[Udo]

This whole thing was a massive failure on all sides.

It was a social failure by the guys who kept on making annoying and unfunny jokes (I think it actually starts with this obnoxious "thank me! thank me!" stuff).

It was a total benevolence failure on part of the author who seems exceedingly gleeful about her well-calculated coup.

It's a failure of society in general to think that "sexualized" environments somehow attack the expected chastity of women. Or that chastity is a virtue in the first place.

It's a failure of taste to think those kinds of comments are actually funny - or even sexual for that matter, and that equally-as-annoying non-sexual comments should go unpunished.

It's a failure of the geek community in general to create an environment where a constant battle is being waged between men and women, that certainly includes obnoxious and harassing behavior of groups of men, but it just as well applies to women who are constantly on the prowl to detect sex stuff.

This whole thing: totally unnecessary from all sides. Instead, we could just code in peace. But as I see it nobody is making an effort to actually question the factors that led to this totally predictable and depressingly recurring disaster. Everybody is just pouncing on the scandal. This energy would be better spent by employing a healthy dose of introspection.

[Camillo]

The failure was not equally massive on all sides, though.

Two guys made possibly juvenile jokes to each other while sitting in the audience at a conference.

This was a minor failure of manners.

A woman reacted by taking a creepshot of them, publicly shaming them on Twitter, and getting them kicked out of the room without even trying to simply talk to them. Even though she had also been making sexual jokes while at PyCon: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425 And like most cyber-bullies, she felt exhilarated by her power to dispose of people she finds annoying without even having to interact with them as human beings: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/313442430848487424

This was a failure at displaying a stable, adult personality.

The company employing one of the guys fired him. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681 A father of three is out of a job because a silly joke he was telling a friend was overheard by someone with more power than sense.

This is the real massive failure.

This is the moment where the "feminism in tech" advocacy movement jumped the shark. Not the women in tech themselves, mind you, who where there before this thing and will be there after it. But this campaign to make everything as comfortable as possible for a group of people who is assumed to need protection, as interpreted by some vocal elements whose representativity is anything but proven, has already led us to establish a ridiculous police state atmosphere where an engineer can be fired for making an off-color joke to a friend.

This is not making tech welcoming to women. This is making tech unwelcoming and hostile to all the geeks, men and women, who are uncomfortable with this corporate-style PC totalitarianism.

And at this point it's not just a looming dystopia. It's happening now! A geek lost their job for a joke, because their corporate masters were afraid of the backlash from a cyber-bully riding the right PR wave.

This is not the kind of industry I want to work in. Please, let's stop this insanity now.

[king_jester]

> A woman reacted by taking a creepshot of them

A creepshot by definition is a sexualized photograph, this doesn't count.

> publicly shaming them on Twitter

Nothing wrong with this.

> and getting them kicked out of the room without even trying to simply talk to them

When a con attendee violates the rules and con staff wish to pull them aside, that is totally legit. And no, she was under no obligation to explain anything to them.

> This was a failure at displaying a stable, adult personality.

You are implying that the OP is unstable, which is a pretty gross thing to say and is offensive to folks with mental disability.

> The company employing one of the guys fired him. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681 A father of three is out of a job because a silly joke he was telling a friend was overheard by someone with more power than sense.

The OP did not fire this individual nor escort them out of the room. Having con staff pull the person aside is an expected outcome, but being fired is completely outside of the OP's control and is, frankly, a huge overreaction from a company that would rather throw people aside than actually engage in meaningful sensitivity training for its employees.

> But this campaign to make everything as comfortable as possible for a group of people who is assumed to need protection...

Women in tech are not asking for others to protect them, but rather that policies be made and enforced that allow them to participate like any other attendee of the con. That con spaces are so unsafe in a variety of ways doesn't highlight the need for protection, but the need to provide basic rules of decency and to enforce them.

> ...as interpreted by some vocal elements whose representativity is anything but proven, has already led us to establish a ridiculous police state atmosphere where an engineer can be fired for making an off-color joke to a friend.

A conference is not a public gov't and they reserve the right to enforce policies attendees agree to when buying tickets or signing up. A police state this is not.

> This is not making tech welcoming to women. This is making tech unwelcoming and hostile to all the geeks, men and women, who are uncomfortable with this corporate-style PC totalitarianism.

Oddly enough the company that fired the gentleman in question fits more in line with your feelings of corporate-style totalitarianism. However, pulling con attendees aside who are making the space unsafe is to be expected and is a desired thing. Also, there isn't anything PC about not making penis jokes at a professional conference where your company is a sponsor.

> And at this point it's not just a looming dystopia. It's happening now! A geek lost their job for a joke, because their corporate masters were afraid of the backlash from a cyber-bully riding the right PR wave.

The problem you seem to have is with corporation and private business, not someone ensuring that the conference they are attending is a safe space.

[argonaut]

It seems like you're being downvoted pretty heavily. Part of it probably has to do with the views you're expressing, but I think a big part of it is the manner in which you are expressing those views. The former is probably never going to change for you, but the latter could always be changed.

> A creepshot by definition is a sexualized photograph, this doesn't count.

I think your argument here is being overly dismissive. Sure in the most common usage of the term, it's not a creepshot. But I still think many would agree that it's creepy, as a matter of social custom, to take pictures of random people. It never bodes well for an argument when it's focused on the semantics of a single term.

> Nothing wrong with this.

You don't provide a justification for this. Just a matter-of-fact statement (which is very off-putting).

> And no, she was under no obligation to explain anything to them

I agree she was not under any obligation to explain anything to them. But again, I think this argument is overly technical. Might it have been a good idea to simply ask them to apologize, and then leave it at that? I don't think anyone should instantly jump for the nuclear option (of getting people kicked out).

> which is a pretty gross thing to say and is offensive to folks with mental disability.

I think you're getting downvoted here for throwing out what appears to be a red herring (quibbling over a minor detail and in general being overly focused on semantics).

> The OP did not fire this individual nor escort them out of the room

I agree with you here, but then again, keep this in mind: the Department of Justice did not intend for Aaron Swartz to kill himself. Yet that was the consequence of their actions. I apologize if anyone thinks this example is too extreme.

I also feel like it's a leap to say that it is actually the company that is being overly PC. It's more likely they fired him because of the negative media attention.

[singleuse]

I wouldn't be surprise if the DoJ actually intended for Aaron Swartz to kill himself. The US government did this before with public right activists.

And I agree that without the twitter post of the picture with the accompanying accusing comment, there would have been no firing involved.

[monksy]

>The OP did not fire this individual nor escort them out of the room. Having con staff pull the person aside is an expected outcome, but being fired is completely outside of the OP's control and is, frankly, a huge overreaction from a company that would rather throw people aside than actually engage in meaningful sensitivity training for its employees.

The OP of the tweet is responsible for her actions. She publically attempted to shame them, with full knowledge that individuals outside the conference would be able to view, and/or react to the individuals who were not speaking with her.

There was no threat to the individual's safety. It was a "threat" to what she wants to hear. Shes throwing a tantrum over a minor squable.

[CRConrad]

"Women in tech are not asking for others to protect them, but rather that policies be made and enforced that allow them to participate like any other attendee of the con."

But that assumes women are unable to participate unless they are... well, _protected_ from ever hearing sexual jokes.

No, you may be right that most women perhaps aren't actually asking to be so protected, but some apparently are, and it is their wishes that are being heeded.

[Tyrannosaurs]

I don't want to get into an argument about it because I think you're on the right side of things but the one thing I would say about your assessment is that I think you need to think about how benevolent someone should be in the face of not just a single instance of something happening but continually being subject to this stuff on an on-going basis.

The "we could just code in peace" is fine up until something actually happens (such as people making inappropriate comments) at which point people have to make up their mind what to do about it. Turning the other cheek has, to date, been a remarkably ineffective technique.

[Udo]

I agree with in you principle, but the way this is being handled is simply not designed to alleviate any of the problems. It's sad that the only socially acceptable way of shutting up obnoxiously giggling douchebags during a presentation is by invoking the sex card.

It's true that I have never been to an American tech event and I cede that I can't really know how endemic threatening male group behavior has become in these settings. However, the example at hand does not strike me as such an instance. It may well be the straw that broke the camel's back in the author's case, but on its own this affair just leaves everyone involved in a very bad light.

My instinct is to look at the more basic failures that make situations like these possible, and I listed a few that struck me off the top of my head.

[sdfsdfsdfs]

I'm not sure we can be all that certain about the author's failings (apart from some failures as a writer). Certainly in her other story about inappropriate behaviour, she acts very reasonably. However, we can't really tell from how she writes the story whether the guy she complained about was just joking around with his friend, or directing sexual comments towards her in a harassing manner.

The problem with sexual harassment isn't that it attacks expectations of chastity, and to be honest, that's quite a condescending attitude to take. Sexual harassment is unpleasant because it makes people feel uncomfortable and frightened. If you think jokes can't be frightening then that is a failure on your part.

Sexual harassment isn't uncomfortable and scary because unwanted sexual attention offends one's virtue. Overt sexual advances are unprofessional, they put people in awkward social positions, and embarrass them in front of their peers. Unwanted sexual attention in a professional environment can be very disrespectful - it's an unwelcome diversion away from the desired professional interactions, and sends a clear message that you're not being taken seriously at all. It's potentially career damaging stuff, so it makes sense that it makes people uncomfortable.

Sexual harassment becomes deeply uncomfortable when it persists. When someone receives a sexual comment and responds coldly or uncomfortably, with obvious embarrassment or disinterest, they expect the sexual content to stop. If the sexual comments persist, that is creepy. It's not necessarily that the comments themselves are deeply offensive, it's the fact that someone is persisting in an action that is intrusive and unpleasant to you. In a professional environment, it is expected that everyone behave politely and with consideration. If someone presses the point and tries to engage with you in a sexual manner beyond the bounds of normal politeness, then you begin to think they are motivated by some strong feelings, and that is scary. Worse still, once you become scared, if they persist further, that means they don't even care about frightening you.

It is genuinely quite scary when someone has some strong feelings towards you that drive them to ignore social convention and your discomfort and fear. Worse still, complaints about sexual harassment often get dismissed as simple misunderstandings and not taken seriously. The fact is, misunderstandings are scary if someone is misunderstanding your fear and discomfort as an invitation to bed.