| |||||||||||||
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment mattersAurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment mattersPosted Aug 15, 2012 15:50 UTC (Wed) by slashdot (guest, #22014)Parent article: Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters
Honestly, this seems way exaggerated.
Just wear non-skimpy clothing (e.g. business clothing or jeans+sweater), and if someone really sexually assaults call the police, while otherwise tell them to fuck off.
Surely there's more "sexual assault" at an average dance club than at an hacker conference.
Now perhaps nerds are worse at reading cues of unwillingness by women than the general population, but that's kind of fixable by bluntly saying "I don't like you" or the like, and then nerds are probably much more likely to take that at face value and desist rather than as a test of whether the man is insecure and gives up easily.
Although maybe conferences could hire more security people from reputable companies if there's indeed such a problem.
(Log in to post comments)
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:02 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
So various women say that there is a problem and your response is a) there is no problem b) behaviour of the women should change.
Conferences should have a friendly atmosphere. If you cannot be friendly, then it is not the task of others to change their behaviour.
Note that if you read the article instead of just the summary you'll note that it is about more than just sexual assault.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:06 UTC (Wed) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
"Honestly, this seems way exaggerated."
What are you basing that assessment on? My response to this sort of thing used to be similar - it just didn't seem credible that this sort of behaviour was happening that often, but I've found that taking the trouble to ask women I know about it shows that it really is. Clearly, there's a distribution curve, and the more serious stuff happens less often, but it's pretty stunning how much lower level harassment is just absolutely completely routine.
In my experience (and yes anecdote =/= data) this stuff doesn't happen to me because I'm male, and (possibly more importantly) I just don't get to see it much when it happens to other people. If you're in that position I think it's important to realise that your own direct experience is different to that of women, and it's not a particularly useful source of information about how prevalent this sort of behaviour is.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:08 UTC (Wed) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]
The old "With those clothes you deserved to be raped" meme. On Lwn. Disappointing.
And that you might get harassed more at a dance club is totally irrelevant. For one you can justify *anything* with that argument. For another you're less likely to need to go to dance club to shape your professional live. Although its a sad, sad thing to accept harassment just because you don't *need* to go the place where its happening because it doesn't directly shape your professional life if you're not going there.
Btw, I know several people who don't go to dance clubs anymore exactly because of harassment. Now translate that to the IT Sector...
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 20:14 UTC (Wed) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link]
This guy "slashdot" has been disappointing forever, and reinforces my belief that (in the general case) it's not worth reading the LWN comments of people who aren't paying for LWN.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 17, 2012 14:46 UTC (Fri) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
> it's not worth reading the LWN comments of people who
> aren't paying for LWN.
I respectfully encourage you to do some more correlation analysis before doing anything so drastic.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:10 UTC (Wed) by nickbp (subscriber, #63605) [Link] The events described in the article content definitely don't give me the impression that they're exaggerating the problem. For example, [he] tried to get me to show him my tits so he could punch a hole in a card that, when filled, would net him a favor from one of the official security staff. Having read that, I'm not sure I'd want to attend either, and I'm a guy.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:15 UTC (Wed) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link] but that's kind of fixable by bluntly saying "I don't like you" or the like You didn't really read the article, did you? Say, the part about conference organizers having a contest encouraging people to say "show me your boobs"? The part about guys licking women at a bar? The evidence is quite strong that saying "I don't like you" is not even close to starting to solve the problem. Men have to take responsibility for the atmosphere they create, not create an atmosphere where assault is tolerated and then say "take it to the police if you have a problem." (And of course it should go without saying that blaming the victim ("just wear something non-revealing") is so wrong that I don't even know where to start critiquing it. But apparently it has to be said, so here, I'm saying it.) (Actually, here is how I will critique it: your statement is so offensive that it makes me want to punch you in the face, because you are part of the problem. However, our (quite correct) social norms are that it would be my fault if I punched you in the face, because I'm an adult and I can control my own behaviors, even when provoked by outrageously offensive statements. So the correct response to "your offensive statements make me want to punch you in the face" is not "you should stop saying things I find offensive"; the correct response is "I should not punch you in the face based on how offensive your statements are." Similarly, devaluing someone as a human being based on what they wear is something that you, as an adult, can control. So the correct response to "your clothing makes me devalue you as a human being" is not "you should stop wearing clothing that makes me devalue you as a human being," but "I should not devalue you as a human being based on what you are wearing.")
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:48 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
I think the "take it to the police" statement is quite funny actually, because were the women actually to do that he would be screaming bloody murder. A few of the actions described would actually qualify as a sex crime in most states. That puts you on the sex offender registry for life in most states and also means you can't live within 1000' of a park or school and lots of other nasty consequences like disclosing to all potential employers that you are a sex offender and having neighbors posting your picture on telephone polls to warn people their is a sex offender in the neighborhood.
There would be a dramatic change in atmosphere after a few attendees ended up in jail but I doubt anyone wants it to reach that level (including the women) but I have to say if they don't listen to what she's saying that exactly what might happen. This isn't a joking matter, just like the other articles have said if this atmosphere continues this will mean not a single company will attend or participate if for no other reason then being associated when the inevitable bad press hits.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 16, 2012 8:33 UTC (Thu) by eliezert (subscriber, #35757) [Link]
If it's either "a few (guilty) attendees end up in jail" or " many (innocent) women will be harassed and stop coming" I prefer the former.
There should be a zero-tolerance policy, as in "we will cooperate with law enforcement so you go to jail, if you can't keep your hands to yourself". It is a criminal offense, people should not have an expectation of getting away with it.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 16, 2012 8:47 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
In that sense it should not be different from stealing, or any other serious offense.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:17 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] "Just wear non-skimpy clothing (e.g. business clothing or jeans+sweater)"Yeah, right. You're at a hacker conference in Las Vegas in the summer. It's more than 100 degrees F (40 C) outside, and the male attendees are mostly wearing shorts and tee shirts. But female attendees are supposed to cover up, because if they show any skin they deserve what they get. Meanwhile, just ignore all of the well-known female hackers who have gone on record describing what they've endured. They must be making it up, because user "slashdot" just can't believe it.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:26 UTC (Wed) by sml (subscriber, #75391) [Link]
> Honestly, this seems way exaggerated.
Your attitude is deplorable. Have you considered that, being a man, you may not have suffered as much sexual harassment as, say, a woman?
> Just wear non-skimpy clothing (e.g. business clothing or jeans+sweater)
Or maybe men attending the conference could act like people rather than animals?
> Surely there's more "sexual assault" at an average dance club than at an hacker conference.
So lets raise the behavioural standard at a professional conference just a fraction above that at your local club at 2am, shall we?
> Now perhaps nerds are worse at reading cues of unwillingness by women than the general population, but that's kind of fixable by bluntly saying "I don't like you" or the like, and then nerds are probably much more likely to take that at face value and desist rather than as a test of whether the man is insecure and gives up easily.
Please realise that women sometimes want to talk to you for professional reasons - they may even enjoy your company - and *still* they might not want to sleep with you.
This seems relevant: http://xkcd.com/322/
> Although maybe conferences could hire more security people from reputable companies if there's indeed such a problem.
In 2012, you think it might be necessary to hire security guards to protect women from men at a professional conference?
Do we live on different planets?
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:40 UTC (Wed) by slashdot (guest, #22014) [Link]
> Your attitude is deplorable. Have you considered that, being a man, you may not have suffered as much sexual harassment as, say, a woman?
Surely, but men probably face greater dangers than woman.
For example, every time you approach an apparently single girl, there's a remote risk that he's actually with a boyfriend who is in the bathroom (or otherwise temporarily away), and that he comes back while you are talking with her and gets really aggressive with you.
I think I personally only got some strong pushes away and angry threats that way, but I have feared worse a couple of times, and you can risk a punch in the face or worse if you are very unlucky.
Now of course as a man you can just be asocial and mostly avoid such situations, while women get approached regardless, but that's just a biological fact of life.
In fact, it's kind of good for girls, because it makes it harder for them to be socially underdeveloped than boys (and that's partly why nerds tend to be males).
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:50 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
> Surely, but men probably face greater dangers than woman.
I don't even.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:55 UTC (Wed) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link]
That's the giveaway that he's actively trolling and not just clueless, I think. But hey, at least he made it easy for our benevolent overlords to delete his account.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:06 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
My Account -> Edit Filtering and add slashdot. Wish I'd added him 2 days ago. :(
Not sure we'll see much from the editors... Perhaps inspiringly, they have amazing tolerance for non-spam.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:12 UTC (Wed) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link]
It's not inspiring, unfortunately. It tells newcomers (or very old-comers like me who didn't realize there was a filtering system) that hostile comments (or trolling, or both) are tolerated in this community. Which makes it not much of a community.
[I realize this is a very, very hard line to draw for the editors, and feel for them, but this seems like a very easy case.]
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:37 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] The problem is that I have a very high intolerance for censorship. It's hard for me to take that step, even in the face of an account that has been a repeated, ongoing problem. I'm also increasingly intolerant of people who want to wreck the site I've spent so long building, though. In this particular case, I think there is going to have to be some sort of action soon.Sigh.
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:53 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
I feel for you. Its like balancing on a razor, but maybe you could consider making it easier to add people to the ignore list (like a button right next to the post). My simple (although probably wrong) perspective is that the easier you make it to ignore someone the better the community will work.
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:57 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] That's probably a worthwhile addition, yes.I've also been pondering ways of altering the presentation of comments posted by people who are being filtered by a lot of people. The account in question here is currently #2 on the list.
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:11 UTC (Wed) by edomaur (subscriber, #14520) [Link]
Both idea are good, I thinks.
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 19:28 UTC (Wed) by fracek (guest, #85785) [Link]
What do you think about hell banning people like Hacker News does?
Trolls can still post but only other hell banned people can see them. In this way they won't signup again because they were banned.
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 19:41 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I would humbly suggest a "report abuse" button; check three violations of the "polite, respectful" rule, ban the user. It is not censorship but ostracism.
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 22:36 UTC (Wed) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]
One problem with the current filtering I have is that it doesn't fully work work in combination with "Unread comments". Comments to a filtered comment aren't marked as such if the filtered comment is already read.
That makes it harder to really ignore subthreads started by $troll which probably leads to more answers and thus more fun for the troll.
Tolerance Posted Aug 16, 2012 21:23 UTC (Thu) by biged (subscriber, #50106) [Link]
Hacker News has a small collection of effective tactics (which need not be publicised but are worth looking into)
On a social/human level, a time-limited ban has been found effective on at least one site. It helps reform behaviour of those who are merely ignorant rather than wilfully misbehaving.
It's certainly worth expending some effort on this: LWN comment quality is one of the major features of the site, and as you start to lose the battle the ones misbehaving increasingly get the feeling their behaviour is tolerated or even appreciated. This is a slippery slope, and only LWN features can fix it.
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:05 UTC (Wed) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link] I have a very high intolerance for censorship as well. I think a lot of us who have been around the net for a long time have had that baked in (it's a big part of why I give to EFF and ACLU, for example). So I totally agree you're in a difficult spot. But where there are alternative venues for the speech, it may be useful to think of it as being an editor (or a party host), not being a censor. The position needs to be "feel free to say stupid things, just not at my conversation/party, where I want my friends to feel welcome" rather than "never say stupid things."
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:22 UTC (Wed) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link] The position needs to be "feel free to say stupid things, just not at my conversation/party, where I want my friends to feel welcome" rather than "never say stupid things." Yeah. But it's a challenge to keep the moderation from becoming a huge pile of no fun. You're now dealing with real people rather than bots, and they're better at evading your filters. And there will be a few people that want to test (and argue about) precisely where you draw the line. You can end up spending most of your energy dealing with the most annoying 1% of your readers.
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:45 UTC (Wed) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link]
Oh, absolutely agreed on all points. It's an unfortunate cost of having a community that is both high-profile and high-quality.
I'd add that I agree that Jon's suggestion to surface the information that "this guy has been filtered regularly and by many people" would be a good step. It's still gameable, of course, but it's a good social cue. Think of it as people walking away from the Creep at a party - maybe not as good as throwing the Creep out, but still sends the signal that "we don't approve of what this guy is doing." Worst case, it helps people understand that this person is not representative of the community, and best case, perhaps surfacing that signal (like the red/green/yellow cards discussed in the original article) gives people an opportunity to learn.
Tolerance Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:44 UTC (Wed) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432) [Link]
We should not censor the ugly truth. People need to see it to understand.
Tolerance Posted Aug 16, 2012 8:17 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Does that mean you'd *not* toss out the guy who, uninvited, tries to lick the tatoo of one of your female guests at a party in your house, because the rest of the party-guests "need to see the ugly truth" ?
Or do you at some point say: "If you want to stay at my party, you must treat all my friends with respect, if you can't do that I must insist that you leave."
Tolerance Posted Aug 16, 2012 12:48 UTC (Thu) by tcabot (subscriber, #6656) [Link]
I would definitely bounce the person you describe. Assault and speech, however, are different things and must be treated differently. Censorship is a very, very slippery slope.
Tolerance Posted Aug 16, 2012 13:07 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Yes. But hateful or harassing speech (especially when it is directed at a minority that you wish to feel welcome), isn't a good thing. And if you silently tolerate it, the minority can easily get the impression that the community accepts this kind of behaviour.
If I had 20 guests over at my place, 3 of which where black, and some person started spouting white-supremacist nonsense, you can be sure that I'd speak up about it, and demand that they either treat everyone with respect, or else leave the premises. They've got the right to free speech, but I have no requirement to let them borrow *my* living-room for the purpose. Furthermore "free speech" is not a "get out of jail free" card that allows you to harass other people.
Harassment that is verbal, is still harassment. It's reasonable, and indeed sensible, to insist that people do NOT engage in harassment of any kind, and to warn and/or expel those who are unable or unwilling to refrain from it.
Tolerance Posted Aug 16, 2012 13:34 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
"if you silently tolerate it"
I think it's fair to note that that isn't what happened here.
Tolerance Posted Aug 16, 2012 20:17 UTC (Thu) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]
If someone started spouting white-supremacist nonsense at my party which didn't even have coloured people I would ask them to stop or leave.
If it wasn't my party I would probably ask the organizer to do the same.
People are different, it would be a boring place without it, but that doesn't mean you can't have respect for others.
Tolerance Posted Aug 17, 2012 21:21 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]
I believe "coloured", along with "Negro" and--amazingly--"Black" are now considered unacceptable descriptive terms for what we're not supposed to call "African-Americans", even if they are neither African, nor American.
Tolerance Posted Aug 18, 2012 13:23 UTC (Sat) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]
I'm not from the US, my first language isn't even English. So I have a question for you:
What is the term for people who are not white/Caucasian ?
Non-Caucasian ?
Tolerance Posted Aug 18, 2012 14:05 UTC (Sat) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]
I am not a native speaker as well, but here - in Germany - when speaking english the term People/Person of color is used at times. I think I remember this being used in the US as well.
Tolerance Posted Aug 18, 2012 18:40 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
In the UK "black" is in common use and does not appear to be offensive.
Tolerance Posted Aug 16, 2012 1:38 UTC (Thu) by duffy (guest, #31787) [Link]
I used to feel similarly about censorship. Over time my attitude has changed, after speaking with people in person who quietly bowed out of conversations and even whole projects because they felt unwelcome when a person making particularly unhelpful (but not usually egregiously offensive) comments on a regular basis was allowed to continue without admonishment.
Now I feel like not saying anything to the person whose behavior is allowed to continue unchecked will result in the censorship of the folks it scares away.
For whatever it's worth. A lot of times folks interpret silence from the perceived 'adults in the room' as consent. This is why - getting back to the topic at hand - a conference simply adopting an anti-harassment policy makes me feel a lot more comfortable about the conference. It makes it clear the organizers do not intend to tolerate the kind of funny business Val describes in the post.
Tolerance Posted Aug 16, 2012 8:44 UTC (Thu) by Company (guest, #57006) [Link]
It's not just true for projects, but also webforums.
When was the last time John Carmack posted on Slashdot? How many Ubuntu developers post on OMG Ubuntu? How much interesting posts is there left on Planet GNOME?
I believe the quality of content on any site depends not only on the participants and the technology used, but also on the policies and behavior (or as others say: censorship) enforced by the maintainers.
Reddit and Slashdot do it by letting users vote on posts, Planet GNOME does it by selecting the people that may write new posts (gnomememes? commit digest?), Facebook and Twitter make you maintain your own view on the posts. LWN so far only displays the status and id of the poster to give you an idea wether you're posting to someone "important".
Tolerance Posted Aug 16, 2012 8:13 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
That's why we love you, Corbet.
But I concur. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. Tolerating people who consistenly, over time, degrade our community, scares away people who're are more valuable. It sends the signal that this kind of behaviour is acceptible here.
Please draw the line here. By all means - warn people first. But if they're unwilling or unable to change, kick them out.
Tolerance Posted Aug 17, 2012 14:55 UTC (Fri) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
> In this particular case, I think there is going to have to
> be some sort of action soon.
No, Jon. You've got to leave these comments here. If all I see is a woman complaining about harassment, I tend to think "that doesn't fit in with what I've seen at the events that I've been to, I wonder if there is some exaggeration in the story?". Then I see comments from cavemen like "slashdot" and others, and I think, OK, these gits really do exist but somehow I've not noticed them (or maybe I've just been to the better conferences).
Tolerance Posted Aug 17, 2012 22:11 UTC (Fri) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
>The problem is that I have a very high intolerance for censorship.
Good!
'Slashdot' was concentrating so hard on being blinkered, pathetic, and puerile I actually thought his comments were kind of funny (in a way he no doubt never intended).
I mean, seriously:
>Now, would you rather be killed or be raped?
Really.
But still, I prioritize anti-censorship because as an adult it is of the utmost importance be given the opportunity to make up my own mind - which is as good as anyone else's - about what I read and decide how I'm going to deal with it myself, and this goes hand-in-hand with accepting that I will read difficult and upsetting stuff sometimes.
There are other ways of handling crap than calling in the censors. For example, if I don't think I can hack it, I can always filter it out. Or I can try reasoning or answering back, like others are doing here ;-)
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:26 UTC (Wed) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855) [Link]
I have long since suspected that slashdot is a troll account, meant to satirize the homonym site - mostly because I honestly cannot believe it could be a real person writing these comments. these days? not so sure. there can be somebody that obtuse and clueless behind the keyboard.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:02 UTC (Wed) by slashdot (guest, #22014) [Link]
I'll make it simple for you.
Men naturally compete with other men, and sometimes the other men may resort to violence to win, which in the extreme results in the other guy killing you.
On the other hand women are approached by men, and sometimes the men may resort to violence to win, which in the extreme results in the man raping the woman.
Now, would you rather be killed or be raped?
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:07 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
I think in the extreme it results in the man killing the woman, but since I'm aware of cases of sexual assault at technical conferences and not aware of cases of murder at technical conferences, I have no idea of why you think anything you're saying is relevant.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:10 UTC (Wed) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link]
s/cases of sexual assault/cases of sexual assault and many more cases of women being made to feel unwelcome in ways that may be short of the legal definition of assault but which are still threatening and unpleasant/
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:46 UTC (Wed) by sjj (subscriber, #2020) [Link]
You're either a troll or a particularly thick headed 12-year old.
I think I need to subscribe again just so I can plonk you. It's a win-win!
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:11 UTC (Wed) by edomaur (subscriber, #14520) [Link]
I'd rather ignore you.
Done.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 16, 2012 0:52 UTC (Thu) by aoeu (guest, #84301) [Link]
It's a statistical fact. Your response sums up nicely the general degree of intellectual honesty on political topics.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 16, 2012 0:55 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
It's a statistical fact that men at technical conferences are more likely to be physically assaulted than women are to be sexually assaulted?
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 16, 2012 1:54 UTC (Thu) by aoeu (guest, #84301) [Link]
No. Why would you think that?
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 16, 2012 1:59 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Because if you didn't mean that then it's completely unclear what you're talking about.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 22:47 UTC (Wed) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]
i concur with the OP's remark that men face far greater dangers than women. when using conference restrooms, there is the grave danger of getting one's testicles caught in the zipper. women are much better protected in that respect.
let's hope that both well-intended punches in the face and the pinching of gonads can trigger involuntary thinking processes, which might lead to insight, eventually. if not, there is solace in the fact that personality is as good a contraceptive as any, and evolution will deal with the rest. however, i very much understand that women are generally unwilling to wait that long for things to improve.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 17, 2012 13:17 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] personality is as good a contraceptive as any, One trip to a school "parents' evening" is a good way to disabuse yourself of that myth :)
Something good. Posted Aug 15, 2012 19:53 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Thanks, sml. You made something good out of a disgraceful thread.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 19:21 UTC (Wed) by aliguori (subscriber, #30636) [Link]
I think there's two separate problems. One is that a very small percentage of people are rude/socially awkward. Unfortunately, in a conference of 1,000 people, if .5% of people can cause a lot of trouble. If the number of women is only 1%, then chances are every woman is going to have some amount of trouble due to that .5%.
I can absolutely confirm that this does happen with a regularity that is honestly appauling. There are many more woman who don't speak out for everyone one like Val who does. It's definitely a problem.
The second problem is something of an institutional bias against women in our industry/community. My wife joined me at a conference just a week ago. She's not only a Linux user but also works as a software engineer. She was repeatedly asked if she was in HR or marketing which she found quite offensive.
No one meant to be offensive in asking a question like that. Quite the contrary, people are trying to be friendly by creating small talk. But being asked questions like that can be very offensive if you already feel out of place because you're one of a handful of people that share your gender.
Too few women, too many men Posted Aug 16, 2012 9:56 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Treat it the same as nightclubs. No single males admitted, you have to come with a female friend. If you don't have any female friends, well, that may be an indicator that you don't have enough social skills to attend a conference (or perhaps, that you should spend some time getting female friends rather than wasting it on computer stuff). Invited speakers and sponsors could be exempted from this requirement. Then the sex ratio will be close to 50-50 and the whole atmosphere will be quite different.
I have to admit that it could be hard to find enough women interested in kernel memory management. So the content of conferences might have to change a little bit to attract a better balance of the sexes.
Failing that just have separate conferences for men and women.
Too few women, too many men Posted Aug 16, 2012 11:14 UTC (Thu) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978) [Link]
Or we could all just agree to behave ourselves at conferences. Why is that so hard?
Too few women, too many men Posted Aug 16, 2012 17:00 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
What about spouses who are not interested in IT? What about gay people?
Too few women, too many men Posted Aug 16, 2012 20:42 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
It doesn't have to be your wife, just a female friend. Gay people (of either sex) have those too.
Too few women, too many men Posted Aug 16, 2012 20:49 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] I have female friends. I have enough respect for them that if they wouldn't go to a given technical conference on the basis of its direct interest to them, I wouldn't ask them to be my admission pass.
Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters Posted Aug 15, 2012 22:48 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> Just wear non-skimpy clothing (e.g. business clothing or jeans+sweater), and if someone really sexually assaults call the police, while otherwise tell them to fuck off.
Slashdot seems to think that skimpy clothes give permission for sexual harassment. Bad, bad, slashdot.
|
|||||||||||||