't brush it off as "Well, that turned out to be the right thing to do anyway".

I'm still not entirely sure why this is being linked to feminism specifically, by the way, since Ms. Richards specifically says she is not a feminist.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, chances are it's a duck even if it swears up and down that it's not.  Richards may be rejecting the "feminist" label, but you'd be hard pressed to prove that if you read the blog post that started the whole thing and not her arguing that she's not a feminist.  That, and the discussion will almost invariably turn into one about gender roles, which is definitely related to feminism....

[Vanity Evolved]

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Twitter, but all your tweets are made with your own account, and show up in your own feed. Your Twitter feed is a little bit like if you went into someone's Elliquiy profile and clicked "view posts" - to follow conversations, you used to have to bounce back and forth between the two (or three, or four) Twitter accounts that were involved, although at some point they put in a "view conversation" function that allows you to view peoples' responses to each other in context.

The rest of your comment... I'll just... You know, I'm not sure if you're trying on purpose to minimize the amount of marginalization that women (and minorities, including male ones) face in tech in general, or if you're just not familiar with it, or what, but you come across in this comment as passing judgement from a very uneducated position and it's mostly kinda depressing. It's difficult to describe the situation that takes place in both the science and tech fields (both of which I'm an active member and/or student) without either giving you the statistics and hoping you connect the numbers with real people or trying to humanize it by giving anecdotes. Neither of which I'm inclined to do. So that's about all I have to say about that to you.

I'm not very familiar with Twitter, I do admit, and feminism isn't something I take much time to actually explore, myself; but to me, I'm quite sure that 'two guys enjoying a lewd joke between themselves' isn't a huge problem to women getting into the tech field. Especially considering said person makes dick jokes themselves on their own Twitter account. Pot, kettle.

[Ephiral]

I'm not very familiar with Twitter, I do admit, and feminism isn't something I take much time to actually explore, myself; but to me, I'm quite sure that 'two guys enjoying a lewd joke between themselves' isn't a huge problem to women getting into the tech field. Especially considering said person makes dick jokes themselves on their own Twitter account. Pot, kettle.

But it's not just two guys, is it? It's a constant "boys' club" environment, in which this is one of the many signs that women are not welcome, except perhaps as eye candy. And to put things in context, this was a conference with a specific policy against such things, which was specifically trying to encourage women to attend. You don't do this without making them feel comfortable first, which means getting rid of the boys' club.

As for her public shaming of the guys breaking policy: About all I have to say about this is that, if you don't want to be publicly shamed, you shouldn't do shameful things in public.

[Sethala]

But it's not just two guys, is it? It's a constant "boys' club" environment, in which this is one of the many signs that women are not welcome, except perhaps as eye candy. And to put things in context, this was a conference with a specific policy against such things, which was specifically trying to encourage women to attend. You don't do this without making them feel comfortable first, which means getting rid of the boys' club.

As for her public shaming of the guys breaking policy: About all I have to say about this is that, if you don't want to be publicly shamed, you shouldn't do shameful things in public.

What if the women are making their own jokes, though?  In order for "penis jokes" to be a "boys club" thing, it has to be something that's pretty much exclusive to men, right?  But just a few days before everything, Adria had this tweet: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425.

If she's comfortable making her own crude jokes, why is she offended at the jokes others make?  And not just offended, but enough to complain and publicly humiliate him - if you actually believe that her actions were due to offense alone, which I do not.

[Kythia]

There is a difference there.  I don't follow her on twitter - don't actually use twitter.  But if I did and did and was offended by her comments then I'm relatively sure there's an "unfollow" button that would make it all go away.

However, sitting in a conference, you are to some extent trapped.  Getting up and moving would be disrespectful to the speaker and annoying to everyone else in the row (think about when you're in the cinema and someone has to edge past you for the toilet.)  Of course, neither of those are unsurmountable, but they are there.  The difference is context and how easy it is to avoid it.

[Vanity Evolved]

What if the women are making their own jokes, though?  In order for "penis jokes" to be a "boys club" thing, it has to be something that's pretty much exclusive to men, right?  But just a few days before everything, Adria had this tweet: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425.

If she's comfortable making her own crude jokes, why is she offended at the jokes others make?  And not just offended, but enough to complain and publicly humiliate him - if you actually believe that her actions were due to offense alone, which I do not.

This. If she had such a problem with colleges joking about dick jokes, it's quite weird that she actively makes her own. I find it hard that you can be offended by dick jokes if you're someone who enjoys telling dick jokes.

[Trieste]

What if the women are making their own jokes, though?  In order for "penis jokes" to be a "boys club" thing, it has to be something that's pretty much exclusive to men, right?  But just a few days before everything, Adria had this tweet: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425.

If she's comfortable making her own crude jokes, why is she offended at the jokes others make?  And not just offended, but enough to complain and publicly humiliate him - if you actually believe that her actions were due to offense alone, which I do not.

I think the general field was being referred to as the boys' club, not just penis jokes.

Also, there is a huge difference between making jokes on your Twitter and making jokes in the middle of a crowd of strangers in a professional setting. Like...

Think of it as the difference between raunchy text messaging with a friend while you're sitting at work, and then actively making raunchy jokes to your coworkers. One is not necessarily inherently unprofessional (just don't let your boss read your text messages, hopefully) and one is very, very unprofessional and can in some circumstances constitute harassment. That's the difference.

--- And Kythia essentially just worded it better than I did but I'm going to post anyway because goddamnit, words. :P

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The two men were not enjoying a lewd joke between themselves.  The two men were enjoying a lewd joke between themselves and anyone in earshot of themselves. 

[Ephiral]

What if the women are making their own jokes, though?  In order for "penis jokes" to be a "boys club" thing, it has to be something that's pretty much exclusive to men, right?  But just a few days before everything, Adria had this tweet: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425.

If she's comfortable making her own crude jokes, why is she offended at the jokes others make?  And not just offended, but enough to complain and publicly humiliate him - if you actually believe that her actions were due to offense alone, which I do not.

No, it has to be something that makes women feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. Penis and sexual jokes are a small subset of this. See also Kythia's comment on context.

[Sethala]

There is a difference there.  I don't follow her on twitter - don't actually use twitter.  But if I did and did and was offended by her comments then I'm relatively sure there's an "unfollow" button that would make it all go away.

However, sitting in a conference, you are to some extent trapped.  Getting up and moving would be disrespectful to the speaker and annoying to everyone else in the row (think about when you're in the cinema and someone has to edge past you for the toilet.)  Of course, neither of those are unsurmountable, but they are there.  The difference is context and how easy it is to avoid it.

I think the general field was being referred to as the boys' club, not just penis jokes.

Also, there is a huge difference between making jokes on your Twitter and making jokes in the middle of a crowd of strangers in a professional setting. Like...

Think of it as the difference between raunchy text messaging with a friend while you're sitting at work, and then actively making raunchy jokes to your coworkers. One is not necessarily inherently unprofessional (just don't let your boss read your text messages, hopefully) and one is very, very unprofessional and can in some circumstances constitute harassment. That's the difference.

--- And Kythia essentially just worded it better than I did but I'm going to post anyway because goddamnit, words. :P

Sorry, I was probably unclear.  I wasn't saying she was offending anyone with her tweet, or that anyone offended by it should take measures beyond unfollowing her.  I was pointing out that claiming to be offended by dongle jokes, when publicly making her own penis jokes, is... incredibly odd, mainly, if true.  Basically, I'm trying to say she's either a hypocrite, or dishonest.

As far as stuff at the convention goes, she tweeted that she was playing Cards Against Humanity (basically, a far more crude and offensive version of Apples to Apples) at the convention in a public area.  Which, admittedly isn't in the middle of a talk, but still in public view of anyone that wanders by.

[Kythia]

Basically, I'm trying to say she's either a hypocrite, or dishonest.

And?  Even if I accepted your argument, which I actually don't, her hypocrisy or dishonesty doesn't make their jokes less inappropriate or offensive.  And you don't have to find something personally offensive to know that it is. 

[Ephiral]

Sorry, I was probably unclear.  I wasn't saying she was offending anyone with her tweet, or that anyone offended by it should take measures beyond unfollowing her.  I was pointing out that claiming to be offended by dongle jokes, when publicly making her own penis jokes, is... incredibly odd, mainly, if true.  Basically, I'm trying to say she's either a hypocrite, or dishonest.

Because there's no difference whatsoever between an informal medium where one has to specifically seek out her commentary, and a formal one where you're expected to behave professionally, leaving is rude, and the comments are forced on anyone in earshot. None at all.

As far as stuff at the convention goes, she tweeted that she was playing Cards Against Humanity (basically, a far more crude and offensive version of Apples to Apples) at the convention in a public area.  Which, admittedly isn't in the middle of a talk, but still in public view of anyone that wanders by.

This is also unprofessional in my opinion. It is also a separate and unrelated issue, and a more minor one.

[gaggedLouise]

The two men were not enjoying a lewd joke between themselves.  The two men were enjoying a lewd joke between themselves and anyone in earshot of themselves.

Tossing a dirty (or slightly insulting) joke on twitter makes it reach thousands more people than quipping to a few buddies standing next to you in a busy conference hall, even if we'll count in people nearby who may hear it. Someone mentioned the figure 13.000 for Ms Richards' followers on twitter, and with this kind of thing - whether it's jokes, event gossip or 'tell this' tweets, it gets shared and forwarded a lot, even by people who might not support it 100%. Everyone wants feedback on social media, and fast.

The way in which she's been pushing on this, her efforts to dramatize it and to claim the moral high ground, make it clear enough that she was trying to make the shit hit the fan in public, outside of PyCon, from the start - I think the OP is right about that. Going through the channels set up for the conference or even with the firm/s those guys were from, after the event, would not have produced the effect she wanted, so she puts it on twitter instead and calls them out for being macho pigs. When you go down that path, with that kind of righteous anger, it's damaging to have made similar jokes yourself - on twitter.

[meikle]

I find it hard that you can be offended by dick jokes if you're someone who enjoys telling dick jokes.

Are you familiar with the concept of 'context'?

[Chris Brady]

The two men were not enjoying a lewd joke between themselves.  The two men were enjoying a lewd joke between themselves and anyone in earshot of themselves.

I wonder if they knew that.  Could have been either way, to be honest.  They likely didn't know, or cared that others could hear them.

Not going to comment otherwise, because frankly, all I have is one side of this conversation, Ms/Mrs. Richards.

[Kythia]

Tossing a dirty (or slightly insulting) joke on twitter makes it reach thousands more people than quipping to a few buddies standing next to you in a busy conference hall. Someonone mentioned the figure 13.000 for Ms Richards' followers on twitter, and with this kind of thing - whether it's jokes, event gossip or 'tell this' tweets, it gets shared and forwarded a lot, even by people who might not support it 100%. Everyone wants feedback on social media, and fast.

The way in which she's been pushing on this, her efforts to dramatize it and to claim the moral high ground, make it clear enough that she was trying to make the shit hit the fan in public, outside of PyCon, from the start - I think the OP is right about that. Going through the channels set up for the conference or even with the firm/s those guys were from, after the event, would not have produced the effect she wanted, so she puts it on twitter instead and calls them out for being macho pigs. When you go down that path, with that kind of righteous anger, it's damaging to have made similar jokes yourself - on twitter.

Yeah, she overreacted without a doubt.  Handled it very badly in my view or borderline maliciously in yours.  Either way she shouldn't have done it.  But that doesn't negate their wrongdoing.

[Ephiral]

Tossing a dirty (or slightly insulting) joke on twitter makes it reach thousands more people than quipping to a few buddies standing next to you in a busy conference hall. Someonone mentioned the figure 13.000 for Ms Richards' followers on twitter, and with this kind of thing - whether it's jokes, event gossip or 'tell this' tweets, it gets shared and forwarded a lot, even by people who might not support it 100%. Everyone wants feedback on social media, and fast.

The way in which she's been pushing on this, her efforts to dramatize it and to claim the moral high ground, make it clear enough that she was trying to make the shit hit the fan in public, outside of PyCon, from the start - I think the OP is right about that. Going through the channels set up for the conference or even with the firm/s those guys were from, after the event, would not have produced the effect she wanted, so she puts it on twitter instead and calls them out for being macho pigs. When you go down that path, with that kind of righteous anger, it's damaging to have made similar jokes yourself - on twitter.

Should it be, though? Again, Twitter is not necessarily a formal and professional medium, and her comments have to be specifically sought out. Context is important. Words are tools - I'm not offended by hammers, and even use one sometimes, but I'm sure as hell offended when someone swings one at me.

[gaggedLouise]

Yeah, she overreacted without a doubt.  Handled it very badly in my view or borderline maliciously in yours.  Either way she shouldn't have done it.  But that doesn't negate their wrongdoing.

*nods* I agree two wrongs don't make a right, and of course it wasn't a cool joke. Just to zone in on intentions, though, I suspect that if Adria and a few buddies of hers, in the conference bar, had been cracking a few idle jokes about guys mistakenly sending pics of their private organs to the wrong people over the phone or internet, and another woman had heard it and told them it was bad style, sexist and/or unprofessional, they would have pushed her off as being frumpy or patronizing. Nobody likes to be shamed about their sense of humour.

[Valthazar]

I think pretty much every guy has to watch his back these days for women like this.  If I hear a woman making a wise-crack remark about men, I'll just brush it off and move on.  If it's the other way around, the man is usually screwed.

[Ephiral]

I think pretty much every guy has to watch his back these days for women like this.  If I hear a woman making a wise-crack remark about men, I'll just brush it off and move on.  If it's the other way around, the man is usually screwed.

...or you're a man, so you notice the occasions when men are actually called on this kind of shit, and confirmation bias does the rest. I know which possibility I'm putting my money on.

[Valthazar]

...or you're a man, so you notice the occasions when men are actually called on this kind of shit, and confirmation bias does the rest. I know which possibility I'm putting my money on.

I'm not trying to say anything controversial - just that men should be careful about their remarks, which are usually made harmlessly without any malicious intent at all.

[Ephiral]

I'm not trying to say anything controversial - just that men should be careful about their remarks, which are usually made harmlessly without any malicious intent at all.

Yes, yes you are. You are saying that there is strong sexism against men. Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

[Valthazar]

Yes, yes you are. You are saying that there is strong sexism against men. Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

It is a fact that most sexual harassment cases are filed against men, thus men should be careful about what they say.  Why are you putting words into my mouth?

[Sethala]

...or you're a man, so you notice the occasions when men are actually called on this kind of shit, and confirmation bias does the rest. I know which possibility I'm putting my money on.

It's interesting, I think, to try and contrast what would happen if the genders were reversed in this story; if it was a man trying to get two girls kicked out of a convention because of some overheard innuendo.  Adria's under attack from the people who think she did something wrong, but are mostly acting rationally about it, as well as the internet trolls that are sending death and rape threats at her.  (The last bit is interesting in its own right, and I'll talk more at the end of the post.)  Meanwhile, most of her support seems to come from feminist (or at least female-sympathizers) groups that say she did the right thing to a male-dominated society.  (I'm not going to argue that it's male-dominated, though I personally don't think that makes it such a huge barrier against females, but I want to avoid that tangent right now.)

If Adria were a man instead, and the "offenders" two girls, I think the rational crowd would act the same.  (Sidenote: that likely also depends if the hypothetical female attendee would have been fired as well; I actually think she wouldn't, since firing her would have caused a significantly larger PR nightmare than firing a male employee for this, but I'll get to that in a bit.)  So there might not be as much traction, but those who still looked at it would, I feel, still agree that it was the wrong thing to do.  Feminist groups would likewise jump on him; after all, he's the shining symbol of male patriarchy in the society, and slamming him would almost be too easy.  The trolls, however, would be different.  I think a lot of the internet trolls like to send out rape threats to women because they tend to respond to them, especially women that have a feminist slant to their writing (men, conversely, tend not to feel as threatened by rape threats despite how common male rape actually is; part of the macho stereotype we often feel we have to live up to).  Rape threats tend to get a lot of shock reaction so, surprise surprise, trolls keep doing them.  They may do something with a guy, or they may ignore it completely, but I highly doubt that those sending rape and death threats to Adria would support her hypothetical male counterpart.

Now, on to the reaction to the public shaming.  I mentioned it would be a PR nightmare if PlayHaven had fired a female dev instead (or at least, it would be a PR nightmare if it became public).  I really shouldn't have to elaborate much on this, honestly.  (And admittedly, I'm getting tired to the point where I'm starting to feel incoherent, so I think I'm gonna come back to this point tomorrow.)

Overall, I think the story would have been less popular if it were reversed, largely in part because I don't think either of the women would have been fired, and because trolls tend to not jump on men as much as they do women.  But those opposing the guy would outnumber those supporting him by a much larger margin.

[Ephiral]

It is a fact that most sexual harassment cases are filed against men, thus men should be careful about what they say.  Why are you putting words into my mouth?

I think pretty much every guy has to watch his back these days for women like this.  If I hear a woman making a wise-crack remark about men, I'll just brush it off and move on. If it's the other way around, the man is usually screwed.

This is not "Most sexual harassment cases are filed against men." This is "Most times men say something offensive and sexist, they wind up in trouble." The latter is a much harder case to prove. Please show the slightest shred of evidence. Oh, and no, men don't have to "watch their backs". Just, y'know, not be sexist douches.

[Chris Brady]

I'm not trying to say anything controversial - just that men should be careful about their remarks, which are usually made harmlessly without any malicious intent at all.

And I'm pretty sure the two guys talking about 'dongles' didn't think their remark was worthy of any attention.  It's not like they were disparaging women in the industry, they sounded like they were having some crude fun with the language of computers.

Now admittedly, a conference is not the place for such comments, but I ask myself this, how many other times did these two guys go to a con, make a similar joke and no one called them on it?

And suddenly the one time they do, someone gets upset and calls them out on it.  Then suddenly this entire storm of controversy arises with people on all sides wanting to chime in on how right or wrong it is.  People lose their jobs, the world gets shocked!

Makes you really wonder since when did we get so uptight about these things...

[Valthazar]

This is not "Most sexual harassment cases are filed against men." This is "Most times men say something offensive and sexist, they wind up in trouble." The latter is a much harder case to prove. Please show the slightest shred of evidence. Oh, and no, men don't have to "watch their backs". Just, y'know, not be sexist douches.

Ephiral, I am not sure why you are becoming this defensive - all I said was that men should be careful about what they say.  Sometimes the most innocent of jokes can be construed as sexist, even if several women are laughing along with the guy who said it.

[Ephiral]

Ephiral, I am not sure why you are becoming this defensive - all I said was that men should be careful about what they say.  Sometimes the most innocent of jokes can be construed as sexist, even if several women are laughing along with the guy who said it.

Stop trying to shift the focus. I am not becoming defensive - rather the opposite. I am asking you to defend your frankly ridiculous assertions. You have claimed that most times men make offensive or sexist remarks, they wind up in trouble for it; I am asking you for some tiny shred of evidence that this is anything remotely approaching the case.

And no, you didn't say they need to watch what they say - that I would have agreed with. You said they need to "watch their backs for women like this", which implies something far more sinister.

EDIT: Chris, I hope I'm reading you incorrectly. From here, it looks like you're saying "They got away with it before, so despite it being a flagrant breach of the convention's policy they should continue to get away with it indefinitely." Please correct me.

[Valthazar]

Stop trying to shift the focus. I am not becoming defensive - rather the opposite. I am asking you to defend your frankly ridiculous assertions. You have claimed that most times men make offensive or sexist remarks, they wind up in trouble for it; I am asking you for some tiny shred of evidence that this is anything remotely approaching the case.

And no, you didn't say they need to watch what they say - that I would have agreed with. You said they need to "watch their backs for women like this", which implies something far more sinister.

EDIT: Chris, I hope I'm reading you incorrectly. From here, it looks like you're saying "They got away with it before, so despite it being a flagrant breach of the convention's policy they should continue to get away with it indefinitely." Please correct me.

Ephiral, you are assuming a lot of things that I have not at all said.

All I'm saying is, casual jokes may be accidentally misconstrued by some people.  For example, my buddy could tell me that, "I don't have the balls to do something" as a harmless joke, and I even have a female friend who goes around telling her male friends that they don't have the balls to do things.  Sure, maybe it wasn't in good taste, but it's harmless remark nonetheless.

Unfortunately, some individuals may decide to prosecute such a statement as being sexist in nature.  That is what I meant by "watching one's back." 

[Ephiral]

Ephiral, you are assuming a lot of things that I have not at all said.

Really? You didn't say this, then?

If it's the other way around, the man is usually screwed.

Emphasis mine. Are you seriously asserting that these are not your words?

All I'm saying is, casual jokes may be accidentally misconstrued by some people.  For example, my buddy could tell me that, "I don't have the balls to do something" as a harmless joke, and I even have a female friend who goes around telling her male friends that they don't have the balls to do things.  Sure, maybe it wasn't in good taste, but it's harmless remark nonetheless.

Unfortunately, some individuals may decide to prosecute such a statement as being sexist in nature.  That is what I meant by "watching one's back."

And you have an example of a statement that mild and self-referential (as opposed to telling a woman "You can't do this because you don't have the balls, sweetheart.") actually being prosecuted as sexual harassment? Ever? Please show me, or admit that this is ridiculous hyperbole. Either one.

[Chris Brady]

EDIT: Chris, I hope I'm reading you incorrectly. From here, it looks like you're saying "They got away with it before, so despite it being a flagrant breach of the convention's policy they should continue to get away with it indefinitely." Please correct me.

I guess I just don't see it as that big a 'breach'.  Maybe I'm too laissez faire about these things, to be honest.

Them keep getting away with it?  No, they got called out for it, good.  But there's a good chance they DID get away with it for several years.  And frankly, forgive me, but as I said, the more I think on it, the less I think it should have caused such an uproar.  Maybe some disciplinary action should have been called for, but losing their JOBS?  And in this financial climate?

People make inappropriate comments all the time, some are worse than others.  But truth be told, I'd be more upset at these guys if they were being blatantly sexist, as in making fun of women in their workplace.  But they weren't.  They were making dick jokes to each other, and I'm going to make the assumption that they didn't think that they were being that 'bad', hell they probably didn't think anyone was going to overhear them.

Conventions are pretty noisy, you hear and mishear things all the time.

Also, I've had more women tell me dick jokes than guys, over the years, so I guess my perception of this is skewed.

And the other issue I'm having right now, which is only tangentially related to this is I'm sitting here alone, and I'm saying 'Don't be a dick.'  then I go and mentally say, 'Don't be a cunt.'

But the moment I use cunt, even to myself, red flags are going up in my head, and I'm uncomfortable.  And I don't know why.  I mean, both words are being used to mean the same thing (being a jerk), and both describe the appropriate, if crude, genitalia, but for some reason cunt is somehow more offensive.  To me.

And I'm literally sitting here wondering why.

[Ephiral]

I guess I just don't see it as that big a 'breach'.  Maybe I'm too laissez faire about these things, to be honest.

Some context: The tech industry is an environment where flagrant sexism - including, in some cases, near-constant 'jokes' of this variety - freezes women out and makes them feel uncomfortable. This conference was specifically taking measures to try to prevent that. In that context, and given that they were supposed to be in a professional setting... yes, it was noteworthy.

Them keep getting away with it?  No, they got called out for it, good.  But there's a good chance they DID get away with it for several years.  And frankly, forgive me, but as I said, the more I think on it, the less I think it should have caused such an uproar.  Maybe some disciplinary action should have been called for, but losing their JOBS?  And in this financial climate?

I think the firing (singular, AFAIK, which seems to indicate that this incident was not the sole factor) was an overreaction, barring any other justification. But why is it that his firing was out of line, while people defend her firing in response to the howling 4chan mob, all because she asked the convention to enforce its stated policy?

People make inappropriate comments all the time, some are worse than others.  But truth be told, I'd be more upset at these guys if they were being blatantly sexist, as in making fun of women in their workplace.  But they weren't.  They were making dick jokes to each other, and I'm going to make the assumption that they didn't think that they were being that 'bad', hell they probably didn't think anyone was going to overhear them.

Creating an environment in which women can't feel comfortable - for instance, making sure they can't get through a day without an unwelcome sexual remark - is still sexism.

Also, I've had more women tell me dick jokes than guys, over the years, so I guess my perception of this is skewed.

How many of these were in a professional context?

And the other issue I'm having right now, which is only tangentially related to this is I'm sitting here alone, and I'm saying 'Don't be a dick.'  then I go and mentally say, 'Don't be a cunt.'

But the moment I use cunt, even to myself, red flags are going up in my head, and I'm uncomfortable.  And I don't know why.  I mean, both words are being used to mean the same thing (being a jerk), and both describe the appropriate, if crude, genitalia, but for some reason cunt is somehow more offensive.  To me.

And I'm literally sitting here wondering why.

Because 'cunt' is, historically, used as a demeaning and hateful term toward women, used to disparage them specifically because of their sex and its associated stereotypes. Yes, it seems like a double-standard, but that's only because there's a double-standard in the historical usage of the terms.

EDIT: I do want to take a moment to thank you for expanding on your position in a thoughtful and reasonable manner. I still seem to disagree with you on some key points, but I appreciate the response to my request.

[Sethala]

I think the firing (singular, AFAIK, which seems to indicate that this incident was not the sole factor) was an overreaction, barring any other justification. But why is it that his firing was out of line, while people defend her firing in response to the howling 4chan mob, all because she asked the convention to enforce its stated policy?

Only one of the men in question was fired, yes (Adria was too, to be clear), but it's worth noting that only one of them was actually saying the joke.  (As an aside, someone claiming to be the guy that was fired posting on Hacker News clarified that the "forking a repo" was entirely intended as a non-sexual compliment, akin to complimenting a brewer by saying "I'd like to have a drink with him", so the only sexual joke was the one about a "big dongle").  The other man in question was simply hearing it, which isn't something you can get in trouble for, so it makes sense that only one of them got fired.

As another aside, I did hear a few snippets on youtube comments saying that he was actually re-hired, but I couldn't find any source, so it might not be true.

[Callie Del Noire]

...or you're a man, so you notice the occasions when men are actually called on this kind of shit, and confirmation bias does the rest. I know which possibility I'm putting my money on.

Having been called up on the carpet for being sexist and only a sterling rep and another SENIOR FEMALE superior stand up for me, it's not always confirmation bias. Had the female in question not openly stated she was going to put me and two other senior petty officers 'in our place' I'd have lost a stripe for it. 

I have to deal with both sides of the deal.  I've been accused and I had to put charges to someone. A senior petty officer who WAS being a sexist prick to my trainee. I've also had female workers to slide charges by. Just like I've had black workers acuse me of racism cause 'he's a cracker!'

[Ephiral]

Only one of the men in question was fired, yes (Adria was too, to be clear), but it's worth noting that only one of them was actually saying the joke.  (As an aside, someone claiming to be the guy that was fired posting on Hacker News clarified that the "forking a repo" was entirely intended as a non-sexual compliment, akin to complimenting a brewer by saying "I'd like to have a drink with him", so the only sexual joke was the one about a "big dongle").  The other man in question was simply hearing it, which isn't something you can get in trouble for, so it makes sense that only one of them got fired.

I am skeptical of the defense of the forking comments, but willing to accept it weakly. It is possible to use it in this way, yes. It's also certainly possible for it to be sexualized, and it's not like we've got any impartial party weighing in - or even the actual wording or context. As to the reason only one was fired... this makes sense, yes.

[Sethala]

I am skeptical of the defense of the forking comments, but willing to accept it weakly. It is possible to use it in this way, yes. It's also certainly possible for it to be sexualized, and it's not like we've got any impartial party weighing in - or even the actual wording or context. As to the reason only one was fired... this makes sense, yes.

Perhaps, but I managed to find the post again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681

Edit: Probably should note that while some of the comments can be insightful, a lot of them can be pretty vitriolic as well.  Reader beware.  Also, Adria put up her own response to his response, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047.  Same warning about harsh comments.

[Ephiral]

Perhaps, but I managed to find the post again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681

Edit: Probably should note that while some of the comments can be insightful, a lot of them can be pretty vitriolic as well.  Reader beware.  Also, Adria put up her own response to his response, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047.  Same warning about harsh comments.

...having read that, I'm willing to accept his explanation, but not the unfortunate attitude about how she got him fired. His employer chose to fire him; the closest she came to having anything to do with that outcome (which she explicitly did not want or seek in any way) was documenting his poor behaviour.

[Chris Brady]

How many of these were in a professional context?

All of them, I didn't interact with them outside of my work place.  A computer tech center for Hewlett Packard Handhelds and Laptops.

EDIT: I do want to take a moment to thank you for expanding on your position in a thoughtful and reasonable manner. I still seem to disagree with you on some key points, but I appreciate the response to my request.

I try to be as amenable as possible.  I know that people have had different experiences than mine, and for some odd reason, mine seem to be different than most other people.

Now that I think on it, it might just be I'm more willing to call it out.  Personal experience, of course, nothing verifiable.

[Ephiral]

All of them, I didn't interact with them outside of my work place.  A computer tech center for Hewlett Packard Handhelds and Laptops.

Then those were highly questionable at best, too.

[consortium11]

In all honesty I struggle to get particularly motivated either way on this controversy.

Basically because I think the eventual end result is basically right.

Two gentlemen are involved in a conversation with a sexual element/humour which is in direct contravention of the convention rules. More than that it made at least one of the people in the vicinity uncomfortable. That's the sort of behaviour that should be pointed out... and pointed out why it's wrong. Now, losing your job may be a seemingly harsh punishment for what was little more than some crude humour between friends but the reality is that's the risk that people face in a professional event such as this (and despite their reputation as being a bit of a jolly, conventions are a professional environment). I've worked as a lawyer at a high profile corporate firm; they wouldn't care if I got drunk and made a bit of an arse out of myself on my own time (within reason). If I was at an event where I was representing the firm on the other hand...

But Ms. Richards didn't either point out the behaviour at the time or, if she was unwilling or uncomfortable mentioning it to the pair directly, telling the convention staff about it. She instead publicly named and shamed them without the pair having a chance to explain or apologise (hence the slight argument about what was meant by "forking"). She essentially set herself up in a sort of martyr position (and quotes like "Yesterday the future of programming was on the line and I made myself heard" certainly fall into that category). I'm somewhat reluctant to say "she handled it badly" or other such wording because it falls dangerously close to the tone argument. However, from what I understand of her job role, she needs to have the trust and respect of the development community. The way she publicly named and shamed the pair meant she lost that and so I'm not outraged that she in turn lost her job.

Just to mention one thing that I dislike in the discussions.

A lot of people have been bringing up the fact that she herself has made dick-jokes in the semi-public (and also semi-professional) world of twitter. I can't see the relevance outside of a cheap way to do ad-hominum attacks ("OMG hypocrite!" and the like). I don't believe it's either controversial or anything but common sense that people may be happy to use certain terminology or a certain type of humour in one place with one group of people that they wouldn't in set of circumstances. To take the most obvious one, a number of minorities have at least attempted to reclaim words that were traditionally used as insults against them. The most obvious is the n-word and the way its become almost a term of endearment in certain circles... but the same could be said for "bitch", "fag" (to even things as mundane as "geek" or "nerd") or countless others. I think we can all see that because someone is happy for their friends to call them the n-word (or even a wider view where they wouldn't object to any black person using it) they would if a white person did.

Adria was comfortable exchanging dick jokes with someone she knew in a certain context (although if someone who read the exchange had been offended they'd have been perfectly entitled to point it out). The fact that she wasn't comfortable overhearing dick jokes in a different context is in no way hypocritical of that... and she was perfectly entitled to point it out.

[Ephiral]

But Ms. Richards didn't either point out the behaviour at the time or, if she was unwilling or uncomfortable mentioning it to the pair directly, telling the convention staff about it. She instead publicly named and shamed them without the pair having a chance to explain or apologise (hence the slight argument about what was meant by "forking"). She essentially set herself up in a sort of martyr position (and quotes like "Yesterday the future of programming was on the line and I made myself heard" certainly fall into that category). I'm somewhat reluctant to say "she handled it badly" or other such wording because it falls dangerously close to the tone argument. However, from what I understand of her job role, she needs to have the trust and respect of the development community. The way she publicly named and shamed the pair meant she lost that and so I'm not outraged that she in turn lost her job.

Curiosity here: Given that the only contact info available for staff was phone numbers, how was she supposed to have notified them without rudely leaving in the middle of the presentation or even more rudely whipping out her phone and talking on it?

[consortium11]

Curiosity here: Given that the only contact info available for staff was phone numbers, how was she supposed to have notified them without rudely leaving in the middle of the presentation or even more rudely whipping out her phone and talking on it?

1) Wait till the end of the presentation and inform them in person.

2) Text message

3) Direct message on Twitter

4) Email (about 20 seconds on their website brought up this list of contact details)

5) Public tweet without any specific details of the pair asking for someone to contact her.

That's basically off the top of my head...

[Endorphin]

That incident is such a sad reflection on society.

[Ephiral]

1) Wait till the end of the presentation and inform them in person.

Which does what to solve the currently-unfolding problem?

2) Text message

Assuming those numbers are cell phones, which they may or may not be.

3) Direct message on Twitter

Was unaware that Twitter allows this, actually. Perhaps this would have been better.

4) Email (about 20 seconds on their website brought up this list of contact details)

Which was there at the time? Not the impression I was given earlier.

5) Public tweet without any specific details of the pair asking for someone to contact her.

...which would, I'm sure, have gotten timely and serious attention. Right.

[consortium11]

Which does what to solve the currently-unfolding problem?

But the problem wasn't unfolding. It had unfolded. The pair cracked their jokes (and from what we know then stopped). Ms Richards waited until a natural break in proceedings (the end of an introduction), stood up and took the photo. She then waited a little more and then sent the tweet. A few minutes later some staff came to her, they went outside and had a conversation, they came back in, she pointed out the pair and they were then escorted out. The "jokes" (and I use the term loosely) were by all accounts done and dusted by then.

Assuming those numbers are cell phones, which they may or may not be.

But they may have been (and Ms Richard's has spoken about exchanging text messages with conference staff). More, there's no indication that she ever thought about doing anything but tweeting.

Was unaware that Twitter allows this, actually. Perhaps this would have been better.

I believe both participants have to follow each other to be able to send DMs, so it may or may not have been a practical option,

Which was there at the time? Not the impression I was given earlier.

The website doesn't appear to have been updated since prior to the event (hence why there's a reference to sorting out visas on there).

...which would, I'm sure, have gotten timely and serious attention. Right.

I think if someone sent a tweet along the lines of "Why are @PyCon allowing blatant sexism and misogyny in the conference; who do I talk to about this #pycon" would have got someone from pycon's attention pretty quickly.

[Caehlim]

I don't mind crude humour and if they had been just joking about having a big dongle then I would be fine with that personally. However they were allegedly joking about how they'd like to "fork" a particular person with their "big dongle" and to me that crosses a line into an inappropriate area.

Then on the other side, publicly posting a person's photo online without their permission is a huge breach of a person's privacy. This is also inappropriate behaviour.

I think all parties involved acted very poorly indeed, however I have a lot of sympathy for Adria Richard's point of view here. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm aggravated that the person they were talking about was there simply to do a presentation of some sort and was viewed as a purely sexual object. I think that this does create a barrier for women to enter technological fields.

I do not think this justifies her actions though.

[Ephiral]

But the problem wasn't unfolding. It had unfolded. The pair cracked their jokes (and from what we know then stopped). Ms Richards waited until a natural break in proceedings (the end of an introduction), stood up and took the photo. She then waited a little more and then sent the tweet. A few minutes later some staff came to her, they went outside and had a conversation, they came back in, she pointed out the pair and they were then escorted out. The "jokes" (and I use the term loosely) were by all accounts done and dusted by then.

If someone was still made uncomfortable, then the situation was still unfolding. Not until that was dealt with is it over.

But they may have been (and Ms Richard's has spoken about exchanging text messages with conference staff). More, there's no indication that she ever thought about doing anything but tweeting.

So your ideal response is "Fire messages that may or may not be received and are not documented off, then sit and wait for something to happen"? Seems like a poor way to get things done.

I believe both participants have to follow each other to be able to send DMs, so it may or may not have been a practical option,

...striking the only less-public option likely to get a quick response from the list. What are the chances that an event feed is following every attending employee of every sponsor?

The website doesn't appear to have been updated since prior to the event (hence why there's a reference to sorting out visas on there).

Here I know you're wrong, as there has been a policy update since.

I think if someone sent a tweet along the lines of "Why are @PyCon allowing blatant sexism and misogyny in the conference; who do I talk to about this #pycon" would have got someone from pycon's attention pretty quickly.

Maybe. Or maybe it would have been written off as generalized bitching and not a specific currently-ongoing issue, and swept under the rug. All too common.

The story here is that she asked the conference to enforce its policy, in a specific and practical manner that happened to include publicly available documentation. This is not wrong. The firings were - but hers more so than his, given that this is the action that led to her firing. Why is his the one that is called out as shameful, and hers defended as just? Why is every action she took at any point prior, during, or afterward under intense scrutiny for any excuse to justify what happened to her, when we don't even get his name?

Then on the other side, publicly posting a person's photo online without their permission is a huge breach of a person's privacy. This is also inappropriate behaviour.

No, no it isn't. He had zero reasonable expectation of privacy. I reiterate: If you don't want to be publicly shamed, maybe you shouldn't do something you're ashamed of in public.

[Kythia]

Here I know you're wrong, as there has been a policy update since.

Just for the record, according to the wayback machine there were emails on the website on Jan 22nd, so long before the incident - http://web.archive.org/web/20130122045437/https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/staff/

[Ephiral]

Just for the record, according to the wayback machine there were emails on the website on Jan 22nd, so long before the incident - http://web.archive.org/web/20130122045437/https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/staff/

Then I stand corrected on this point. I know that, in her position, I'd be uncomfortable using email as a channel, though - there are a lot of cases of conventions - even ones that claim to be trying to raise female participation! - that have swept incidents for which no public documentation was available under the rug, or pretended afterward they didn't happen. (I'm looking at you, TAM.) Perhaps this affected her choice of medium?

[Kythia]

Oh yeah, Im not making any point about whether she should have used email or whatever, just clearing up a point of discussion.

[Sethala]

I don't mind crude humour and if they had been just joking about having a big dongle then I would be fine with that personally. However they were allegedly joking about how they'd like to "fork" a particular person with their "big dongle" and to me that crosses a line into an inappropriate area.

Then on the other side, publicly posting a person's photo online without their permission is a huge breach of a person's privacy. This is also inappropriate behaviour.

I think all parties involved acted very poorly indeed, however I have a lot of sympathy for Adria Richard's point of view here. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm aggravated that the person they were talking about was there simply to do a presentation of some sort and was viewed as a purely sexual object. I think that this does create a barrier for women to enter technological fields.

I do not think this justifies her actions though.

I want to note that, as far as I can tell, Adria was the only female party that was actually involved in anything.  The speaker onstage when everything happened is male, and while the gender of the speaker that the two men were referring to in Adria's recollection of events wasn't specified, I would find it highly unlikely that she would omit a detail like that if they were talking about a female presenter.  So there wasn't any particular person that was being objectified. 

The story here is that she asked the conference to enforce its policy, in a specific and practical manner that happened to include publicly available documentation. This is not wrong. The firings were - but hers more so than his, given that this is the action that led to her firing. Why is his the one that is called out as shameful, and hers defended as just? Why is every action she took at any point prior, during, or afterward under intense scrutiny for any excuse to justify what happened to her, when we don't even get his name?

Personally, I would think that sending a picture text message to the staff would be far more effective than posting it on twitter and hoping to get a response.  She had the phone numbers of staff, and I highly doubt they'd give individual peoples' phone numbers if they were landlines.  (It's also clear that her phone is able to send picture messages, since she's able to post a picture to Twitter from it, so that's not an issue.)

Regardless of what the proper procedure would have been to alert staff to the men making jokes, what I don't get is why is it acceptable to then make a lengthy blog post calling him out on his actions?  I'm not completely convinced that tweeting his picture was the best way to do things, but I'm willing to accept it's not as bad as I first thought and it's a reasonable step to take.  I'm also willing to accept things if she later contacted PlayHaven's HR department to lodge a formal complaint with the company about his actions - it's clear that he was there in an official manner and that he should be considered as "working", so his actions reflect on his company and he should be held responsible for them.  If PlayHaven had fired him after discreetly being told about his actions, I'd also be fine with that - in that case, it would be a matter between PlayHaven and the man himself, and while it would be influenced by Adria's complaint, it would be entirely up to company policy.

After a public shaming like this however, it's not up to the company's own policies and procedures.  It's up to their PR department, and Adria is using her political clout to force them to take action when they might not have otherwise.  A post like that, calling them out for their actions and calling out their company, puts the company in a very tight position that is difficult to simply ignore.

[Caehlim]

No, no it isn't. He had zero reasonable expectation of privacy. I reiterate: If you don't want to be publicly shamed, maybe you shouldn't do something you're ashamed of in public.

So you believe that it is appropriate to take photos of people in public places and report a conversation you overheard being undertaken with someone else to the entire planet?

I don't. I guess we're just not going to agree on this one.

[Caehlim]

I want to note that, as far as I can tell, Adria was the only female party that was actually involved in anything.  The speaker onstage when everything happened is male, and while the gender of the speaker that the two men were referring to in Adria's recollection of events wasn't specified, I would find it highly unlikely that she would omit a detail like that if they were talking about a female presenter.  So there wasn't any particular person that was being objectified.

Oh sorry, I misinterpreted the original article. I just reread it and I see where I went wrong.

So... wait... where's the sexism? I don't get it. What's she complaining about?

[Kythia]

Yeah, just been reading some blog articles and whatnot about this.

Her tweet was a general one, not directed at PyCon, I think the argument that she was using that to file a report is weakened by the utter lack of any @PyCon or similar - anything to suggest she was aiming it at them.  Further she states in her blog post that she then text messaged the staff.  What, then, was the point of tweeting? And the fact they saw it without it being directed at them means they were following her (as I understand it) so the direct message was an option.

Further even if there is some point to the tweet that I don't see, what was the point of the photo?  She could simply have given her location, she mentions that one of the staff came to her and she pointed the two of them out.  There's no benefit to including the photo other than to cause a fuss.

I actually am beginning to agree with Louise.

Obviously the vitriol being directed at her is waaaay over the top and somewhat worrying.  And, as mentioned earlier, two wrongs certainly don't make a right.  But I can't see any real argument for her having acted sensibly or professionally here.

This was relatively interesting.  It points out that her self-congratulatory blog posts ends with the message that it only takes three words to make a difference - "Thats not cool" - but she did nothing like that at all.

[Ephiral]

Personally, I would think that sending a picture text message to the staff would be far more effective than posting it on twitter and hoping to get a response.  She had the phone numbers of staff, and I highly doubt they'd give individual peoples' phone numbers if they were landlines.  (It's also clear that her phone is able to send picture messages, since she's able to post a picture to Twitter from it, so that's not an issue.)

You are apparently unfamiliar with the phenomenon - which I have already mentioned in this thread - of convention staff pretending that incidents did not happen when there is not clear and public documentation. As to those phone numbers: There's no such thing as an office number?

Regardless of what the proper procedure would have been to alert staff to the men making jokes, what I don't get is why is it acceptable to then make a lengthy blog post calling him out on his actions?  I'm not completely convinced that tweeting his picture was the best way to do things, but I'm willing to accept it's not as bad as I first thought and it's a reasonable step to take.  I'm also willing to accept things if she later contacted PlayHaven's HR department to lodge a formal complaint with the company about his actions - it's clear that he was there in an official manner and that he should be considered as "working", so his actions reflect on his company and he should be held responsible for them.  If PlayHaven had fired him after discreetly being told about his actions, I'd also be fine with that - in that case, it would be a matter between PlayHaven and the man himself, and while it would be influenced by Adria's complaint, it would be entirely up to company policy.

Because we can't move toward social justice if we can't talk about it publicly. Or are you saying that there is no issue with sexism in the tech industry? I found some of the ways she patted herself on the back distasteful, but talking about the incident at all? That's perfectly reasonable and, frankly, expected.

Important note you don't seem to be getting: She did not want anyone fired. Or, in fact, any action taken beyond what the PyCon staff did. She has publicly expressed her regret that this is what happened. So no, going to Playhaven's HR department wasn't even in the cards.

After a public shaming like this however, it's not up to the company's own policies and procedures.  It's up to their PR department, and Adria is using her political clout to force them to take action when they might not have otherwise.  A post like that, calling them out for their actions and calling out their company, puts the company in a very tight position that is difficult to simply ignore.

Which is why only one of the two individuals she put in the spotlight and did not distinguish between was fired, right?

So you believe that it is appropriate to take photos of people in public places and report a conversation you overheard being undertaken with someone else to the entire planet?

I don't. I guess we're just not going to agree on this one.

If it's in a public place, sure. This is a well-established legal and ethical principle at this point, and I'm sure a GIS for "public" would turn up millions of pictures of people who never gave explicit consent that were considered completely unremarkable. But this one is completely unacceptable, because the people she took the picture of were involved in actions they're embarrassed about that were in violation of stated policies? Bullshit.

So... wait... where's the sexism? I don't get it. What's she complaining about?

1. Once again, flagrant violation of a policy that was explicitly designed with the goal of creating a welcoming environment for women.
2. Regardless of whether they're the direct target, highly sexualized environments tend to make women uncomfortable, because they tend to go poorly for them. This is still sexism. I can't believe this needs explaining.

[Ephiral]

Her tweet was a general one, not directed at PyCon, I think the argument that she was using that to file a report is weakened by the utter lack of any @PyCon or similar - anything to suggest she was aiming it at them.  Further she states in her blog post that she then text messaged the staff.  What, then, was the point of tweeting? And the fact they saw it without it being directed at them means they were following her (as I understand it) so the direct message was an option.

Like the #pycon tag, which was pretty certain to be monitored by staff? As to the point of it: Public documentation makes it so this can't jsut be swept under the rug. This is valuable.

Further even if there is some point to the tweet that I don't see, what was the point of the photo?  She could simply have given her location, she mentions that one of the staff came to her and she pointed the two of them out.  There's no benefit to including the photo other than to cause a fuss.

I actually am beginning to agree with Louise.

Obviously the vitriol being directed at her is waaaay over the top and somewhat worrying.  And, as mentioned earlier, two wrongs certainly don't make a right.  But I can't see any real argument for her having acted sensibly or professionally here.

This was relatively interesting.  It points out that her self-congratulatory blog posts ends with the message that it only takes three words to make a difference - "Thats not cool" - but she did nothing like that at all.

That's... basically what she did. "That's not cool" works (when it works, which is nowhere near as common as it should be - see every instance of a woman speaking out against sexism on the internet ever) precisely because it puts the spotlight on the perpetrators and shames them. Shame is a valid tool to rein in unacceptable behaviour on a social/informal level; it's used all the damn time for all sorts of things. Why is it magically transmuted to inappropriate behaviour when it's a woman talking about sexist behaviour?

[Sethala]

Yeah, just been reading some blog articles and whatnot about this.

Her tweet was a general one, not directed at PyCon, I think the argument that she was using that to file a report is weakened by the utter lack of any @PyCon or similar - anything to suggest she was aiming it at them.  Further she states in her blog post that she then text messaged the staff.  What, then, was the point of tweeting? And the fact they saw it without it being directed at them means they were following her (as I understand it) so the direct message was an option.

Further even if there is some point to the tweet that I don't see, what was the point of the photo?  She could simply have given her location, she mentions that one of the staff came to her and she pointed the two of them out.  There's no benefit to including the photo other than to cause a fuss.

I actually am beginning to agree with Louise.

Obviously the vitriol being directed at her is waaaay over the top and somewhat worrying.  And, as mentioned earlier, two wrongs certainly don't make a right.  But I can't see any real argument for her having acted sensibly or professionally here.

This was relatively interesting.  It points out that her self-congratulatory blog posts ends with the message that it only takes three words to make a difference - "Thats not cool" - but she did nothing like that at all.

Oh, how did I not notice that the tweets weren't directed @PyCon?  (Sidenote for those not used to twitter: If you have part of your message including "@Name", then whoever's name you put in there will see it directly on their twitter feed, no matter if they're following you or not.  Anything with #Something is just a tag that's easy to search for, so PyCon staff would have to actively do a search for the tag in order to see it and respond to it.)  That... changes things significantly for me, honestly, and right now I'm no longer convinced that even tweeting it was the right thing to do, since that's likely not even what got PyCon staff's attention in the first place.

I will say that the picture isn't a bad idea though, as that makes it easier for the staff to find the guy in question and to make sure they don't get the wrong guy that happens to look similar by mistake.  Of course, it should only be shared with the staff (and probably deleted afterwords), not tossed in public.

(And Ephiral put up that post while I was typing this one, replying to it now.)

[Sethala]

You are apparently unfamiliar with the phenomenon - which I have already mentioned in this thread - of convention staff pretending that incidents did not happen when there is not clear and public documentation. As to those phone numbers: There's no such thing as an office number?

If PyCon staff were notified and did nothing, then I would say that putting everything in public, so people could judge both the men making the comments and PyCon staff's lack of action, would be the next step to take.  I think that doing so would actually be far more effective than preemptively going to the public option, because that also puts PyCon in a situation where it's known that they ignored a complaint, and encourages them to make sure it doesn't happen again.  Now, even though they did this action, there's still the threat that the next one that's not publicly announced will go unanswered.

Because we can't move toward social justice if we can't talk about it publicly. Or are you saying that there is no issue with sexism in the tech industry? I found some of the ways she patted herself on the back distasteful, but talking about the incident at all? That's perfectly reasonable and, frankly, expected.

Agreed, but what part of talking about the incident requires putting the picture of the people in question and listing their company in the public space?  It would be just as effective for her to tell the story without pictures and saying that they were from one of the companies sponsoring PyCon without naming it.

Important note you don't seem to be getting: She did not want anyone fired. Or, in fact, any action taken beyond what the PyCon staff did. She has publicly expressed her regret that this is what happened. So no, going to Playhaven's HR department wasn't even in the cards.

Judging from her comments and her complete lack of acknowledging that she may have done anything wrong by putting it in the public, I'm not so sure her regret is genuine, honestly.

Which is why only one of the two individuals she put in the spotlight and did not distinguish between was fired, right?

Answered already, one was telling the joke, the other was listening to it.  Are you honestly going to tell me that someone should be fired because someone else told them a bad joke?

Like the #pycon tag, which was pretty certain to be monitored by staff? As to the point of it: Public documentation makes it so this can't jsut be swept under the rug. This is valuable.

A tweet directed at PyCon would have @PyCon, not #PyCon.  They would be actively monitoring tweets to them, not just tweets about them.  If it were one tweet I could see it being a typo or something, but she made three tweets.  (And saying "she didn't know the difference" isn't going to work for someone that has over 10k followers.)

That's... basically what she did. "That's not cool" works (when it works, which is nowhere near as common as it should be - see every instance of a woman speaking out against sexism on the internet ever) precisely because it puts the spotlight on the perpetrators and shames them. Shame is a valid tool to rein in unacceptable behaviour on a social/informal level; it's used all the damn time for all sorts of things. Why is it magically transmuted to inappropriate behaviour when it's a woman talking about sexist behaviour?

Uh, no, that's not what she did.  She went straight to staff (and later, her public blog) without saying anything to the guys.  The only hint she gave them that something was amiss was that she took their picture.  If she did that and they kept making jokes, I'd agree that something else needed to be done.

And there's a world of difference between publicly shaming them by calling them out in person, where only people in earshot could hear, and publicly shaming them online, where anyone with an internet connection can see it.

[Kythia]

Like the #pycon tag, which was pretty certain to be monitored by staff? As to the point of it: Public documentation makes it so this can't jsut be swept under the rug. This is valuable.

Once again, Im not a twitter user myself.  But my understanding from here is that PyCon staff would need to be actively searching for that hashtag (which I agree they probably were) for her tweet to show while an @PyCon would have shown it immediately in their feed.  It would also, my core point, have signalled that she was reporting it to them not to the world at large.  Yes, there is a benefit to public documentation.  But it seems clear the intent was to send a message to the world about whata  crusader she was rather than to send a message to the conference organisers about the problem.  She did that seperately via text message - its not even clear they saw her tweet at all.  Why would they have?  She didn't send it to them, it requires someone searching at that precise moment or soon after to notice it. 

That's... basically what she did. "That's not cool" works (when it works, which is nowhere near as common as it should be - see every instance of a woman speaking out against sexism on the internet ever) precisely because it puts the spotlight on the perpetrators and shames them. Shame is a valid tool to rein in unacceptable behaviour on a social/informal level; it's used all the damn time for all sorts of things. Why is it magically transmuted to inappropriate behaviour when it's a woman talking about sexist behaviour?

I disagree.  I don't think thats what she did at all.  As I see it, they told an inappropriate joke.  One, like I say, I would likely have got fired for had I told.  That's not, for me at least, in question.  It was also against the code of conduct, which is - or should be at least - a secondary point. 

At that point she has a few options.  She could have told them to knock it off, said "thats not cool" or words to that effect.  They probably would have done but yes that takes a certain degree of courage and...errrr... "botheredness" that she might not have had at that precise moment.  I don't criticise her for not doing that so much as I criticise her for, having not done that, finishing her blog post with that homily after having done quite the opposite. 

Shaming does work.  And had she spotted them reading her twitter feed then it would be different.  But they weren't, they were chatting amongst themselves.  They, had this not blown up, might well never even know that the tweet had been sent.  It clearly wasn't aimed at them.  She didn't even tell them she was doing it.  "That's not cool" needs to be said to the person or at least in a way they could possibly know about. 

She didn't say that's not cool, she didn't attempt to shame.  They didn't know it was going on.

[Caehlim]

If it's in a public place, sure. This is a well-established legal and ethical principle at this point, and I'm sure a GIS for "public" would turn up millions of pictures of people who never gave explicit consent that were considered completely unremarkable. But this one is completely unacceptable, because the people she took the picture of were involved in actions they're embarrassed about that were in violation of stated policies? Bullshit.

Yes, we disagree. How could this be made any clearer? I thought I covered this already. I particularly don't appreciate you swearing at me based on our holding different moral values.

1. Once again, flagrant violation of a policy that was explicitly designed with the goal of creating a welcoming environment for women.

The design goals of policies are irrelevant to whether an action is sexist.

2. Regardless of whether they're the direct target, highly sexualized environments tend to make women uncomfortable, because they tend to go poorly for them. This is still sexism. I can't believe this needs explaining.

I don't agree. I know plenty of women who enjoy crass and profane conversations, many of whom would be offended by being typecast by their gender in such a fashion. I also know many men who would be uncomfortable in such an environment.

The convention is welcome to adopt its code of conduct as it sees fit, and I certainly have no objection to it enforcing a professional standard of behaviour in which all its participants have a safe environment in which to interact.

However I fail to understand how this is in any way sexist.

[Ephiral]

Oh, how did I not notice that the tweets weren't directed @PyCon?  (Sidenote for those not used to twitter: If you have part of your message including "@Name", then whoever's name you put in there will see it directly on their twitter feed, no matter if they're following you or not.  Anything with #Something is just a tag that's easy to search for, so PyCon staff would have to actively do a search for the tag in order to see it and respond to it.)  That... changes things significantly for me, honestly, and right now I'm no longer convinced that even tweeting it was the right thing to do, since that's likely not even what got PyCon staff's attention in the first place.

A couple important notes: 1. @PyCon is by far not the only account associated with PyCon staff. The hashtag casts a wider net. 2. It is a matter of public record that a PyCon staffer responded to her within nine minutes of the first tweet. I find it strikingly likely that the twitter post is what garnered this response - and you'll notice that it wasn't from the @PyCon account, and thus wouldn't have happened as quickly if she'd just aimed it there.

Agreed, but what part of talking about the incident requires putting the picture of the people in question and listing their company in the public space?  It would be just as effective for her to tell the story without pictures and saying that they were from one of the companies sponsoring PyCon without naming it.

Requires? Nothing. Forbids? Nothing. They were in a public space as public representatives of their company.

Judging from her comments and her complete lack of acknowledging that she may have done anything wrong by putting it in the public, I'm not so sure her regret is genuine, honestly.

And yet you accept the perpetrator's defense of his remarks, in the same space and with no more evidence? Why?

Answered already, one was telling the joke, the other was listening to it.  Are you honestly going to tell me that someone should be fired because someone else told them a bad joke?

No. I don't think anyone should have been fired. My point was that she cannot have forced them to fire one and not the other, because she took no action that distinguished in any way between the two.

A tweet directed at PyCon would have @PyCon, not #PyCon.  They would be actively monitoring tweets to them, not just tweets about them.  If it were one tweet I could see it being a typo or something, but she made three tweets.  (And saying "she didn't know the difference" isn't going to work for someone that has over 10k followers.)

Addressed above. It cast a wider net - which was actually directly effective in this case. Please actually look at the first tweet and its first response.

Uh, no, that's not what she did.  She went straight to staff (and later, her public blog) without saying anything to the guys.  The only hint she gave them that something was amiss was that she took their picture.  If she did that and they kept making jokes, I'd agree that something else needed to be done.

Note that there's no mention of taking someone aside and saying that's not cool. The point isn't to give someone a deep explanation of social justice causes they're not likely to care about, it's to make everyone present understand that this behaviour is cause for rejection. It is a public shaming tactic, because shaming is a valuable tool in this sort of context. What she did was public shaming - the exact same strategy, tactics modified for the environment she found herself in.

And there's a world of difference between publicly shaming them by calling them out in person, where only people in earshot could hear, and publicly shaming them online, where anyone with an internet connection can see it.

And if she'd done it in person, she'd have been "that bitch who wouldn't shut up and let those poor put-upon men hear the presentation they came for". Assuming anybody noticed or cared at all.

Yes, we disagree. How could this be made any clearer? I thought I covered this already. I particularly don't appreciate you swearing at me based on our holding different moral values.

The point isn't that we hold different moral values, it's that two different moral standards are being applied on your side of the argument - one for Adria Richards, one for everybody else who has ever taken a picture in an active public place.

The design goals of policies are irrelevant to whether an action is sexist.

It's pretty relevant to "what she was complaining about", which I'm pretty sure is a question you asked.

I don't agree. I know plenty of women who enjoy crass and profane conversations, many of whom would be offended by being typecast by their gender in such a fashion. I also know many men who would be uncomfortable in such an environment.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Perhaps there are women who enjoy dealing with strangers creating highly sexualized environments when they just came to do some work. Given the ridiculously low presence of women in these spaces, and the way the numbers tend strongly to improve when steps are taken to address this (of which PyCon itself is an example), I would say they're not representative of the larger group.

The convention is welcome to adopt its code of conduct as it sees fit, and I certainly have no objection to it enforcing a professional standard of behaviour in which all its participants have a safe environment in which to interact.

However I fail to understand how this is in any way sexist.

You honestly don't see how behaviour that falls into a pattern with a well-documented track record of driving away hugely significant portions of one gender is sexist?

EDIT: Important detail: On review of the four original tweets... I'll have to ask you to point out what makes you think her original complaint was "This is sexist!" and not "This is sexualized and not cool, and in violation of policy!".

[Skynet]

I've followed the PyCon thing briefly.  From my understanding, the con made a recent zero-tolerance policy against crude sexual jokes, and attendants were forewarned.  So the guys making dongle jokes were making a foolish risk.

On the other hand, posting their pictures online through a publicly-accessible Twitter feed was a bad way of handling things.  When the staff responded, the picture should have been taken down once the issue was resolved (can you do that on Twitter?).

I don't think that anybody should have been fired, and all parties over-reacted.

But the parties I have the most disdain for are the Reddit MRAs and 4chan-based harassers who flooded Ardria's Twitter with obscene and threatening comments in an attempt to silence her.  I also think it's strange that she's decried as a feminist when I haven't seen her identify herself as one at any point (Probably another case of MRAs slinging it around as an insult to any 'uppity' woman).

I think it's not good that Richard's company appeared to cave in to anonymous Internet threats, and it appears that their decision to fire here was made on this basis.

[Kythia]

A couple important notes: 1. @PyCon is by far not the only account associated with PyCon staff. The hashtag casts a wider net. 2. It is a matter of public record that a PyCon staffer responded to her within nine minutes of the first tweet. I find it strikingly likely that the twitter post is what garnered this response - and you'll notice that it wasn't from the @PyCon account, and thus wouldn't have happened as quickly if she'd just aimed it there.

Once again, she texted them.  She sent them a text message.  I find it strikingly likely it was THAT that got their attention, when their pocket started ringing rather than, bu sheerest fluke, they happened to do a search within that nine minute period.

[Ephiral]

Once again, she texted them.  She sent them a text message.  I find it strikingly likely it was THAT that got their attention, when their pocket started ringing rather than, bu sheerest fluke, they happened to do a search within that nine minute period.

I don't, since Noah Kantrowitz isn't on the list of contact numbers.

EDIT: And it's hardly unknown for event staffers to maintain active monitoring of relevant hashtags precisely so they can stay on top of issues and make sure they're maintaining a positive vibe at their events.

[consortium11]

If someone was still made uncomfortable, then the situation was still unfolding. Not until that was dealt with is it over.

I'm struggling with your argument.

In your original reply to me you essentially wrote off the option of going to talk to a member of staff at the time because it would be rude. Of course, that is actually what happened... following the tweet staff came to talk to her, they left the presentation, had a conversation, came back in and removed the pair.

So by sending the tweet all she did is delay, in your words, "rudely leaving in the middle of the presentation".

There was a natural break in the presentation, which was the time she stood up and took the photo. If standing up and taking a photo isn't rude then neither is leaving... or simply attracting the attention of a member of staff.

Moreover, did the fact that the two were removed suddenly make Ms Richard's comfortable with the fact they'd been speaking in such a manner? Is she comfortable with it now? If defining an event as unfolding is based on the victim feeling comfortable then when exactly does any even fully unfold?

So your ideal response is "Fire messages that may or may not be received and are not documented off, then sit and wait for something to happen"? Seems like a poor way to get things done.

1) It's not my ideal response. It's one that I very quickly thought of. My own preference would have been to talk to the two directly or, if I wasn't comfortable doing that, talking to a member of staff directly.

2) Text messages can quite easily be documented.

3) Her eventual response was to do something that she wasn't certain to be picked up and then sit and wait for something to happen.

4) Beyond that... she did actually text Pycon staff and get a response, if her blog posting on the events are accurate. Its simply that she decided to supplement it with some twitterverse shaming (without the two gentlemen being away).

...striking the only less-public option likely to get a quick response from the list. What are the chances that an event feed is following every attending employee of every sponsor?

I don't know if she was being followed back by any staff members at Pycon. She may well have been. It was still an option that she didn't take. Not using @pycon and instead using the hashtag seems to indicate she was less interested in having Pycon be aware of it then she was in letting everyone else know.

Here I know you're wrong, as there has been a policy update since.

So the website has been updated since. I didn't check the code of conduct and any updates; I went straight for the emails.

Are you alleging that these have all only been added after the fact?

Maybe. Or maybe it would have been written off as generalized bitching and not a specific currently-ongoing issue, and swept under the rug. All too common.

Or Pycon, who according to Ms Richards, have a pretty good of dealing with such things, would have picked it up and dealt with it.

Would the response have been much different from their side if she had sent the exact same tweet without the photo?

[Kythia]

Sorry, Im very confused by your point.  You seem to be suggesting that the PyCon staff don't have any ability to talk to each other - to say "Just got this text.  Hop on twitter and see whats going on."   

Further, Noah's number is on the list of contact, the one here which is specufucally linked from the code of conduct "reporting harassment" page.  He is the "Tech Co Lead", apparently.

[Caehlim]

Ephiral, I'm not responding to that post because I believe that you're making a strawman of my opinions to argue against. You have no idea what my stance is on public photos, you've never asked. You're objecting to my anecdote which was in response to an anecdote from you. I also perceive a tone underlying many points of your post that you believe or wish to imply that I am lying.

I can understand getting caught up in a spirited debate, but I don't want to be a part of this one. It's getting a bit too heated and unpleasant for me.

[Sethala]

A couple important notes: 1. @PyCon is by far not the only account associated with PyCon staff. The hashtag casts a wider net. 2. It is a matter of public record that a PyCon staffer responded to her within nine minutes of the first tweet. I find it strikingly likely that the twitter post is what garnered this response - and you'll notice that it wasn't from the @PyCon account, and thus wouldn't have happened as quickly if she'd just aimed it there.

Fair point, I didn't notice the response to that.  (Sidenote: how do you bring up a separate page for a tweet and all responses to it?).  I still think it would have been better to include "@PyCon" as well, as she had plenty of space for it and it's still possible for other accounts to search for tweets directed at someone, so whoever was monitoring the hashtag could be monitoring tweets to PyCon directly as well.

Requires? Nothing. Forbids? Nothing. They were in a public space as public representatives of their company.

Yet they were talking quietly amongst themselves, not broadcasting loud enough for the entire internet (or even the entire room) to hear.  And I would say that "common decency" would be enough of a reason to forbid something like this.  Apparently I have different standards for what passes for decency here.

And yet you accept the perpetrator's defense of his remarks, in the same space and with no more evidence? Why?

Which defense have I accepted?  Just him saying that the forking comment wasn't sexual?  That's nowhere near as significant of a claim, especially since he's also admitting that the dongle joke was sexual and in bad form.  As for apology, he's directly said he's sorry he made the comment.  Nowhere has Adria said she's sorry she called him out in public (at least nowhere I've seen).

No. I don't think anyone should have been fired. My point was that she cannot have forced them to fire one and not the other, because she took no action that distinguished in any way between the two.

She did talk to PyCon staff to give them more information, and it's easy enough for the company to have asked them who said what when they were deciding what to do.  I honestly don't see what your point is here though; how is only one of them getting fired any proof that Adria's public shaming had nothing to do with him getting fired?

Note that there's no mention of taking someone aside and saying that's not cool. The point isn't to give someone a deep explanation of social justice causes they're not likely to care about, it's to make everyone present understand that this behaviour is cause for rejection. It is a public shaming tactic, because shaming is a valuable tool in this sort of context. What she did was public shaming - the exact same strategy, tactics modified for the environment she found herself in.

And if she'd done it in person, she'd have been "that bitch who wouldn't shut up and let those poor put-upon men hear the presentation they came for". Assuming anybody noticed or cared at all.

So basically you're saying that everyone who makes a slight faux pas should have their picture plastered on a blog with a caption saying "this guy makes sexist jokes" and then get fired?  I mean, I know I'm kind of setting up a strawman here, but I can't really figure out any other way to read your comments.

[Sethala]

I can understand getting caught up in a spirited debate, but I don't want to be a part of this one. It's getting a bit too heated and unpleasant for me.

That's unfortunate really, I enjoyed your insight on the matter, once the initial misunderstanding was cleared up.  Either way though, thanks for stopping by and giving us your input.

[Ephiral]

Ephiral, I'm not responding to that post because I believe that you're making a strawman of my opinions to argue against. You have no idea what my stance is on public photos, you've never asked. You're objecting to my anecdote which was in response to an anecdote from you. I also perceive a tone underlying many points of your post that you believe or wish to imply that I am lying.

I can understand getting caught up in a spirited debate, but I don't want to be a part of this one. It's getting a bit too heated and unpleasant for me.

And I'm going to step away from this thread for a while. I'm sorry, folks, but the point where I start causing unintentional offense is the point where i need to step back and think for a bit.

[Kythia]

LOL.

And I just came to this thread to give my apologies, specifically to Ephiral but also to everyone else reading.  I feel I got a bit over aggresive there and the embarassing part is I have absolutely no idea why.  Call it the heat of the moment if you will.

Anyway, my apologies to any and all.  'Twas wrong.

K

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Rules of conduct at many conventions and work conduct are quite strict.  For women this has been especially true as nearly every aspect of their dress and mannerisms was dictated to them by policy.  The length of skirt, the type of jewelry and so on were all regulated by agencies so that a woman appeared presentable and did not send out the wrong image.  Few people scoffed at the idea and still do not.  A look at the employee guidelines for many companies will still reveal an extensive policy of dress for female employees and very little for men so long as they are “presentable.”  A woman could be sent home for wearing something she considered fashionable but was considered scandalous by a co-worker.  If said co-worker had taken a picture of the outfit she was wearing and broadcast that out to the internet, would this conversation be happening?

I do agree that the situation was handled poorly.  Still this woman is working in a field known for being sexist and unresponsive to the plight of female employees.  I cannot help but understand why she felt that her issue would be ignored.  From what I am understanding the rules were newly put in place which meant until recently her interaction with such behavior would require such public shaming to have an effect.  So the response, in other gatherings, would be the only one she had at her disposal.  We will also never know if her response was justified because she had not attempted to use the proper channels.  Though once more she could have had this experience somewhere else and was tired of the response being minimal. 

As for whether the man should’ve been fired, I think he should have been.  The company he is representing paid money for him to be there.  As an employee he is being paid for his time and for his behavior.  He is in a professional work environment, not at a bar or out in the park with his buddies.  He made a comment in public that was overheard by a person that took offense.  Whether she was eavesdropping or not is irrelevant.  If I go parading around my front yard naked and someone calls the police, nobody cares that the neighbor has been watching my house all day.  Also, as I eluded to in the first portion of this post, women have been sent home or reprimanded for simply wearing the wrong article of clothing.  I think men can tolerate being reprimanded for their actions being offensive as well.

More telling is the response to her actions and the rush to defend this man’s penis joke.  I think we feminists are seeing the long road ahead still.

[Caehlim]

Ephiral, I think perhaps we both just got a bit worked up and read too much into the other person's posts. It's 6am and I've been up all night so I'm not necessarily taking everything in properly. Plus it's been a very rapidly moving discussion with you responding to an awful lot of people.

I'm not actually sure that other than disagreeing on privacy we're actually opposed on many opinions but it's getting blown out of proportion by misunderstandings on both sides.

[Ephiral]

Ephiral, I think perhaps we both just got a bit worked up and read too much into the other person's posts. It's 6am and I've been up all night so I'm not necessarily taking everything in properly. Plus it's been a very rapidly moving discussion with you responding to an awful lot of people.

I'm not actually sure that other than disagreeing on privacy we're actually opposed on many opinions but it's getting blown out of proportion by misunderstandings on both sides.

That strikes me as entirely likely - and honestly I'd probably like to discuss matters of privacy with you in a more relaxed atmosphere at some point. Either way, though... I did not convey as I intended, and offended you as a result. For this, I can only apologize. Now go get some sleep.  :-)

[Caehlim]

For the record, since I am actually a hobbyist photographer I have thought a great deal about the ethics of taking people's photographs. My personal belief is that anyone who is;

A) Given any form of direction in the shot by a director/the photographer
B) Appears within the depth of field of the shot
C) Is in any way prominent or noticeable on an individual level within the final product

Should give their consent before being shown in any public medium. The more public, the more explicit that consent should be. The internet, with its infinite republishing nature and eternal record keeping is by far the one to be most careful with.

Most streetview type photographs that I've seen try to stick to this sort of philosophy and it's common amongst many of the amateur photographers that I know.

It's a fairly subjective standard, but it's not a legal policy, just a way of showing common courtesy to people.

After all I would be quite troubled if someone published a picture of me kissing a boyfriend on the street outside a gay club where I feel safe (but technically in public) and then printed it in other contexts. I'm not ashamed of my sexuality, but I would prefer to be in control of how those photos would be dispersed.

Edit: Thanks for your reply there Ephiral. I'm glad we talked this out. I'm sorry if I offended you at all as well. I'm heading off to bed, that should cover the basics of my ethics re: photography and privacy but I'd be happy to discuss it in further detail later on with you.

[Sethala]

Well, since a few people are leaving the discussion (at least for the moment) and it seems to be winding down, I think I want to put up the conclusions I've had after the discussion, as I have had some change in perspective.

First, I'm still of the opinion that the public shaming was unnecessary, and was more to push Adria's agenda (and stoke her ego) than to actually help anything.  She should have taken care of things privately with PyCon staff, possibly notified PlayHaven to give feedback on their employee's actions, and the blog post should have been about sexism and poor taste in general, without featuring a picture and without mentioning the company's name.  If PyCon refused to assist her, then the blog post would have also been an excellent way to shame them into taking better action when presented with complaints next time.  I'm admittedly not convinced that the tweets were the best way to get staff attention, especially including the picture in the tweet, but I can see that it did help get results.

I don't think the PlayHaven employee should have been fired, but that's more with me not liking the overly strict mentality towards off-color jokes.  That is, I think that if he had made the same joke to his coworker in the office and was overheard by another coworker, I don't think he should have been fired then either.  What I'm most against, however, is if the decision to fire him was a result of the public shaming, rather than a result of company policy.

I do think Adria should at least have been given a warning about her actions, since the backlash makes it harder for her to actually perform her job.  I agree that SendGrid shouldn't make the decision based on troll attacks, but I do think there was more to the decision than just internet trolls.

Finally, I'm not going to comment much on how "open" the tech community is to women.  I don't think sexual jokes are as large of a barrier to entry as what Adria is trying to claim, but I don't know much on the issue of feminism and sexism against women, so my opinion on the matter as a whole is not a very strong one in either direction.

[Caehlim]

A look at the employee guidelines for many companies will still reveal an extensive policy of dress for female employees and very little for men so long as they are “presentable.”

I was going to bed but spotted this post which I had missed. I just wanted to comment that I agree and have noticed this at some of the places I've worked before. Even my current workplace, which is usually a very equal opportunity place does this. The sad thing is that I know at my current job it was written by women, I don't think the problem is with the workplaces themselves (well not necessarily, though it could be that too) but rather with how women's fashion is treated in general amongst professional culture.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Interesting note:  After posting in this topic I went to go get nachos at a local place.  I was waiting for my order when I noticed someone had scrawled on the waitress's pad "<insert name> loves <insert image of penis and balls squirting cum>". 

Just thought that was interesting with this discussion going on. 

[Chris Brady]

I was going to bed but spotted this post which I had missed. I just wanted to comment that I agree and have noticed this at some of the places I've worked before. Even my current workplace, which is usually a very equal opportunity place does this. The sad thing is that I know at my current job it was written by women, I don't think the problem is with the workplaces themselves (well not necessarily, though it could be that too) but rather with how women's fashion is treated in general amongst professional culture.

Actually, the HR department for Compaq and then HP in the call center that I used to work in were also staffed by women, and they had stricter guidelines for the women than the guys.  In fact, I remember (anecdotal) that at least one woman kept getting singled out for 'violations'.  I don't ever recall her actually breaking the rules, though.  She preferred slacks over skirts, often wore a sweater because that place was very freakin' cold.

[BlackestKnight]

What aren't people offended by these days? Two nerds making obscure jokes about dongles seems like a bit of a stretch to say that it creates an atmosphere of oppressive dialogue. You could make better arguments for discriminatory dress codes and actual sexual harassing statements.  I recall when Representative  Brown issued the now famous "vagina" remark  , the media ran crazy with that in an attempt to paint her opposition as uptight fuddy duddy's for taking offense to the representative's comment, but the actual quote itself was arguable worse than donglegate because it invoked  actual rape and it was said in a far more formal setting. She implied her conservative opposition had lecherous --even felonious intentions.  It just seems like people are being selective in what they find offensive based on who is saying what rather than any sort of objective dissection of the intent. I fight for the intent, not for peoples politics.

It's all about how things are interpreted by the individual, if I were a hardcore social justice type I would probably take offense to dongles, but I'm not that gung ho. I personally believe people could learn to loosen up a bit and sometimes not make everything into a personal crusade, and instead of fighting people, learn to accept people for the faults rather than shaming them for not living up to whatever standard. It's a shame anyone was fired. Everyone lost for not communicating like adults. The human thing to do is to talk to someone one-on-one about that sort of thing to reach an understanding, but I guess that's a lost art in the age of the internet.

Immaturity is not a conspiracy theory. What I'm trying to say is, life is too damn short not to make a dongle joke at work.

[Sethala]

One thing that bugs me...

Why is it that a sexually-charged atmosphere, where people are free to make sex jokes, is considered oppressive to women in particular?  As far as my understanding goes, men don't have a monopoly on sex, women are just as able to participate, and they're perfectly able to make sex jokes of their own.  (Sidenote: I'm using the term "sex jokes", not "sexist jokes", because from my understanding the dongle comment isn't sexist, just about sex; feel free to argue otherwise however, I'd like to know how it could be taken as sexist.)  If the jokes were demeaning to women in particular, or directed at a specific person, I'd understand claims of harassment.  But it's clear from Adria's blog that she considers that just a joke about sex in general is part of what's making the tech industry hostile to women, and that's something I just don't understand.

[Ephiral]

One thing that bugs me...

Why is it that a sexually-charged atmosphere, where people are free to make sex jokes, is considered oppressive to women in particular?  As far as my understanding goes, men don't have a monopoly on sex, women are just as able to participate, and they're perfectly able to make sex jokes of their own.  (Sidenote: I'm using the term "sex jokes", not "sexist jokes", because from my understanding the dongle comment isn't sexist, just about sex; feel free to argue otherwise however, I'd like to know how it could be taken as sexist.)  If the jokes were demeaning to women in particular, or directed at a specific person, I'd understand claims of harassment.  But it's clear from Adria's blog that she considers that just a joke about sex in general is part of what's making the tech industry hostile to women, and that's something I just don't understand.

Because it is overwhelmingly women who tend to be objectified, groped, leered at, propositioned unwelcomely, etc in such environments.

[Bandita]

This kind of reminds me about the bitchy pastor who signed their bill at a breakfast joint, saying "I give god 10%, why do you get 18%". Not that the receipt  was the issue, but the waitress got fired for taking a picture of the receipt and shaming the pastor.  That one went viral too.  So, the question here is, does one have the right to shame someone else publicly for being a douchebag?

I'd say, yeah.  If you're going to be a total jerk in public, you are making yourself a target.  I try to be on good behavior when I'm in a crowd, or at work.  I don't do anything I might get hurt for, or be ashamed of later.  I think most people do, it's just those few who just can't sit down and be quiet who have to be disrespectful.

I mean, hell, making dongle jokes at a conference, against conference rules, while the speaker is speaking, and disturbing other's enjoyment, or at least enrichment from the speech, and then acting like you've been wronged..... it's like making a porno and collecting the checks but then sueing the company when your mother finds out.  I mean, you know you were acting like a jerkface.  You know you did something that is frowned upon.  But you just assume that the wrong people (your boss, your mother, whatever) won't find out.  Well, they did, 'cuz you did your thing in public.  Deal with it.

Edit: not making any kind of argument here.  Not trying to convince anyone either.  Just my 2 cents worth because it's an interesting topic.

[Sethala]

This kind of reminds me about the bitchy pastor who signed their bill at a breakfast joint, saying "I give god 10%, why do you get 18%". Not that the receipt  was the issue, but the waitress got fired for taking a picture of the receipt and shaming the pastor.  That one went viral too.  So, the question here is, does one have the right to shame someone else publicly for being a douchebag?

I'd say, yeah.  If you're going to be a total jerk in public, you are making yourself a target.  I try to be on good behavior when I'm in a crowd, or at work.  I don't do anything I might get hurt for, or be ashamed of later.  I think most people do, it's just those few who just can't sit down and be quiet who have to be disrespectful.

I mean, hell, making dongle jokes at a conference, against conference rules, while the speaker is speaking, and disturbing other's enjoyment, or at least enrichment from the speech, and then acting like you've been wronged..... it's like making a porno and collecting the checks but then sueing the company when your mother finds out.  I mean, you know you were acting like a jerkface.  You know you did something that is frowned upon.  But you just assume that the wrong people (your boss, your mother, whatever) won't find out.  Well, they did, 'cuz you did your thing in public.  Deal with it.

Edit: not making any kind of argument here.  Not trying to convince anyone either.  Just my 2 cents worth because it's an interesting topic.

To be fair, as far as I can tell the guy that got caught telling the joke hasn't tried to defend himself for saying it, or tried to play it off as "no big thing" at all; he's openly admitted that he was wrong for doing it. 

There's also a difference between his dongle joke and the pastor's note on the receipt.  The joke was intended to be a harmless comment.  We don't have the full context, but there's nothing indicating it was intended to be directed at a specific person in particular, and despite who overheard it, the intended recipient of the joke was someone that would appreciate the humor.  The pastor's comment, on the other hand, is directed at someone specific, and intended to be heard by someone who would find the comment hurtful.  It's not a silly joke, it's a direct, inflammatory comment intended to hurt (and worse, she also tried to refuse to give any tip whatsoever on the receipt, which directly impacts her financial situation - admittedly, by only a few dollars, but it's still more than just a comment).

Now, should either of them be publicly shamed?  Here's the other difference: anonymity.  Take a look at the picture in this Reddit post.  You see some of the guy's handwriting and a little bit of his signature, but you don't see his full name, you don't see his picture, and there's no indication of what city or even what restaurant this happened at.  As far as I can tell, the only reason it's even known that this is a real receipt, let alone who the pastor in question was, was because the pastor herself went public after it went viral by attempting to get Applebee's to fire the waitress.  It's clear that the waitress did everything possible to hide the identity of the pastor in question, and refused to say anything more when asked by other members of Reddit, which in my mind makes this receipt story much more forgivable.  (I also said that I wouldn't have a problem with Adria's blog if she hadn't posted a picture of the guys and hadn't named the company they work for; again, it's a matter of telling a story and keeping the people in it anonymous.)

Finally, should either of them be fired for public shaming?  I'm going to say no, for both the waitress and Adria, but I have to caveat that.  Adria's situation is unique, because her ability to perform her job was compromised by her actions.  As someone that works in PR, and is a public face for the company, ending up in an internet shitstorm is going to affect how other people act with her, and by extension her company.

Edit: Reading a bit further into it, the current version of the receipt on Reddit has been cropped to remove the signature, so it was there when she originally posted.  However, according to this news story, she did everything she could to get people to stop trying to identify the pastor once she realized it went viral, and she claimed that no one actually guessed the right person until the pastor in question contacted Applebee's.  So, my point stands.

[Ephiral]

So... wait. It's okay to publicly shame someone as long as you don't actually shame them? Is that seriously what you're saying here? (Hint: It's kinda hard to shame an anonymous person.)

[Sethala]

So... wait. It's okay to publicly shame someone as long as you don't actually shame them? Is that seriously what you're saying here? (Hint: It's kinda hard to shame an anonymous person.)

Perhaps I shouldn't have called it "publicly shaming" when I talked about what the waitress did, but yes, that's my point.  It's ok to tell a story and say how rude people can be, it's not ok to say how rude this one particular person can be.

[Trieste]

Okay.

Why not?

[consortium11]

I personally believe people could learn to loosen up a bit and sometimes not make everything into a personal crusade, and instead of fighting people, learn to accept people for the faults rather than shaming them for not living up to whatever standard.

I appreciate where this is coming from, but I think this is really dangerous thinking.

After all why should I accept someone's faults when those faults make me uncomfortable and they've shown an unwillingness to not do it?

Take us back a couple of decades to a time when women were, even in a professional environment, regular called, even in a supposedly professional environment "babe", "love", "darling" etc or worse "hot lips"... "big tits". When they were routinely groped and what would now be considered sexual abuse? When they were very much expected to sit there, look pretty, laugh at the jokes about them and not be taken seriously.  Should women in such circumstances have simply accepted people for their faults and let it go on?

Or when people were happy to use derogatory racial terms to describe people. Should people have learnt to accept people for their faults?

What I'm trying to say is, life is too damn short not to make a dongle joke at work.

Surely life is also too short to put up with sexual jokes that make you feel uncomfortable and in reality have no place in a professional environment?

[Ephiral]

Perhaps I shouldn't have called it "publicly shaming" when I talked about what the waitress did, but yes, that's my point.  It's ok to tell a story and say how rude people can be, it's not ok to say how rude this one particular person can be.

And then I, for one, am back to "If you don't want to be publicly shamed, maybe you shouldn't do things you're ashamed of in public."

[Bandita]

On the subject of the receipt, the waitress herself tried to have the signature removed.  And also, BOTH of them were unable to perform their jobs after it went viral.  The waitress got fired too, even though she herself asked Reddit to remove the signature less than 24 hours after posting it.  She just wanted to share what hell waitresses go through.  But that said, If you don't want to be shamed, don't do shameful things.

As far as Adria Richards goes, I don't think she did anything wrong, per se. It isn't a crime to take pictures of strangers at cons, and describe what they are doing.  I mean, how many 7th graders take pictures of their classmates doing obnoxious things during class and tweet them?  I'm guessing a fair few.  According to every teacher I've ever met they all have their phones out during class all the time.

The difference here is that these were not 7th graders, even though they were acting like them.  And the horrible thing is, Adria's account of the thing, although a bit heavy handed, does seem to imply that she was trying to be careful about what was expected of her.  Like checking the con's website before tweeting about it.  Okay, so she's a snitch, but that's hardly a crime.  The guys were acting like 12 year olds, being offensively inappropriate, and deserved to be disciplined as such. Again, this is my opinion, not really an argument.

[Rhapsody]

I haven't read all this thread, so it's possible this has been linked already. But back on the 27th of November, Twitter lit up with #1reasonwhy. Because someone asked "why aren't there a lot of female game developers?" and this was part of the result. I have friends who are game developers. I myself participated in the discussion, because it expanded to cover women who also play video games and tabletop games, or shop for electronics or play in "boys club" fields.

It was fairly eye-opening, horrifying and disgusting, even for those of us who'd already heard some of the stories.

Or Google Anita Sarkeesian, and see the shit she went through when she was trying to crowdfund through Kickstarter a video series on female tropes in video games. Her Google page was vandalized with porn. She was sent hateful, disgusting messages. Someone even made a flash game where you could punch her face, and she would get progressively bloodier and more bruised.

People who perpetuate the Old Boys Club, who make sexist jokes about female participants need to be publically shamed, in my opinion, because otherwise they don't know it's wrong. The attitudes are so prevalent in these traditionally male-dominated industries, it's practically ingrained. If people don't speak up and make the world aware of it, the attitudes continue, nothing changes.

There's a saying that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Well, privately dealing with these sorts of comments has done very little for feminism or equality. I guess now people are trying the route of public shaming. And I can't say I disagree with them.

[Trieste]

I haven't read all this thread, so it's possible this has been linked already. But back on the 27th of November, Twitter lit up with #1reasonwhy. Because someone asked "why aren't there a lot of female game developers?" and this was part of the result. I have friends who are game developers. I myself participated in the discussion, because it expanded to cover women who also play video games and tabletop games, or shop for electronics or play in "boys club" fields.

It was fairly eye-opening, horrifying and disgusting, even for those of us who'd already heard some of the stories.

>.>

(Because I'm currently getting the highest grade in my networking and programming classes and keep being told by more than one of the compsci students - all guys, by the way; I am one of two girls in the networking class and three girls in the programming class - that they'll be happy to look over my homework for me before I turn it in, or that they can explain what object-oriented programming means in smaller words, or that they're shocked when I explain class polymorphism to the other girl in the class who didn't pick it up at first. This is not an attitude of the past, this is something that is still happening.)

[Caehlim]

Okay.

Why not?

One big reason: The so-called "golden rule". (Source)

Many smaller reasons: The lack of appropriate safeguards over the court of public opinion. The dangers of a mob mentality. A potentially excessive response. A dislike of extra-judicial punishment. The chance that your bringing a person to the attention of people with mental illness. Possibility of triggering suicides.

Whether those are good enough reasons I leave to your judgement, but those are some reasons.

Edit: Fixed some grammar.

[Sethala]

People who perpetuate the Old Boys Club, who make sexist jokes about female participants need to be publically shamed, in my opinion, because otherwise they don't know it's wrong. The attitudes are so prevalent in these traditionally male-dominated industries, it's practically ingrained. If people don't speak up and make the world aware of it, the attitudes continue, nothing changes.

First off, thank you for the link, it's pretty informative, and I appreciate it.

However, I want to ask you a question about the part I quoted.  Does it matter what was actually said?  Specifically, while we don't know the exact words, reading through both Adria's post and the guy's response, it's pretty clear that the joke wasn't actually aimed at someone in particular.  (The "forking" comment, which he claims wasn't intended to be an innuendo at all but an appreciative comment, was actually directed at a male speaker.)  So, since it was just "a joke about sex" and not "a sexist joke about someone", does that change your mind?  (For discussion purposes, assume that there's no argument about whether the joke was directed at someone or not.)

[Caehlim]

(Because I'm currently getting the highest grade in my networking and programming classes and keep being told by more than one of the compsci students - all guys, by the way; I am one of two girls in the networking class and three girls in the programming class - that they'll be happy to look over my homework for me before I turn it in, or that they can explain what object-oriented programming means in smaller words, or that they're shocked when I explain class polymorphism to the other girl in the class who didn't pick it up at first. This is not an attitude of the past, this is something that is still happening.)

What the heck is wrong with these people? Were they dropped on their heads frequently as children or something?

[Love And Submission]

Is it still socially acceptable to sexually harass dudes though?



Picture snipped.  Seriously.  - Staff
Because I mean look at that ass....Seriously.

[Trieste]

What the heck is wrong with these people? Were they dropped on their heads frequently as children or something?

I have no idea, but I wish my experience was an unusual one. Evidence suggests it is not.

[Caehlim]

Is it still socially acceptable to sexually harass dudes though?

It's a tricky question. Historically it's been frequently considered impossible for a female to sexually harass a male. (Men "always want it" after all). Secondly "He hit on me, so I defended myself" has been an excuse for violently assaulting gay males in the past.

It brings up all sorts of serious issues.

[Ephiral]

One big reason: The so-called "golden rule". (Source)

If you catch me pulling discriminatory, othering bullshit in a space that specifically bars it, call me on it. Please. Loudly and publicly. I'll be humiliated - and I'll remember it.

First off, thank you for the link, it's pretty informative, and I appreciate it.

However, I want to ask you a question about the part I quoted.  Does it matter what was actually said?  Specifically, while we don't know the exact words, reading through both Adria's post and the guy's response, it's pretty clear that the joke wasn't actually aimed at someone in particular.  (The "forking" comment, which he claims wasn't intended to be an innuendo at all but an appreciative comment, was actually directed at a male speaker.)  So, since it was just "a joke about sex" and not "a sexist joke about someone", does that change your mind?  (For discussion purposes, assume that there's no argument about whether the joke was directed at someone or not.)

Does it fucking matter if it was targeted or not? Jokes like that are part of an atmosphere that objectifies women and treats them as little more than arm-candy or sex objects. They directly contribute to the exact bullshit outlined above.

Is it still socially acceptable to sexually harass dudes though?
Because I mean look at that ass....Seriously.

I am. And at the transphobic, othering bullshit written across it. Seriously, you thought that would add some levity to the thread?

On a more general note: It seems the key point here was that she did this publicly.

Slavery wasn't ended because slaves took their masters aside and politely asked to be freed.
Women didn't get the vote by chatting with their husbands about it over dinner.
Institutional racism and segregation didn't stop because black people asked white people "Uhh, can we talk with you for a moment?"
Gay people aren't getting the right to marry because they were quiet and polite about it.

Why the hell do you think sexism is the special case?

[Caehlim]

I have no idea, but I wish my experience was an unusual one. Evidence suggests it is not.

Yeah, I've seen it myself with my sister all to frequently being judged for being "too smart" or "too geeky", in ways that although it lead to a certain amount of social ostracism for myself just seemed to be done in a much nastier way to her for being female.

It somehow seems more unacceptable for women to like computers (unless it's for facebook and Zenga games). I don't get that. Doesn't the industry want to double its sales? Don't straight male geeks want a girlfriend who doesn't judge them for playing world of warcraft?

Seriously it just makes no sense to me, how could anyone be that stupid?

[Ephiral]

Yeah, I've seen it myself with my sister all to frequently being judged for being "too smart" or "too geeky", in ways that although it lead to a certain amount of social ostracism for myself just seemed to be done in a much nastier way to her for being female.

It somehow seems more unacceptable for women to like computers (unless it's for facebook and Zenga games). I don't get that. Doesn't the industry want to double its sales? Don't straight male geeks want a girlfriend who doesn't judge them for playing world of warcraft?

Seriously it just makes no sense to me, how could anyone be that stupid?

For added fun, if she happens to mention on the Internet how she likes any of that "smart" or "geeky" stuff, she can get judged by thousands of angry geeks who will decide whether or not she's a fake! But sexism is over, right guys?

[Love And Submission]

If you catch me pulling discriminatory, othering bullshit in a space that specifically bars it, call me on it. Please. Loudly and publicly. I'll be humiliated - and I'll remember it.
Does it fucking matter if it was targeted or not? Jokes like that are part of an atmosphere that objectifies women and treats them as little more than arm-candy or sex objects. They directly contribute to the exact bullshit outlined above.
I am. And at the transphobic, othering bullshit written across it. Seriously, you thought that would add some levity to the thread?

On a more general note: It seems the key point here was that she did this publicly.

Slavery wasn't ended because slaves took their masters aside and politely asked to be freed.
Women didn't get the vote by chatting with their husbands about it over dinner.
Institutional racism and segregation didn't stop because black people asked white people "Uhh, can we talk with you for a moment?"
Gay people aren't getting the right to marry because they were quiet and polite about it.

Why the hell do you think sexism is the special case?

Of course not. Because you have no sense of humor and are unable to laugh.
Perhaps you should get a humor transplant. It's like a heart transplant for people who  are uptight  close minded buffoons.

[Rhapsody]

First off, thank you for the link, it's pretty informative, and I appreciate it.

However, I want to ask you a question about the part I quoted.  Does it matter what was actually said?  Specifically, while we don't know the exact words, reading through both Adria's post and the guy's response, it's pretty clear that the joke wasn't actually aimed at someone in particular.  (The "forking" comment, which he claims wasn't intended to be an innuendo at all but an appreciative comment, was actually directed at a male speaker.)  So, since it was just "a joke about sex" and not "a sexist joke about someone", does that change your mind?  (For discussion purposes, assume that there's no argument about whether the joke was directed at someone or not.)

To me? No. It doesn't matter if it's directed at someone in particular, or if it's just a general comment. See, the problem isn't what people say, it's the general attitude behind it. Traditionally male industries, like computers and video games and RPGs, are rampant with sexism and misogynistic behaviour, even to the point where it's implicit that certain behaviours are acceptable from men whereas they are not from women (including jokes about sex); inappropriate comments shouldn't need to be directed at anyone in particular to be called out as inappropriate. This isn't even touching the fact that it was a professional gathering, and commenting about sex in any respect is opening yourself to harrassment accusations.

As for the prevalent behaviour, let me give you a personal example: I'm a pretty avid gamer, both console and PC. Back before Christmas, I went to the electronics section of Wal-Mart to buy a currency card for the PlayStation store. The card wouldn't swipe properly to ring up, and the clerk (who was very apologetic but had a hard time looking me in the eyes) had to call in a manager to fix it. The CSM didn't look at me once, didn't apologize, didn't even address me at all. Instead, he addressed my seven-year-old son, who he assumed the card was for.

The attitude is even reinforced in areas you'd never expect. I love Big Bang Theory, but there was one episode in particular that really bothered me. The guys were on their way to a Star Trek convention, and the girls decided to give comic books a try. Now, the parts of nerdity I really enjoy (comics, video games, fantasy shows, etc) are typically male-dominated in the show, to the point where the guys, overhearing a fairly heated discussion the girls are having about the Hulk and Thor's Hammer, wonder if it's a new shade of nail polish they're discussing. Where the comic book shop has basement dwellers staring awkwardly at the girls in the shop. You laugh, because you think it's funny. Hell, I did too. But at the same time, it's enraging, because it's subtly reinforcing the idea that girls are out of place in a world of nerds and geeks, because they're pretty or they have boyfriends or they don't have some mental disorder -- the sole girl they showed at the comic book shop had social anxiety disorder, and she just wandered in to "get out of her comfort zone".

The attitude is everywhere. Everywhere. And people think it's normal. And that's wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to count them.

To make a long story short, yes. Inappropriate comments are inappropriate, no matter who they appear to be directed at.

[Ephiral]

Of course not. Because you have no sense of humor and are unable to laugh.
Perhaps you should get a humor transplant. It's like a heart transplant for people who  are uptight  close minded buffoons.

Look to the left. Do you see the tag over my avatar? Perhaps you might want to think for a moment about exactly what that word, in that context, means to someone like me.

[Caehlim]

If you catch me pulling discriminatory, othering bullshit in a space that specifically bars it, call me on it. Please. Loudly and publicly. I'll be humiliated - and I'll remember it.

I get that idea, definitely. But what makes me qualified to decide whether what you said was inappropriate or not.

What if someone snaps a picture of a trans* person struggling with their gender identity examining the women's clothing in their local target store and uploads it onto the internet along with sufficient information to identify them?

Now in this case, I think we would both agree that this was wrong. However this hypothetical bigot I'm describing would probably believe that they were doing the moral thing and would justify it with statements like "They shouldn't do this in public if they don't want people to see it".

From our external vantage point Adria Richards and this hypothetical person clearly have different motives, but from their own internal opinion they both have the same motive. They both want to shame someone for doing something that they think is wrong.

[Trieste]

Of course not. Because you have no sense of humor and are unable to laugh.
Perhaps you should get a humor transplant. It's like a heart transplant for people who  are uptight  close minded buffoons.

...

Relevant:

To make a long story short, yes. Inappropriate comments are inappropriate, no matter who they appear to be directed at.

[Sethala]

On a more general note: It seems the key point here was that she did this publicly.

Slavery wasn't ended because slaves took their masters aside and politely asked to be freed.
Women didn't get the vote by chatting with their husbands about it over dinner.
Institutional racism and segregation didn't stop because black people asked white people "Uhh, can we talk with you for a moment?"
Gay people aren't getting the right to marry because they were quiet and polite about it.

Why the hell do you think sexism is the special case?

Yet as far as I can tell, none of those movements had to break down and shame individual people for private comments like sexism is doing.  Give me one incident where a single individual or small group was publicly shamed in front of a significantly large audience for making a private joke about something other than sexism, and that it was considered socially acceptable to shame them.

[Caehlim]

Of course not. Because you have no sense of humor and are unable to laugh.
Perhaps you should get a humor transplant. It's like a heart transplant for people who  are uptight  close minded buffoons.

Feel free to consider me humourless as well if you like, but the pic did seem somewhat inappropriate to me as well. Why is "This is a man but he looks like a woman" funny if it's not playing off people's level on uncomfortableness with the idea? This can be done to draw attention to people's subconscious biases and make them question them (I personally feel that Sarah Silverman does this style quite well) however it also has the danger of being insensitive or offensive.

You should probably be careful about using things like that for jokes.

[Trieste]

Yet as far as I can tell, none of those movements had to break down and shame individual people for private comments like sexism is doing.  Give me one incident where a single individual or small group was publicly shamed in front of a significantly large audience for making a private joke about something other than sexism, and that it was considered socially acceptable to shame them.

Mitt Romney's 47% comment.

[Caehlim]

Mitt Romney's 47% comment.

I absolutely agree. It was good to see the backlash on that one and I hope it discourages such things from coming up again.

However I think that there could be a case made for that being in the public domain due to his position. I personally don't feel that politicians should benefit from the same level of privacy as the average citizen due to the public nature of their profession.

Edit: Sorry, I kind of missed the point on what you were saying there and tied it into an unrelated issue. My apologies.

[Love And Submission]

...

Relevant:

Inappropriate as judged by who? It amazes me that we have people who believe people have rights no matter their sexual orientation , race , creed , color , nationality  or age but those same people don't believe in the freedom speech.

It wasn't just homophobia that sent Oscar Wilde to prison. It was an unfair  group of  elitist  who thought their way was the only way.


I support gay rights because I believe freedom. People should be free. Period. I don't care if it offends you because you're a christian and your god tells you two men shouldn't get married or your a woman and someone made a joke. Freedom  is what man deserves above all and this.


You can't Fascism with Fascism . That's illogical. This isn't like  MLK Jr fighting racism by giving speeches and staging sit ins. This is  like MLK Jr fighting racism by  ostracizing racists. 

Mandela said it best when he said "People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

Segregation didn't end because MLK Jr called out the Klan. It ended because people figured out racism was wrong. At the end of the day , their are good people in this world that are misguided and if you give them enough time they'll learn  and change.

I'm done.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you

[Trieste]

I absolutely agree. It was good to see the backlash on that one and I hope it discourages such things from coming up again.

However I think that there could be a case made for that being in the public domain due to his position. I personally don't feel that politicians should benefit from the same level of privacy as the average citizen due to the public nature of their profession.

While I understand that (and agree), I also feel that it's a good example of what Sethala asked for. A relatively public individual says something at a private, closed event (such as Mitt Romney did) seems roughly equivalent, to me, to a relatively unknown individual making a comment at a fairly public venue. It had nothing to do with sexist discrimination but clearly indicates discrimination of another kind, and it was a private comment that was brought to the public via the Internet (through a video, no less) that produced a socially acceptable backlash of "You should be ashamed for this".

So it seemed quite relevant.

[Sethala]

To me? No. It doesn't matter if it's directed at someone in particular, or if it's just a general comment. See, the problem isn't what people say, it's the general attitude behind it. Traditionally male industries, like computers and video games and RPGs, are rampant with sexism and misogynistic behaviour, even to the point where it's implicit that certain behaviours are acceptable from men whereas they are not from women (including jokes about sex); inappropriate comments shouldn't need to be directed at anyone in particular to be called out as inappropriate. This isn't even touching the fact that it was a professional gathering, and commenting about sex in any respect is opening yourself to harrassment accusations.

As for the prevalent behaviour, let me give you a personal example: I'm a pretty avid gamer, both console and PC. Back before Christmas, I went to the electronics section of Wal-Mart to buy a currency card for the PlayStation store. The card wouldn't swipe properly to ring up, and the clerk (who was very apologetic but had a hard time looking me in the eyes) had to call in a manager to fix it. The CSM didn't look at me once, didn't apologize, didn't even address me at all. Instead, he addressed my seven-year-old son, who he assumed the card was for.

The attitude is even reinforced in areas you'd never expect. I love Big Bang Theory, but there was one episode in particular that really bothered me. The guys were on their way to a Star Trek convention, and the girls decided to give comic books a try. Now, the parts of nerdity I really enjoy (comics, video games, fantasy shows, etc) are typically male-dominated in the show, to the point where the guys, overhearing a fairly heated discussion the girls are having about the Hulk and Thor's Hammer, wonder if it's a new shade of nail polish they're discussing. Where the comic book shop has basement dwellers staring awkwardly at the girls in the shop. You laugh, because you think it's funny. Hell, I did too. But at the same time, it's enraging, because it's subtly reinforcing the idea that girls are out of place in a world of nerds and geeks, because they're pretty or they have boyfriends or they don't have some mental disorder -- the sole girl they showed at the comic book shop had social anxiety disorder, and she just wandered in to "get out of her comfort zone".

The attitude is everywhere. Everywhere. And people think it's normal. And that's wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to count them.

To make a long story short, yes. Inappropriate comments are inappropriate, no matter who they appear to be directed at.

Ok, thank you.  One last question for you, then: do you think that it was important she actually name the people doing it, or would it have been enough if she hadn't posted their picture and just said that they had "sponsor" badges (meaning they were there on actual business)?  Was their identity actually important to the story, considering they had also been thrown out of the convention?  (Sidenote: She didn't actually name them, but I get the feeling that if she actually knew their names, she would have.)

As for the story... wow.  Some people are just plain morons, honestly.  (As an aside, do you think the salesperson was trying to be rude by not looking you in the eye, or just shy?)

[gaggedLouise]

 

Mitt Romney's 47% comment.

The folks who called Obama out over his "people who cling to their Bibles and their guns" comments probably felt they were rightfullly shaming him, too. And defending everybody's freedom. (I admit it wasn't a joke, but it was a pithy way by Obama to spell out some aspects of the voter demographic, and to make his team aware of what lay ahead).

Speaking of Obama, how do you people feel about his comment over that Cali attorney? Was he being sexist and contributing to a condescending climate by making a cute compliment to a top-ranking woman, over her looks, in a field where most people at the top still are men? Is that kind of thing illegal or immoral, or just badly inappropriate?

And is it seriously on the table that he would not respect her professional skills as a legal professional? Does he have to *state* that he holds her knowledge of the law in high esteem?

[Caehlim]

While I understand that (and agree), I also feel that it's a good example of what Sethala asked for. A relatively public individual says something at a private, closed event (such as Mitt Romney did) seems roughly equivalent, to me, to a relatively unknown individual making a comment at a fairly public venue. It had nothing to do with sexist discrimination but clearly indicates discrimination of another kind, and it was a private comment that was brought to the public via the Internet (through a video, no less) that produced a socially acceptable backlash of "You should be ashamed for this".

So it seemed quite relevant.

Yes you're absolutely right... between me finishing my post and you writing this one I'd realized this myself and edited my post to acknowledge it. I think you must have missed my edit.

[Trieste]

The folks who called Obama out over his "people who cling to their Bibles and their guns" comments probably felt they were rightfullly shaming him, too. And defending everybody's freedom.

Speaking of Obama, how do you people feel about his comment over that Cali attorney? Was he being sexist and contributing to a condescending climate by making a cute compliment to a top-ranking woman, over her looks, in a field where most people at the top still are men? Is that kind of thing illegal or immoral, or just badly inappropriate?

And is it seriously on the table that he would not respect her professional skills as a legal professional? Does he have to *state* that he holds her knowledge of the law in high esteem?

It'd be much easier to get commentary on something if you link to an article that actually contains the remarks in question, instead of just remarks about the remarks in question.

As far as I can tell, he was listing several attributes and the first three that he listed were brilliant, dedicated, and tough. Not sure why he felt the need to also comment on her appearance but it wasn't a comment only on her appearance. That makes a difference.

Further, she isn't a stranger but has apparently been a friend of his for years. So that also plays a role.

Yes you're absolutely right... between me finishing my post and you writing this one I'd realized this myself and edited my post to acknowledge it. I think you must have missed my edit.

No worries! I did see it, but I also didn't mind explaining further, either. I was kind of thrown off by the random unwanted injection of transphobia. >.>;

[Sethala]

While I understand that (and agree), I also feel that it's a good example of what Sethala asked for. A relatively public individual says something at a private, closed event (such as Mitt Romney did) seems roughly equivalent, to me, to a relatively unknown individual making a comment at a fairly public venue. It had nothing to do with sexist discrimination but clearly indicates discrimination of another kind, and it was a private comment that was brought to the public via the Internet (through a video, no less) that produced a socially acceptable backlash of "You should be ashamed for this".

So it seemed quite relevant.

I think I'm going to agree with Caehlim however, this is quite a bit different, partly because he's a politician, but also because the comment is actually related to his position.

Now, let's say that I'm hiring someone to do a specific job, say a doctor that needs to do a checkup.  I overhear him making some remarks that make it seem he's not going to do a very good job.  I should have every right to go to his employer and voice my concerns.

It just so happens that in Romney's case, the "employer" is "everyone that might vote for him"...

[Caehlim]

Speaking of Obama, how do you people feel about his comment over that Cali attorney? Was he being sexist and contributing to a condescending climate by making a cute compliment to a top-ranking woman, over her looks, in a field where most people at the top still are men? Is that kind of thing illegal or immoral, or just badly inappropriate?

I do think it's inappropriate, but I think he's acknowledged that himself now with his apology.

However it is an extremely common figure of speech, in my experience, to refer to solitary female figures within a group of all males as the best looking. Aside from being potentially condescending it's also somewhat contributes to hetero normative assumptions that males can't possibly be considered good looking. As such I think he was just cutting corners on writing a speech by using a common phrase without considering it's potential implication. Now that it's been brought to his attention I think he understands the problems with it and I'm willing to buy his apology as sincere.

[Beguile's Mistress]

This is a highly confrontational topic and it would behoove all of you to take a step back and cool down before posting again.

Or we can lock the thread for as long as Staff thinks necessary.

[Ephiral]

I get that idea, definitely. But what makes me qualified to decide whether what you said was inappropriate or not.

What if someone snaps a picture of a trans* person struggling with their gender identity examining the women's clothing in their local target store and uploads it onto the internet along with sufficient information to identify them?

Now in this case, I think we would both agree that this was wrong. However this hypothetical bigot I'm describing would probably believe that they were doing the moral thing and would justify it with statements like "They shouldn't do this in public if they don't want people to see it".

From our external vantage point Adria Richards and this hypothetical person clearly have different motives, but from their own internal opinion they both have the same motive. They both want to shame someone for doing something that they think is wrong.

That is wrong, yes. Because it endangers someone - I don't see lynch mobs gathering for people who tell sexist jokes. If trans* people weren't still at massive risk of violence, and if (like the Richards case) there were no identifying info beyond the picture itself, it would be acceptable collateral damage in a shame-as-social-reinforcement-tool paradigm - because then the appropriate response is to shame the picture-taker and make it clear that this shit is not acceptable behaviour.

I'm willing to bite the bullet and accept the less-than-perfect aspects of the most effective strategy for actually changing the culture.

[Caehlim]

Inappropriate as judged by who? It amazes me that we have people who believe people have rights no matter their sexual orientation , race , creed , color , nationality  or age but those same people don't believe in the freedom speech.

I've heard this argument frequently and don't get it.

How is us, freely expressing that we don't like what you said in any way against freedom of speech?

You said your opinion, we said ours and we were all quite free to do so.

[gaggedLouise]

It'd be much easier to get commentary on something if you link to an article that actually contains the remarks in question, instead of just remarks about the remarks in question.

As far as I can tell, he was listing several attributes and the first three that he listed were brilliant, dedicated, and tough. Not sure why he felt the need to also comment on her appearance but it wasn't a comment only on her appearance. That makes a difference.

Further, she isn't a stranger but has apparently been a friend of his for years. So that also plays a role.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/05/opinion/navarrette-obama-comment/index.html

Of course, most media outlets focused on the remarks about her looks, these words being the most fetching ones.

I figured they would be friends, too - he's also a legal scholar, and they are not far apart in age  - but that probably would matter less if somebody wanted to make an example of it. And to use what somebody said for public shaming, you don't actually have to be the person who was being talked to, you don't even need to have been present. One can go "I'm feeling offended and belittled by what he said to..." and imply that everybody else (or everybody of a given group, gender, race etc) should also be feeling offended and angry.

For the record, I think judging the validity of public shaming as a tactical move to gain the upper hand in a debate should not depend on whether you're on the same side as the person or media outlet using it. Just saying.

[Caehlim]

I'm willing to bite the bullet and accept the less-than-perfect aspects of the most effective strategy for actually changing the culture.

Yeah, that's a fair answer. I think we both appreciate the risks and rewards inherent to these things. We're just judging them ever so slightly differently as to which takes precedence.

[Trieste]

I think I'm going to agree with Caehlim however, this is quite a bit different, partly because he's a politician, but also because the comment is actually related to his position.

Now, let's say that I'm hiring someone to do a specific job, say a doctor that needs to do a checkup.  I overhear him making some remarks that make it seem he's not going to do a very good job.  I should have every right to go to his employer and voice my concerns.

It just so happens that in Romney's case, the "employer" is "everyone that might vote for him"...

But "everyone that might vote for him" didn't overhear his remarks. His remarks were made in private and then specifically brought out into the open and given a "shame on you" commentary. No situation is going to be exactly the same, but the two situations are very much parallel.

For the record, I think judging the validity of public shaming as a tactical move to gain the upper hand in a debate should not depend on whether you're on the same side as the person or media outlet using it. Just saying.

I think that shame can be a very useful tool, although I personally dislike it and probably would not use it. However, the fact that I would not use it does not make it inherently an invalid tool - it just means that it's not a tool in my personal collection.

On the other hand, I have seen it used to great effect by other people, for specific furtherance of causes that I believe worthwhile. The context of shaming is extremely important, and cannot really be separated from its use. After all, I think it's wrong to shame a woman into trying to be less sexual. I have no problem with shaming someone - man or woman - into being less sexist, though.

[Rhapsody]

Ok, thank you.  One last question for you, then: do you think that it was important she actually name the people doing it, or would it have been enough if she hadn't posted their picture and just said that they had "sponsor" badges (meaning they were there on actual business)?  Was their identity actually important to the story, considering they had also been thrown out of the convention?  (Sidenote: She didn't actually name them, but I get the feeling that if she actually knew their names, she would have.)

I honestly think that should be taken on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, with a crowd that size, the image was probably necessary to quickly identify the problematic guests to event staff. Perhaps not strictly necessary, but certainly helpful.

As for the story... wow.  Some people are just plain morons, honestly.  (As an aside, do you think the salesperson was trying to be rude by not looking you in the eye, or just shy?)

If it happened once, I'd say shy. Since it happens quite a lot when I shop for games or comics, I'd say ... not rude, but dismissive. It's the air of "oh, chick shopping. Not important. I think I'll stare at her tits." Sometimes it's slightly hostile, like I'm intruding into sacred space I shouldn't even know about. Those instances, thankfully, tend to be rare.

Some people are no doubt shy, but they tend to get lost in the shuffle of irritation. And some places I shop actually employ women, but most of their staff are males.

If you want another example, look at TIME's list of valuable Twitter feeds, which is a great cross-section of the problem. The fields where women dominate on TIME's list? Food, fashion, culture and celebrities.

Or take the example of the woman who runs the "I fucking love science" page, Elise Andrew. Sometimes, these people publicly shame themselves.

[Caehlim]

Or take the example of the woman who runs the "I fucking love science" page, Elise Andrew. Sometimes, these people publicly shame themselves.

Hehe, her replies to the statements were hilarious. I will point out though, that she did redact their usernames and personally I don't feel that her responses were in any way diminished by this.

[Rhapsody]

Hehe, her replies to the statements were hilarious. I will point out though, that she did redact their usernames and personally I don't feel that her responses were in any way diminished by this.

That's not her webpage. That's the webpage of someone else who picked up on the story. She edited the user names per libel laws (I think that's the right one); you can still see the user names on the Facebook page, which is publicly accessible.

[Sethala]

I honestly think that should be taken on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, with a crowd that size, the image was probably necessary to quickly identify the problematic guests to event staff. Perhaps not strictly necessary, but certainly helpful.

Oh certainly, and I think she did the right thing by taking the photograph to show staff.  However, the staff has a vested interest in fixing the problem, and the means to do so through a fair and impartial system.  The internet at large, has neither, which makes identification of them unnecessary from my point of view.

[gaggedLouise]

Oh certainly, and I think she did the right thing by taking the photograph to show staff.  However, the staff has a vested interest in fixing the problem, and the means to do so through a fair and impartial system.  The internet at large, has neither, which makes identification of them unnecessary from my point of view.

Plus, identifying persons and spreading their ID's around the internet enveloped in a shame commentary carries the risk of attracting fanatics, crackpots and self-appointed vigilantists, online or in the real world - and inciting acts of vengeance or personal smearing that have absolutely no basis in what the listed persons actually said or did. And to justify themselves, some of these - the original whistleblowers or people who have picked up on the issue - might tend to crank up the volume and become ever more simplistic to boost their good cause, or their egos.

[BlackestKnight]

I appreciate where this is coming from, but I think this is really dangerous thinking.

After all why should I accept someone's faults when those faults make me uncomfortable and they've shown an unwillingness to not do it?

Take us back a couple of decades to a time when women were, even in a professional environment, regular called, even in a supposedly professional environment "babe", "love", "darling" etc or worse "hot lips"... "big tits". When they were routinely groped and what would now be considered sexual abuse? When they were very much expected to sit there, look pretty, laugh at the jokes about them and not be taken seriously.  Should women in such circumstances have simply accepted people for their faults and let it go on?

Or when people were happy to use derogatory racial terms to describe people. Should people have learnt to accept people for their faults?

Surely life is also too short to put up with sexual jokes that make you feel uncomfortable and in reality have no place in a professional environment?

Dog, you reaching with that one. Obviously workplace harassment is wrong. I outlined that in my post as a legitimate grievance, We're talking about abstract jokes that don't refer to anyone in particular. Tell me how "forking a repo with a big dongle" is sexually demeaning to women? You can't because the shit is so abstract.

Still, I don't think the punishment is fitting. You would be better served looking for actual sexual improprieties, rather than punishing people for cracking corny jokes. That's like pulling people over for jay walking when you get serial killers on the loose. Your arguing as if they two are somehow co-related like if only we cracked down on more jay walkers, there would be fewer serial killers. It's a slippery slope. No, you would just end up with a bunch non violent offenders behind bars.

Policing abstract innuendo's is not high on my priority. Did you know that the snozzberies referenced In Willy Wonka is a fictional euphemism for a mans reproductive organs? Now I've ruined Charlie and the Chocolate factory. Snozzberies and Dongle's sound like they belong in the same universe.

We're not robots, no one is 100% about their job that they don't engage in off topic convo's. We're all adults here, many of us have heard worse. As long as they aren't negatively polluting the work environment, I'll cut some slack. Ironically, Miss Richard's did more to harm the workplace ecology than either of those donglegate jokers did. 

You act like people got to act like perfect paragons just because they put on a suit and tie and walk into an office setting, the truth of the matter is that people do all kinds of unprofessional shit on the job. I've done it, everyone's done or said some things that weren't the most appropriate. I remember at my old job I remarked on the looks of one of the waitresses at my job, I reflexively said that she looked "good" and while I meant it as a compliment and not as a pick-up line,  it could have been misconstrued as such and I would have been out on my ass. If the President of the united states can't keep his foot out of his mouth at the nation's highest office, what makes you think most people can at whatever job they're work?

No matter where your work, people eventually drop their guard. I'm not saying we should change Tuesdays to make a casual rape joke day,  but it's rather one sided and sophistic to make these donglegate guys out to be the poster boys for big bad workplace patriarchal bullies whilst propping up Miss Richard's as some sort of Rosa Parks of workplace sexual suffrage. It's far more complex than that.

[Ephiral]

I find your analogy to crime interesting, BlackestKnight. Because... know what? Police routinely issue tickets for jaywalking and track serial killers.

Unless you have a source that nobody else in this thread has seen, you don't know how abstract the joke was, because you don't have a transcript. Not that that's relevant, because it was against both the rules and the con's intentions. Really, why does it deserve defense once that's been established?

[Sethala]

Yeah, but they don't give people a 5-year sentence for jaywalking.  Unless the guy's like, a serial jaywalker or something, and has a few hundred counts on his record.

There's a thing called "disproportionate retribution".  Getting told to leave a con because you can't remain professional?  Yeah, that's fine.  I perfectly support PyCon's decision to kick people out that are being a nuisance.  I don't support anyone's decision to publicly lambast someone just because they slipped up and said something they shouldn't.

Another issue I have with the whole thing though: what would have happened if it were two women making a joke about things, and it was a guy that posted their picture and the name of their company on a blog that went viral?  Would you still be in support of him making that decision, to out those women and publicly shame them?  Or would it be oppressing women that want to get into the tech business?

[Ephiral]

Yeah, but they don't give people a 5-year sentence for jaywalking.  Unless the guy's like, a serial jaywalker or something, and has a few hundred counts on his record.

And Richards didn't punish this guy at all. She simply called out unacceptable behaviour.

There's a thing called "disproportionate retribution".  Getting told to leave a con because you can't remain professional?  Yeah, that's fine.  I perfectly support PyCon's decision to kick people out that are being a nuisance.  I don't support anyone's decision to publicly lambast someone just because they slipped up and said something they shouldn't.

This wasn't "slipped up". He didn't choose the wrong word. This was a deliberate decision to do something that happened to violate policy and encourage a hostile environment.

Another issue I have with the whole thing though: what would have happened if it were two women making a joke about things, and it was a guy that posted their picture and the name of their company on a blog that went viral?  Would you still be in support of him making that decision, to out those women and publicly shame them?  Or would it be oppressing women that want to get into the tech business?

In an ideal world where sexism wasn't a thing? Yeah, that'd be fine. Except it is. Look at the number of rape and death threats Richards has gotten. Or any other woman who dares point out that yes, sexism still happens. There is a serious distinction to be made, and pretending there isn't is just flat-out deceptive.

[BlackestKnight]

I find your analogy to crime interesting, BlackestKnight. Because... know what? Police routinely issue tickets for jaywalking and track serial killers.

Unless you have a source that nobody else in this thread has seen, you don't know how abstract the joke was, because you don't have a transcript. Not that that's relevant, because it was against both the rules and the con's intentions. Really, why does it deserve defense once that's been established?

If we're going to go by the police example. I understand in many police circles, it's an unspoken rule to target young men of an "urban element" for stop and frisk searches , while I understand it's not relevant to the topic, I wanted to make a point about rules and their overarching purpose in an organization. Let's say hypothetically that the rules of the convention endorsed the mistreatment of women and minorities and it was somehow constitutional, what do you do now? Follow the rules because they're the rules? Rules are not always benign. Personally, I don't subscribe to rules I don't believe in.  Rules are constantly under review as well. Rules are meant to be challenged, I believe. I know a dongle joke isn't as noble as civil rights but still, it's wrong. Even if you think it's appropriate that the guy lost his job over a joke given the rules of the convention, she shouldn't have been fired for the joke she made on twitter days prior to even being present at the event.

[Sethala]

Even if you think it's appropriate that the guy lost his job over a joke given the rules of the convention, she shouldn't have been fired for the joke she made on twitter prior to all that.

Wait, what?

[BlackestKnight]

Wait, what?

Yeah, she lost her job over a joke she made on twitter about stuffing a sock in some guys pants or something. The HR saw it and canned her too. I don't see how she's better off with these rules that Ephiral says are meant to protect her if she's out of a job. I guess it's honor before reason. If anything, this episode should serve the purpose to shine a light into the absurdity of corporate rules themselves, rather than the workers.

[Ephiral]

If we're going to go by the police example. I understand in many police circles, it's an unspoken rule to target young men of an "urban element" for stop and frisk searches , while I understand it's not relevant to the topic, I wanted to make a point about rules and their overarching purpose in an organization. Let's say hypothetically that the rules of the convention endorsed the mistreatment of women and minorities and it was somehow constitutional, what do you do now? Follow the rules because they're the rules? Rules are not always benign. Personally, I don't subscribe to rules I don't believe in.  Rules are constantly under review as well. Rules are meant to be challenged, I believe. I know a dongle joke isn't as noble as civil rights but still, it's wrong. Even if you think it's appropriate that the guy lost his job over a joke given the rules of the convention, she shouldn't have been fired for the joke she made on twitter prior to all that.

Did I say it was appropriate that he lost his job? Or did I say the exact opposite? Go ahead, check the thread. What I did say is that the guy knowingly and deliberately broke the rules, helped reinforce the extremely hostile environment already experienced by women in tech in the process, and got called on it. This I have zero problem with whatsoever.

As to your ridiculously overblown example: If this were Racist Misogyny Con '13, then yes, they'd be within their rights to toss out someone who broke those rules. And I'd be calling them out for merely existing. However, this isn't the case - the actual case is that PyCon instituted rules and policies intended to mitigate the hostile work environment faced by women in tech. Standing up against that doesn't make you a noble civil rights crusader, it makes you an asshole. This guy made a dick move and suffered appropriate consequences. Then two people were unjustly fired. Then the Internet lost its shit with misogynist bullshit. The end.

[Sethala]

Yeah, she lost her job over a joke she made on twitter about stuffing a sock in some guys pants or something. The HR saw it and canned her too. I don't see how she's better off with these rules that Ephiral says are meant to protect her if she's out of a job. I guess it's honor before reason.

No, that's not at all right, and I would very much like to know where you got that information.

She was fired after the entire blog post went live, and after there was significant internet backlash about it, enough that the company she worked for actually had several of its clients tell them it no longer wanted their business, because of what she did.  Now, I don't think she should have been fired because of the blog post itself, but her actual ability to do her job (as a PR person - "developer evangelist" is her actual job title) was compromised because of reactions to her post.

(Edited to quote the post I'm responding to.)

[Bandita]

Slavery wasn't ended because slaves took their masters aside and politely asked to be freed.
Women didn't get the vote by chatting with their husbands about it over dinner.
Institutional racism and segregation didn't stop because black people asked white people "Uhh, can we talk with you for a moment?"
Gay people aren't getting the right to marry because they were quiet and polite about it.

Why the hell do you think sexism is the special case?

This is the best thing I've seen all day.  Can I quote you on it, like other than here?  (will of course leave the source out, just let people know that someone brilliant wrote it)

[BlackestKnight]

Did I say it was appropriate that he lost his job? Or did I say the exact opposite? Go ahead, check the thread. What I did say is that the guy knowingly and deliberately broke the rules, helped reinforce the extremely hostile environment already experienced by women in tech in the process, and got called on it. This I have zero problem with whatsoever.

As to your ridiculously overblown example: If this were Racist Misogyny Con '13, then yes, they'd be within their rights to toss out someone who broke those rules. And I'd be calling them out for merely existing. However, this isn't the case - the actual case is that PyCon instituted rules and policies intended to mitigate the hostile work environment faced by women in tech. Standing up against that doesn't make you a noble civil rights crusader, it makes you an asshole. This guy made a dick move and suffered appropriate consequences. Then two people were unjustly fired. Then the Internet lost its shit with misogynist bullshit. The end.

Ahh, my god. I completely went over your head. How do any of us know that the rules in question are even worth following? Or what exactly those rules are? You justify your reasoning by bringing up the tired old extreme hostile environment excuse but for all we know the jokes could not have even fallen under your own definition of what constitutes "extreme hostile environment". What the fuck is an extreme hostile environment? That is what I'm trying to define. To some people, it can be saying "vagina" in a classroom setting, for others it's something entirely more graphic.
We don't know anything, we're just working off assumptions. You don't hang people based solely on testimony. The fact that she was fired over her mild twitter comments invites some serious reasonable doubt in my mind.

[Skynet]

Ahh, my god. I completely went over your head. How do any of us know that the rules in question are even worth following? Or what exactly those rules are? You justify your reasoning by bringing up the tired old extreme hostile environment excuse but for all we know the jokes could not have even fallen under your own definition of what constitutes "extreme hostile environment". What the fuck is an extreme hostile environment? That is what I'm trying to define. To some people, it can be saying "vagina" in a classroom setting, for others it's something entirely more graphic.
We don't know anything, we're just working off assumptions. You don't hang people based solely on testimony. The fact that she was fired over her mild twitter comments invites some serious reasonable doubt in my mind.

PyCon recently instituted a zero tolerance policy for sexual jokes at their events, and required all comers to read and agree to it.  People who make sex jokes in a forum where others can hear can reasonably be in trouble for violating the rules.

[Ephiral]

No, that's not at all right, and I would very much like to know where you got that information.

She was fired after the entire blog post went live, and after there was significant internet backlash about it, enough that the company she worked for actually had several of its clients tell them it no longer wanted their business, because of what she did.  Now, I don't think she should have been fired because of the blog post itself, but her actual ability to do her job (as a PR person - "developer evangelist" is her actual job title) was compromised because of reactions to her post.

(Edited to quote the post I'm responding to.)

Source? I hadn't heard anything about clients dropping the firm. (That said, I still don't think her getting fired was appropriate here. A solid business decision, but inappropriate - as were the actions of these clients, if this is the case.)

This is the best thing I've seen all day.  Can I quote you on it, like other than here?  (will of course leave the source out, just let people know that someone brilliant wrote it)

*blush* Err... thanks. Not my concept, but my words. Use them wherever you think they'll help.

Ahh, my god. I completely went over your head. How do any of us know that the rules in question are even worth following? Or what exactly those rules are? You justify your reasoning by bringing up the tired old extreme hostile environment excuse but for all we know the jokes could not have even fallen under your own definition of what constitutes "extreme hostile environment". What the fuck is an extreme hostile environment? That is what I'm trying to define. To some people, it can be saying "vagina" in a classroom setting, for others it's something entirely more graphic.
We don't know anything, we're just working off assumptions. You don't hang people based solely on testimony. The fact that she was fired over her mild twitter comments invites some serious reasonable doubt in mind.

No, you didn't go over my head. You just didn't have much of a point worth making. We measure the value of a rule in its intent and how well it achieves that intent. The intent here was to make female participants feel more welcome, as evidenced by the focus on female attendance noted in several messages put out by PyCon staff. They served their purpose - a female participant felt uncomfortable, staff took appropriate action, the issue was resolved. These are good rules.

And seriously? How can we know what the rules are? Are you actually asking that? Maybe by reading them?

Oh look, the old "What's a hostile environment anyway?" argument. From this very thread, how about this shining example? Or this:

(Because I'm currently getting the highest grade in my networking and programming classes and keep being told by more than one of the compsci students - all guys, by the way; I am one of two girls in the networking class and three girls in the programming class - that they'll be happy to look over my homework for me before I turn it in, or that they can explain what object-oriented programming means in smaller words, or that they're shocked when I explain class polymorphism to the other girl in the class who didn't pick it up at first. This is not an attitude of the past, this is something that is still happening.)

This is the shit women in tech have to deal with constantly. That joke? Is part of this environment.

[BlackestKnight]

Source? I hadn't heard anything about clients dropping the firm. (That said, I still don't think her getting fired was appropriate here. A solid business decision, but inappropriate - as were the actions of these clients, if this is the case.)
*blush* Err... thanks. Not my concept, but my words. Use them wherever you think they'll help.
No, you didn't go over my head. You just didn't have much of a point worth making. We measure the value of a rule in its intent and how well it achieves that intent. The intent here was to make female participants feel more welcome, as evidenced by the focus on female attendance noted in several messages put out by PyCon staff. They served their purpose - a female participant felt uncomfortable, staff took appropriate action, the issue was resolved. These are good rules.

And seriously? How can we know what the rules are? Are you actually asking that? Maybe by reading them?

Oh look, the old "What's a hostile environment anyway?" argument. From this very thread, how about this shining example? Or this:This is the shit women in tech have to deal with constantly. That joke? Is part of this environment.

So what environment is the joke she made apart of apparently? People forget that for all her talk of social justice, she ended up getting fired her damn self. I didn't find her remarks offensive at all but I understand why she was fired. It's not just about the sexist male antagonist we love so much. So it's not much of a win for women, as much as it's a loss for everyone involved. All I'm saying is the system is shitty. I don't like Zero tolerance, I didn't like it in school. I don't like it in business.   You don't have to be sexist, racist or whatever to break the rules. All you have to do is say something someone doesn't like and you're gone. Your whole stance is anyone who makes any sort of comment that can be perceived as controversial should be fired based on some subjective index of comfort. I think that's a bit too extreme and that there should be some criterion other than what people perceive.

Yes, sexism is a huge problem in the tech industry but can you explain why this particular incident is a product of any sort of boys club sexism instead of shitty zero tolerance system?

[gaggedLouise]

For the record, I think judging the validity of public shaming as a tactical move to gain the upper hand in a debate should not depend on whether you're on the same side as the person or media outlet using it. Just saying.

I think that shame can be a very useful tool, although I personally dislike it and probably would not use it. However, the fact that I would not use it does not make it inherently an invalid tool - it just means that it's not a tool in my personal collection.

On the other hand, I have seen it used to great effect by other people, for specific furtherance of causes that I believe worthwhile.

I see where you're coming from and I agree it matters how things are spoken of in public, language is a power tool too. But I think someone had a point earlier in this thread that it's actually hard to find good examples of when the tactic of shaming a specific individual over something they had said and spreading that quotation around, just as a quote, with a shame commentary - when that kind has been essential in the long run to a struggle for liberating a group in society (women, blacks, colonized peoples etc). Focusing on things like corrupt justice and trumped-up trials, lynchings and half-regular brutalities (yeah, rapes too, used as a means of oppression), hokey jingoism feeding into war, stereotypes and dumb rules in education (almost typed deuceucation, lol), election practices and efforts to keep some groups off the vote etc - highlighting those has been much more effective.

One good example of a viral "quote shaming moment" having been a key to changing the perception of an issue*  is when McCarthy was actually featured in a tv documentary (See It Now) and the U.S. people - those who had tv sets and the media, anyway, but by extension most people got to hear about it - could see and hear the way he questioned witnesses, see him calling the ACLU "a front for, and doing the work of" the Communist Party, accusing the Democrats (and Roosevelt) of treason against the nation and so on. That one helped swing how he, and his own story of protecting the free world, were perceived. The tv program helped create a counter-narrative and question how Joe and the HUAC were telling their story. But it did not show McCarthy in any kind of private, off-work space. The things he said in that one were not meant to have been digested by the wider public, but few of them, I think, were just private wisdom hauled out and paraded on tv.

The effect of the anti-McCarthy narrative was lasting. These days it's pretty much impossible for many of us to use the line "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?" outside of an ironic frame, though when it was used at the HUAC, it was dead serious and could maul people's lives. His classic pick-up line has been shamed in retrospect!

So okay, that's a good one (though not about private or semi-private quotes), but it's not that much about protecting an underprivileged group, unless radicals, communists and liberals at the time are seen as long-term underprivileged and oppressed, and I think the effect of that candid documentary had a lot to do with many people in Washington already beginning to feel mistrustful of Joe Mccarthy and wanting to downgrade him. The timing was right.

And it's still rarer to find instances where named shaming of somebody who is pretty much unknown to the wider public, just any John Blow, has been effective and worth the effort - without creating bad fallout. With a well-known politician, official or businessman, a public personality, it can work sometimes, but with unknowns that suddenly get spun around the public news scene and now the social media, it gets very tricky. There's a built-in risk for creating a shit-slinging fight, too, because either party will likely want to get the last word and insults (even if stitched together with real arguments) are good money in a fight online.

The context of shaming is extremely important, and cannot really be separated from its use. After all, I think it's wrong to shame a woman into trying to be less sexual. I have no problem with shaming someone - man or woman - into being less sexist, though.

I agree context is important, but once you've spoken, or once you're in a conversation that's in any sense public - or could open to the public a little while later - you can't fully control how your remarks get read, interpreted, heard. So you get a mutual, open-ended right to be offended, and to use that sense of offendedness to push each other around. And with "less sexy" vs "less sexist" the trouble in that perspective is that what one person experiences as "asserting myself as a sexual person, claiming my own sexuality" can potenatially be, to somebody else, one with "grabbing the right to indulge in sexism about me, my kind or other people - and/or invading my privacy by pushing their sense of sexiness up into everybody's faces". Sometimes 'having the space to be sexy in yourself' and 'acting/talking sexist at others' are two sides of the same coin and I don't think it's enough to just invoke that one camp - women, female geeks, or elder men, whtever - are *always* at a disadvantage in our culture and therefore should *always* have the right to do sexist talk or actions for free and not get called out on it.

It's not that I see you taking that line personally as a set thing, but if we don't have any other yardsticks than a)"I like this kind of shaming, but not that one, those doing it" and b)"my gang has the right to shame others and be blatantly sexist about others, but your group doesn't have the right to reply in kind, hey they're always the oppressors" then the conflict logic is gonna point that way sometimes.


*edit 6 p.m. CET: a good example of the general dynamics of it, anyway. There were no one or two single quotes from that tv program that alone changed the image of Joe McCarthy, and he was not shown in private. But actually hearing the paranoid tone of his questioning and his other off-the-cuff remarks was essential, and this started a windfall in his public image.

[consortium11]

No matter where your work, people eventually drop their guard. I'm not saying we should change Tuesdays to make a casual rape joke day,  but it's rather one sided and sophistic to make these donglegate guys out to be the poster boys for big bad workplace patriarchal bullies whilst propping up Miss Richard's as some sort of Rosa Parks of workplace sexual suffrage. It's far more complex than that.

Where have I done either?

The men in question went to a professional event, broke the rules and were removed. I'm not sure how anyone has a particular issue with this; one of the men in question doesn't.

Now, as I've said earlier in this very thread. I thought Miss Richard's decision to immediately publicly shame them was poor. There were other ways (and she used them) to alert staff if she wasn't happy mentioning it to the pair directly. Instead she decided to shame them and set herself up as somewhat of a martyr ("Yesterday the future of programming was on the line and I made myself heard").

Now, the man in question losing his job may be a harsh punishment for the dongle joke, but it wasn't for the dongle joke directly. It was for publicly embarrassing his employer, who he was representing at the event. I'd imagine it was part of the terms and conditions of his employment contract that he didn't do so... I know in my employment contracts there are. The employer likely thought that having someone wearing their t-shirt having their photo plastered all over the internet as an example of the sexism that so many say is endemic in the tech industry wasn't a good idea.

As for Miss Richard's, as I understand it part of the nature of her role involves her being trusted within the tech community. Fairy or unfairly her actions meant that didn't happen and her employer suffered a backlash. As such it made the decision to terminate her employment. Again, possibly harsh but also possibly understandable.

[Bandita]

Ahh, my god. I completely went over your head. How do any of us know that the rules in question are even worth following? Or what exactly those rules are? You justify your reasoning by bringing up the tired old extreme hostile environment excuse but for all we know the jokes could not have even fallen under your own definition of what constitutes "extreme hostile environment". What the fuck is an extreme hostile environment? That is what I'm trying to define. To some people, it can be saying "vagina" in a classroom setting, for others it's something entirely more graphic.
We don't know anything, we're just working off assumptions. You don't hang people based solely on testimony. The fact that she was fired over her mild twitter comments invites some serious reasonable doubt in my mind.

If you were saying "Ni**er", or making a racist joke, at a tech con,  you would get thrown out.  You would likely lose your job if your boss found out about it.

My point is, words can be harmful.  Words can be upsetting.  If you don't know whether or not something might offend someone, and you are at a conference representing your company, with the name of your company splashed in bright yellow letters across your chest... you might want to just not say it.

Women are being harassed in such huge ways on the internet right now that many of them are justifiably sensitive.  I mean, being called a 'cunt' over and over again just because not everyone agrees with you can be pretty taxing.  So if you are a male, making a joke about sex, in a room with women who are pretty much using computers all day long.... You know, women who are really likely to blog...... Just assume that they are sick of sexual innuendo and harassment.  Just my advice, I'm not dictating here, its a "for your own self interest" sort of thing, directed at tech guys.

I'm not saying that one can't make dongle jokes.... I'm saying that there is a time and place for that sort of crap, and that time and place is probably in the bar after the speech, not DURING the speech. People really should know their audience, and while someone else is speaking, they should not assume that they have an audience. They are the audience, so they should shut up.

Edit:  I guess what I'm saying here, in short, is it's not about rules.  It's about respect and common sense.  Those guys were both stupid and disrespectful. 

[Sethala]

Source? I hadn't heard anything about clients dropping the firm. (That said, I still don't think her getting fired was appropriate here. A solid business decision, but inappropriate - as were the actions of these clients, if this is the case.)

Can't find it at the moment, but the blog from SendGrid made it pretty clear that the reason they were firing her was because she's no longer effective in her role.  Considering she's done similar "public shaming" stunts in the past (I linked to it earlier, don't have the time to track it down at the moment, however), it's not unreasonable to think that she may already have been on thin ice with her employer.

[Trieste]

I tried to help you out with the source by taking a little time with Google and checking out articles on SendGrid's part. There is no mention of SendGrid getting dropped by any customers as a result of Richards' actions.

There is mention that SendGrid got attacked quite a bit by angry Internetters, including a few fine specimens of human achievement over at /b/, and the repeated service outages might have caused clients to drop them. There is no mention of whether or not that happened.

So as far as I can tell, re: clients dropping SendGrid due to 'donglegate', didn't happen.

While searching around, I did find yet another prominent example of a woman very heavily active in the tech community with very praiseworthy goals, telling the tech community to stop pretending it treats women fairly, nicely, or with any respect at all.

... I actually tried to pick out a choice quote or two as an example of what Asher Wolf wrote about in that last linked article, but I really can't. The whole article sounds so familiar it makes me want to cry. Just read it - and then please stop trying to claim that marginalization is rare, or that Richards was 'just being oversensitive', or that 'every community has its jerks'. Saying that 'every community has its jerks' is an implication that the majority of the people are nice and that jerks are the exception to the rule. The sad truth is the tech community is slowly evolving from a state where it could more accurately be described as 'having its nice guys'. In the process of attaining my science degree, I can tell you that even the communities of chemical engineering and physical chemistry are more welcoming to females than what I've experienced in tech-oriented spaces.

That is a problem.

I don't understand why there is even an attempt to pretend that there is equal footing for all genders in the techie world. I'm not saying that females are better or worse programmers - I really would prefer to be taken on my individual skills, thank you very much - but if you meet a talented programmer who is also female? Please make sure you remember that in addition to having to learn her craft, she had to deal with a lot - a lot - of people, often people with penises, who shore do like to tell little ladies to leave the code-slingin' to the menfolks.

I don't understand why there is even an attempt to pretend that this doesn't happen.

[Ephiral]

So what environment is the joke she made apart of apparently? People forget that for all her talk of social justice, she ended up getting fired her damn self. I didn't find her remarks offensive at all but I understand why she was fired. It's not just about the sexist male antagonist we love so much. So it's not much of a win for women, as much as it's a loss for everyone involved. All I'm saying is the system is shitty. I don't like Zero tolerance, I didn't like it in school. I don't like it in business.   You don't have to be sexist, racist or whatever to break the rules. All you have to do is say something someone doesn't like and you're gone.

An environment in which men are not constantly objectified, rendered invisible, talked down to, fondled, hit on, appreciated for their looks first and talents second, etc. An environment in which she was not acting on behalf of her employer. An environment in which you would have to specifically seek out her commentary. And it's worth noting that the subject of this joke was not sex, it was the invasiveness of the TSA.

Your whole stance is anyone who makes any sort of comment that can be perceived as controversial should be fired based on some subjective index of comfort. I think that's a bit too extreme and that there should be some criterion other than what people perceive.

For fuck's sake. From the post you were replying to:

Did I say it was appropriate that he lost his job? Or did I say the exact opposite? [...]This guy made a dick move and suffered appropriate consequences. Then two people were unjustly fired. Then the Internet lost its shit with misogynist bullshit. The end.

From earlier:

No. I don't think anyone should have been fired.

Lying when the evidence is right there is generally a poor way to convince people of your position.

Yes, sexism is a huge problem in the tech industry but can you explain why this particular incident is a product of any sort of boys club sexism instead of shitty zero tolerance system?

If it weren't for the boys' club mentality, it would have been accepted that this joke was not cool-despite-the-policy.

Can't find it at the moment, but the blog from SendGrid made it pretty clear that the reason they were firing her was because she's no longer effective in her role.  Considering she's done similar "public shaming" stunts in the past (I linked to it earlier, don't have the time to track it down at the moment, however), it's not unreasonable to think that she may already have been on thin ice with her employer.

Just gonna point out that this isn't even tangentally related to what I was asking for. As Trieste pointed out, this might be because the claim I was questioning is a total fabrication.