Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters [LWN.net]

Valerie Aurora examines the costs of harassment at technical conferences and what can be done about it. "When you say, 'Women shouldn’t go to DEFCON if they don’t like it,' you are saying that women shouldn’t have all of the opportunities that come with attending DEFCON: jobs, education, networking, book contracts, speaking opportunities – or else should be willing to undergo sexual harassment and assault to get access to them. Is that really what you believe?"

to post comments

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 15:50 UTC (Wed) by slashdot (guest, #22014) [Link] (63 responses)

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.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 16:02 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (guest, #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 (guest, #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] (2 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #3285) [Link] (3 responses)

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 (guest, #16953) [Link] (2 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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] (44 responses)

> 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] (42 responses)

> 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] (39 responses)

> 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 (guest, #3285) [Link] (29 responses)

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] (27 responses)

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 (guest, #3285) [Link] (26 responses)

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] (25 responses)

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 (guest, #16953) [Link] (6 responses)

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] (5 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #3285) [Link] (2 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #65432) [Link] (9 responses)

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] (8 responses)

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] (7 responses)

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] (6 responses)

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 (guest, #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] (4 responses)

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 (guest, #755) [Link] (3 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #66693) [Link]

>The problem is that I have a very high intolerance for censorship.

Good!
Which is one of the things that keeps LWN's comments worth reading and means it is increasingly one of the few sites where I still read them regularly (because unfortunately this editorial approach is becoming more and more that of a minority. Please do stick to it.)

'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.
You can bet any grown woman will have come across the 'clueless-idiot-stuck-in-a-70s-timewarp' troll before, either sincere or otherwise (the jury is still out on this one).

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] (4 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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] (3 responses)

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] (2 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #30636) [Link] (5 responses)

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] (4 responses)

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] (2 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:13 UTC (Wed) by cjsh (guest, #83360) [Link] (28 responses)

The whole point to life is to make babies and pass on your genes. If you put men and women together in the same room there will always be a sexual tension, and some can't handle it. Best that can probably be done is a life time ban for the misogynists.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 17:59 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (27 responses)

I do not agree. People that can behave as professionals do not create that tension. There is not one drop of "sexual tension" in my office because being professionals we are capable of keeping our personal and work lives separate.

I'm a big believer that people that work together shouldn't even be able to date as it creates a work atmosphere that isn't professional. Although conference attendees aren't necessarily coworkers, they should keep their personal life and professional life segregated and anyone that isn't capable of that shouldn't be attending the conference.

The behavior that's been described at these conferences would get people fired and black balled in my profession.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:11 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (12 responses)

I'm a big believer that people should not be required or requested to quit their job simply because the only person they have ever experienced a mutual attraction with is one of their colleagues. (Subordinates is another matter.)

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:57 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (10 responses)

Allow me to clarify. The best policy I ever saw was at my former employer (a fortune 500).

1. Coworkers are not allowed to date without a dating contract, dating without informing your line manager is grounds for termination.

2. IF both people desire to date (you have to follow the sex harassment policy here, asking once is fine, more than that and you cross the boundary to harassment), they must go to their line managers and put in motion the following steps:

A. Both parties sign dating contracts with their managers explaining the rules about supervision and such and that if things do not work out what will happen and what the consequences will be if it turns bad.

B. While dating, both parties are bared from being in a supervisory role of each other and preference will be given to working on separate teams (even if that impacts career opportunity). If that interferes with promotions that is the cost of the relationship. If one party is promoted to a role that would require supervising the other party said party will be moved to another department or position.

C. If the dating does not work out there will be a very strict line about harassment. This means is one party has hurt feelings and begins to bring up personal information at work to harass the other person they will be warned and if it continues they will be fired. Any ongoing harassment or unwanted non-work related attention will result in the same consequences.

D. If either party is cannot work with the person they were dating (where there isn't harassment, they just won't work with them) the company will try to make arrangement for a transfer but if there is no opening or equivalent position then it may be grounds for termination.

Almost everyone thinks dating should be fine, that is until they start thinking about what happens if it works out or what happens if it doesn't work out and one of the parties starts acting like a child. Dating should be absolutely prohibited without a contract explaining the terms if for no other reason than to protect people from the nasty career consequences. Keep in mind when the dating goes bad its quite common for one party to start harassing the other party in way that quickly creates the legal definition of a hostile workplace.

People also tend to forget the impact on other coworkers and how disruptive dating is to the work atmosphere. Two people giving each other googly eye's disrupts the other workers and hurts productivity and when it goes bad it makes the atmosphere so uncomfortable productivity drops and the best people will start looking for other jobs. Any interoffice dating is very disruptive and it should be heavily discouraged.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 20:23 UTC (Wed) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link]

Do you mean this seriously ?
Having to ask/tell your manager if you want to date somebody ?
Isn't this absolutely their own private issue ?

Alex

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 22:10 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link]

Are you sure that policy was applied world wide? Your summary to me seems like a USA policy, applied only there and maybe Canada.

e.g. in .nl, I consider most of these items to be personal. A company thinking they can dictate what I do privately? Urgh! I think there is an unwritten rule, that is when two people are dating and one is directly or indirectly reporting to the other person.

I have no problems with rules about what happens during work.

Personal note: I think at one point the company I work for had 9 known couples out of 140 people or so. 140 is not the total size of the company.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 1:46 UTC (Thu) by duffy (guest, #31787) [Link]

I'm sorry, I think that policy is unreasonable. Treat your employees like adults and for the most part they'll act like adults - unless they're completely incapable in which case such a contract will not change matters.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 13:21 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

The best policy I ever saw was at my former employer

That sort of »policy« would very probably be illegal here in Germany, where people's private lives are not their employers' business.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 21:26 UTC (Thu) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]

Is this for real? Please tell me it's not for real.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 22:46 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link] (4 responses)

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
USofAns are really funny!

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 17, 2012 16:30 UTC (Fri) by efraim (guest, #65977) [Link] (3 responses)

Hardly see anything funny here. Sounds like sensible, if strict, policy.
Nobody forces you to expose your private live - there are just requirements to make sure you can do your job properly. Probably part of your employment contract.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 24, 2012 17:34 UTC (Fri) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]

As some other people already indicated, that policy would be likely considered harassment by your employer here, that's how "sensible" it is...

Who you date is part of your private life, and as such it's legally forbidden (in many/most jurisdictions here in Europe) for your employer to force you to disclose this. Except in special situations, but a labour judge would only accept that for proportionally serious reasons. Proportional means that the more your privacy gets violated, the stronger the reason for it has to be. In this policy there is a very invasive violation of your privacy which is mostly unnecessary and ineffective. There is too much "collateral damage".

Of course a company can make rules about the requirement to report a conflict of interest when it happens, but that's something entirely different (not every relationship causes one, and they can occur because of other reasons too). Same goes about harassment: of course a company can make a policy about that, but it should target harassment, and not innocent bystanders.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 27, 2012 19:11 UTC (Mon) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link] (1 responses)

> Nobody forces you to expose your private live

?! What about "Coworkers are not allowed to date without a dating contract, dating without informing your line manager is grounds for termination." ???

This seems like *forcing* (under penalty of termination) someone to *expose* (informing your line manager) your *private life* (dating).

> there are just requirements to make sure you can do your job properly.

Adults can do their job properly even if they work with their dates/spouses.

> Probably part of your employment contract.

Probably not, in any part of the planet that isn't the USofA, and this is the reason I think this is IMMENSELY funny. In many countries this clauses are just illegal, null and void; in others, the attempt to enforce rules like those can be construed as harassment, with criminal penalties.

Dating coworkers

Posted Aug 28, 2012 1:53 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Note that, while dating is a private matter, marriage is a public affair. Companies in e.g. Spain can regulate the roles for married couples: both spouses sometimes cannot work in the same area, or one reporting to the other, and so on. But I have never heard of a company where they tried to regulate private dating. (I worked in one place where dating coworkers was frowned upon, but of course not grounds for termination.)

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 19:58 UTC (Wed) by perlwolf (guest, #46060) [Link]

Many decades ago, I worked for a large company which no longer exists. They had a policy that spouses could not both be employees of the company.

When two particular people (one of whom I knew) were about to get married, their managers gave congratulations. Then the manager of the woman, a keypunch operator (I said it was decades ago), told her that she would have to leave the company. Her fiancee, the lead developer of the company's only commercial software product, went to his manager and explained that he could find another job more easily than she could, so he was going to give notice. The policy quickly changed and both of them stayed with the company. (I don't think they had any bad feelings in the end, but simply realized that a good-intentioned policy had fatal flaws, and they had done their part in getting the flaws recognized.) The automatic assumption that it was the woman who would have to leave the company was definitely a part of the mindset in those days, and it it still around in many forms.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:46 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (4 responses)

> I do not agree. People that can behave as professionals do not create that tension.

This is entirely and 100% unrealistic. You put men and women together you WILL get sexual tension. There is absolutely no way to avoid it. It's part of what makes humans humans.

> There is not one drop of "sexual tension" in my office because being professionals we are capable of keeping our personal and work lives separate.

If you think that it is only because you are not paying enough attention. Adult human interaction is very subtle.

Either that or you are making yourself oblivious on purpose. This is a common approach that people use to try to avoid stress.

> they should keep their personal life and professional life segregated and anyone that isn't capable of that shouldn't be attending the conference.

They can't. The definition of professional is that your profession is a major part of your life. It's like trying to make your left arm is separate entity from your body through shear force of will.

> The behavior that's been described at these conferences would get people fired and black balled in my profession.

Don't be so high and mighty.

What people CAN do and SHOULD do is control their behavior, be aware of what is happening around them, and treat females with the respect that they are _ENTITLED_ to. This is a requirement for proper male behavior.

It's disgraceful to act in a disrespectful manner towards females. Mistakes and lapses in judgement are normal and they are going to happen so it's important to be willing to cut people a lot of slack. But a male that can't behave is liable for some small amount of justified physical violence.. including bodily ejection from a conference.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 19:31 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (1 responses)

This is entirely and 100% unrealistic. You put men and women together you WILL get sexual tension. There is absolutely no way to avoid it. It's part of what makes humans humans.

If you truly believe that I feel sorry for you. We might not be able to control what we feel, but we can certainly control how we react to that. Most people are perfectly capable of putting those feelings on the back burner and dealing with them outside of work.

If you think that it is only because you are not paying enough attention. Adult human interaction is very subtle. Either that or you are making yourself oblivious on purpose. This is a common approach that people use to try to avoid stress.

Or I could live in a state where such interaction is not only discouraged but considered highly offensive. Or it could be that being that I work in a career that has direct public interaction (as a government agent) and that such behavior would result in the loss of contract work and would highly damage your career. Speculation is dangerous.

They can't. The definition of professional is that your profession is a major part of your life. It's like trying to make your left arm is separate entity from your body through shear force of will.

You have a very different definition of professional than I do. In fact I think it's a highly fringe definition. My profession is what I do for a living. Being professional means being able to separate emotion and business and focus on what you are paid to do not what is underneath your coworkers clothes or other non work related items. Everyone I know is perfectly capable of segmenting and segregating their personal and professional lives.

Don't be so high and mighty.

I was doing neither, I was stating a fact about my profession. You would be mistaken to believe my profession and your profession have anything to do with each other. Sexism and even things that qualify as harassment do exist in some areas of my profession (primarily the areas where they interface directly with contractors and blue collar workers) because it's highly male dominated profession but I stated a fact when I said it doesn't exist in my office. Part of that is the local culture, part is because all but one or two people are married and the rest is because you won't be long in this career if you can't put your emotions aside and behave like a responsible adult. My profession went through this BS in the 90's when the house was cleaned and those incapable of controlling themselves found new careers.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 20:08 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

If you truly believe that I feel sorry for you. We might not be able to control what we feel, but we can certainly control how we react to that. Most people are perfectly capable of putting those feelings on the back burner and dealing with them outside of work.

My expectation would be that people who are sexually attracted to each other are going to experience less sexual tension if they are in an active sexual relationship with each other than if they aren't.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 19:41 UTC (Wed) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]

>It's like trying to make your left arm is separate entity from your body through shear force of will.

I think you mean "sheer force of will". Separating your left arm by shear force is certainly possible. ;)

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 14:56 UTC (Thu) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]

> This is entirely and 100% unrealistic. You put men and women together you WILL get sexual tension. There is absolutely no way to avoid it. It's part of what makes humans humans.

It's part of what we inherited from our animal ancestors. The whole point of being human is being something *more* than an animal.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 19:18 UTC (Wed) by cjsh (guest, #83360) [Link] (3 responses)

I agree that people can act in a professional manner, just that some can't. As far as no dating at work goes, sorry but I put being human at the top of the list above being professional, and try to maintain a balance between my needs and my employers needs. As they say the key to life is balance.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 20:48 UTC (Wed) by louie (guest, #3285) [Link]

I agree that people can act in a professional manner, just that some can't.

Yes, and those people should be removed from that profession. That's why we call it "unprofessional." (I'm also guessing that if that were the norm, lots of those people who "can't" do this would probably suddenly find that they can.)

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 8:40 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

Most of the ones who "can't" turn out to manage it afterall, if the social setting and power-dynamics is such that it's clear they won't get away with it.

They somehow manage to hold back the urge to lick the neck of the HR-woman interviewing them for a new job. They somehow manage to keep their hands *off* the ass of the police-woman stopping them in traffic. By some miracolous application of will, they tend to refrain from referring to unknown women as "baby" if a sufficiently large male stands by their side.

This tells me 99% of them *can* behave, they just don't think it's needed.

It's our job to tell them that they *must*.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 13:08 UTC (Thu) by fb (guest, #53265) [Link]

> I agree that people can act in a professional manner, just that some can't.

People that can not act in a professional manner should either change jobs by themselves or just get fired. Really.

Harassment due to sexism, racism or just any other form of power play does not belong to the workplace of a civilized country.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 21:43 UTC (Wed) by rvfh (guest, #31018) [Link]

> People that can behave as professionals do not create that tension.

I understand what you mean, but let me just point out that it is not related to the job to me. One has to respect others at all times, that's the basis of democracy. If anyone starts harassing someone else, then they're breaking the 'equality' part of the Human Rights.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 8:24 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

Oh, I *do* agree that when you shake people together, there's no way to prevent attraction from existing.

But the problem isn't with attraction. The problem is with *behaviour*. Essentially all people are able to be attracted to someone, and nevertheless treat the same people with respect.

The atmosphere should *demand* this, when it does, essentially everyone conforms. There's a *reason* it's fairly rare that a male will grab the ass of his female boss, but fairly common that he'll grab the ass of some random female in a bar. The reason is that he thinks he'll get away with it, because the social setting considers it "acceptible", or if not, then atleast close enough that nothing is likely to happen to him.

The problem isn't that he's unable to control himself. The problem is that he doesn't think he *needs* to in a given situation.

Technical conferences should have an atmosphere where people are aware that they need to behave.

That simple, and that difficult.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 11:44 UTC (Thu) by niner (guest, #26151) [Link]

"I'm a big believer that people that work together shouldn't even be able to date as it creates a work atmosphere that isn't professional."

Considering that about a quarter to a third of marriages are somehow related to the workplace, I think your demand is completely unrealistic. Apart from that I'd rather work with real people than with professional robots.

"Although conference attendees aren't necessarily coworkers, they should keep their personal life and professional life segregated and anyone that isn't capable of that shouldn't be attending the conference."

So I'm not allowed anymore to socialize with people at conferences, have some (maybe even too many) drinks in the evening and have fun that may even be unrelated to the conference's topic? Why have conferences at all? We can have a perfectly impresonal and professional atmosphere online after all. No need to meet.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 14:52 UTC (Thu) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]

> People that can behave as professionals do not create that tension.

It's not a matter of being professional. It's a matter of being a civilized person and not a caveman.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 17, 2012 8:09 UTC (Fri) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]

> I'm a big believer that people that work together shouldn't even be able to date as it creates a work atmosphere that isn't professional. Although conference attendees aren't necessarily coworkers, they should keep their personal life and professional life segregated and anyone that isn't capable of that shouldn't be attending the conference.

My employer, a company of about 300 employees, not only does not discourage dating fellow coworkers or recommending spouses or other relatives for employment, but it actually *encourages* it. Because they realized that happy employees are good employees. Sure, disrespectful behaviour and harassment should never be tolerated, but other than that putting restrictions on private life does not make people happy.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 15, 2012 18:06 UTC (Wed) by frumious (subscriber, #3892) [Link]

Here's a long comment from another discussion, but it's well worth reading:

http://captainawkward.com/2012/08/07/322-323-my-friend-gr...

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 2:27 UTC (Thu) by jeremiah (subscriber, #1221) [Link]

So is this just the younger crowd that's causing the problems? I haven't attended a hacker convention since summercon. God knows how many years ago. I was kind of hoping we'd all grown up since then.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 16, 2012 17:23 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

It's really hard to comprehend such level of "caveman" behavior. People who act this way should not attend any conferences at all.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 17, 2012 1:41 UTC (Fri) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] (4 responses)

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the instances of sexual harassment, overt or subtle, that certain of the squeakiest wheels are being subjected to, is intentional and not merely a reflection of the inherent nature of open source (or technical) conferences. That it, it's looking like Valerie Aurora and a few others have made a name for themselves as being particularly sensitive to this issue, and are being deliberately "tweaked". That it, guys are doing it just to get her goat.

I have been to numerous conferences both technical and otherwise, and haven't heard of or seen the kinds of overt harassment Ms. Aurora speaks of. And while the chances of such things happening are generally assumed to increase with the volume of alcohol being consumed, that doesn't really seem to be a factor here. In fact, having been to many hundreds of bars and large, alcohol fueled parties, that kind of behavior even in such situations would have been unusual, and would, if taken to the lengths Ms. Aurora describes, have resulted in a serious row.

Ask the question, if Ms. Aurora wore a shirt proclaiming "I won't stand for harassment from rude males", might things would get better or worse?

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 17, 2012 6:20 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (3 responses)

So if you don't notice it, it doesn't exist? Cool beans! :(

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 17, 2012 14:54 UTC (Fri) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] (2 responses)

I don't need to personally notice. I had a fairly large group of friends as a young adult, including quite a few women, and if something like that happened (which it occasionally did) I and others would know about it, and if I were to go by Ms. Aurora and others testimony, such behavior is more common at a geek tech conference than at a sweaty, alcohol fueled-dance club, something I find either hard to believe or would have to wonder whether something else is going on, like targeted tweaking.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 17, 2012 23:01 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

I consider it extremely likely that such behaviour is more common at a geek tech conference, because alcohol-fuelled danced clubs, by their very nature, have lots of women present on roughly equal terms with the men. The small subset of men who are evil bastards to women when they get the chance will not generally act evil when there are lots of women around to spot it. When that situation does not obtain, they feel a lot more confident that they can do horrible things to the few women present and the men will simply not notice.

Alas, their reasoning appears to be correct.

(This appears to be analogous to the curious fact that teenage male scholastic achievement improves in mixed-sex schools just as teenage female scholastic achievement declines there. While the latter fact is attributable to the boys hardly ever letting the girls get a word in edgeways, the former appears to be because the boys tone down the more yobbish anti-intellectual edges of their teenage culture so as not to appear like yobs in front of the girls.)

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 18, 2012 1:02 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

I don't think it's more common at geek conferences than at dance clubs.

BUT, I would expect it to be about the same level (and possibly higher) at the 'private parties' near the geek conferences.

You have an environment very similar to the dance clubs, but without bouncers to keep people in line (if only by intimidation)

In addition, the fact that the 'private parties' have a much smaller female population means that the odds of any particular female being abused is probably significantly higher since there are fewer targets for the misbehaving guys to go after.

Even if the absolute number of problems at these 'private parties' is 1/4 that of the dance clubs, the fact that there are generally fewer than 1/10 as many females would result in each female being affected by an problem 2.5 times as frequently.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 17, 2012 2:38 UTC (Fri) by fre (guest, #83851) [Link] (1 responses)

Hi Aurora,

premise: I've never had the possibility to be in DEFCON nor the other conferences you mentioned. I'm a male. I highly respect you for your writings on LWN abut filesystems.

You say:

Or the experience of one of my friends, who prefers to remain anonymous. At a recent DEFCON, while leaning over to get her drink at the bar, someone slid his hand up all the way between her legs and grabbed her crotch. When she turned around, the perpetrator had already disappeared into the crowd.

Well, you (and your friend) have all my simpathy, and i apologise as a male on this.
Where i live that kind of person, the perpetrator, would have been awake in an hospital for that kind of behaviour. If alive.

You say:

Sexual harassment at other computer conferences often appears unintentional, but at hacker conferences it’s often clear that the perp is doing it on purpose, and enjoying the hell out of it.

Then I give (if i may) a suggestion ... just send them to hell. Ridicule them as that's what they deserve. I know you shouldn't have to get past this but so there a lot of other things in life for males too. As said in my premise, i dont know the in's of DEFCON & CO... But with those kind of people you have to be tougher then them.

hope my english is readable and a big thank you for your contributions in linux!

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 17, 2012 8:51 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

Where i live that kind of person, the perpetrator, would have been awake in an hospital for that kind of behaviour. If alive.

I'm now wondering what part of "When she turned around, the perpetrator had already disappeared into the crowd." is unclear to you. (Oh, and I'd cheerfully have the perpetrators of such an extrajudicial beating thrown in jail for GBH or murder.)

DEFCON is not a professional conference, it's a party that happens to have some technical info

Posted Aug 17, 2012 2:45 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

I've only been to a couple DEFCONs, but thinking of DEFCON as a professional conference is a mistake.

To start off with, you are getting together a bunch of people who think it's fun, witty, clever, desirable and high art to assault other people's systems. The basic lack of respect that this represents bleeds over into all the other areas. And then you add in "Party in Los Vegan" and a lot of alcohol and you should not be surprised that there is a huge amount of misbehavior.

The really amazing thing is that despite this, there are a lot of good people and useful talks there.

DEFCON is not a professional conference, it's a party that happens to have some technical info

Posted Aug 17, 2012 21:39 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

You missed the word "frat".

I was wondering how long we were going to go along winking at the idea that DEFCON was a "professional conference"...

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 19, 2012 0:39 UTC (Sun) by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404) [Link] (1 responses)

I appreciate the spirit of it, but there is one aspect of Valerie's blog that really bothers me.

To be clear, I like that Valerie is bringing the problem to light, something needs to be done, and while the red cards are a good start, more is needed.

I support her stance on many things in general - when they were hesitant to listen to me and "cause trouble", I've referred women in the tech industry who I knew where underpaid relative to men to her suggestions on negotiation.

What I don't like is that she seemed to feel the need to justify women being present at the conference for professional reasons. I realize this was *not* really her intent.. to imply that if women couldn't justify their presence, then maybe the guys were not wholly responsible for their own actions. Maybe I'm reading this through a male filter or something, but, although it was not the intent, it seemed to be implied in her blog.

I think the appropriate response is that if some DEFCON participants and organizers think it's OK to condone sexual assault (e.g. getting one's crotch unwillingly grabbed - and unwilling is something that is entirely up to the one getting grabbed - the one assaulting cannot simply have claimed to be mislead or confused), they should hold the conference in a country where it is culturally and legally acceptable to assault women, and be prepared to deal with all the negative consequences of supporting that stance.

In short, if DEFCON attendees & organizers want to disrespect women, and violate the law, they should leave, not the women.

I don't care if a woman wonders in off the strip, half-naked, drunk, and high on ecstasy. If you assault her, or encourage her to be assaulted, you should be held responsible for your actions. No excuses.

Now, like I said, I probably missed something with my white-male tech guy filter.. but, hey, maybe someone can clear that up for me.. (someone with a clue, please, with similar reasoning abilities and ethics to Valerie)

Peace,
-stu

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 19, 2012 14:41 UTC (Sun) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

I would conjecture that the point is to drive home that repelling women from these events is not merely a matter of excluding them from a social occasion, but a category of acts, conduct, and negligence functionally indistinguishable (per Hanlon's Razor) from a wilful attempt to exclude women from working in computing-related fields.

Aurora: DEFCON: Why conference harassment matters

Posted Aug 24, 2012 16:46 UTC (Fri) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]

Как страшно жить.

Girls, learn Russian and move to a more civilized country where respect is natural and not law-induced :-)