On Friday I pitched my company to a room of 150 developers, since my company was a hackathon sponsor. I was the only female speaker out of about 15.
Afterwards, a well-known, elite developer asked me if I programmed. When I said yes, he said that made me 50% less attractive. Then he asked me if I cooked and cleaned. To my face.
You don't have to be high profile to deal with this stuff. Just being in a room where you're 1 female out of 15 males is enough to get this kind of attention.
What the fuck, I really can't wrap my mind around the fact that stuff like this happens. Who are these idiots? It would be pretty useful if there were a way to get these types of things anonymously reported so the accusers could have some way to publicize it, the accuser have their chance to voice their side of the story, and failing to clear the issue up (in your case, there is no excuse for that kind of response) the rest of the entire industry could never, ever hire that person. It's embarrassing that interactions like this happen in a professional setting and there are no good measures in place to report and prevent them.
You know, naming names is probably one of the best ways to combat this. Silence helps the asshole keep doing it.
I understand the reasons why you might not want to. It's tragedy of the commons problem; you get no benefit and possible detriment from naming names - only society as a whole benefits.
Nevertheless you should. It's the right thing to do.
It is indeed tricky. I want to give developers a positive association with our company and with me as an individual. Being confrontational does the opposite.
I think, in this case, being confrontational is the right thing to do (though I don't think you should have to engage in a confrontation if you don't want to).
Most people (despite the arguments here, which are mostly about either semantics or arcane ethical points) think that the way the guy you described behaved is unacceptable. You're one of us, a hacker, and you don't deserve to be treated like that. I can't imagine you'd get anything other than a positive association from standing up for the rights of hackers to get on and live their lives free of that kind of harassment and bullying.
I don't really understand why people don't mention this more often: the kind of bullying that women in tech receive now is pretty much the kind of bullying that male geeks got from non-geeks twenty years ago. It's not really anti-women so much as it's anti-people-being-geeks; society at large may have (grudgingly!) accepted male geeks, but female geeks are still getting abuse for being more interested in computers or science or whatever than in what society thinks they 'should' be doing. As such, this affects all of us and we all need to be pretty damn clear that we won't stand for it.
> I think, in this case, being confrontational is the right thing to do (though I don't think you should have to engage in a confrontation if you don't want to).
I can't agree with that. The situation she describes is where she's acting as a representative of her company, and anything she does is as the face of the company, rather than as a person.
The decision to be confrontational about it is her company's decision, not hers.
I am absolutely empowered, as an individual or on behalf of my company, to tell this guy he is an ass. Or to ask the conference organizers to boot him. But I didn't feel like doing either. I didn't even cross my mind at the time.
It's kind of like when a crazy person yells at you on the street. Yeah, you could tell them to stop, because it makes you uncomfortable, but that would require even more interaction, and they'd probably do something to make you even more uncomfortable. Easier to walk away.
At least by sharing it here some people can learn from the example of what not to do :)
Being confrontational also brings the issue to light and may take us one step closer to solving the problem. Simply ignoring the matter (as uncomfortable as it would be to deal with both as a victim and as someone who doesn't want to put their company in a bad light; I can only imagine) quietly indicates that we're ok with this kind of behavior.
I suppose this is one of those "there's a time and place" issues. I wouldn't likely call out such an asshole while I'm on stage (unless this person tried to humiliate me while I was presenting, in which case I'd simply state that's not an appropriate comment for the conference and move on to the next person), but I'd certainly escalate[1] the issue privately.
We need to look into some sort of zero-tolerance[2] policies for this kind of thing until the message that this isn't okay is clearly understood. Certainly if I'm hosting or attending a conference and witness this kind of behavior, I'll be going out of my way to get this person removed from the conference and will also bring it up with their employer.
[1] In the "I'd like to speak with a manager" sense, not throwing a loud tantrum.
[2] Not that I generally support zero-tolerance policies, or find them effective. But I think the concept is directionally correct; any attendee making another attendee (including speakers) feel uncomfortable or unsafe should be removed form the event. Maybe they get one strict warning; it depends how obviously offensive they were being.
You are wise. You may have more of an impact with a discreet riposte to the person at the time the incident happens. Not to embarrass him (the first time), but a simple "this sucks and here's why" kind of non-emotional response. It's the kind of thing you have to be prepared to deliver- maybe even rehearsed (we all have those situations in our lives that take us by such surprise that we're stunned for a while).
It's entirely possible that the guy thought he was being funny, has no idea he wasn't and genuinely finds women painful because he's so ignorant. By adopting the role of teacher, you may win a valuable ally.
But there is a more subtle effect here (if you're still reading and haven't thrown something at the monitor yet). This response from you, if you do it the way I have in mind (even if I'm not articulating it properly), will be entirely patronizing, in fact it will be patronizing in exactly the way men like this patronize you (and I know you know what I'm talking about-- see below). It is delivered from a position of strength, not weakness, in the sense that you are giving sage advice: is he smart enough to see it? Some will be, some won't.
Beyond this, remember to trust your gut. Sometimes the guy is just an asshole (a big clue is if other guys think he's an asshole) and words like I've written above are totally off-the-mark for the situation.
My wife is in a male-dominated (at her level) role, and I hear these stories all the time. Sometimes my advice is helpful- often she tells me to just STFU and listen. YMMV.
Ha! Some of that page is pretty stupid, but in general it sounds like it's kind of put-down teasing (done with both sexes, actually). Only works as flirting if there's NO WAY it could actually be true, and both people know it. Almost always has to be someone who knows you well enough to tease in a way that they recognize.
Yeah, maybe someday he'll meet someone who cares enough to set him straight.
I just don't get this. Do these guys not have moms? Sisters? Wives or girlfriends? Daughters? Women friends? I would be incredibly pissed if anyone said those things to my family members; ergo, I can't imagine saying them to someone else.
For me, it really is as simple as that. I want my daughters to feel as welcome in their careers as I hope my sons will be. Anything less than that is utterly unacceptable.
I'm sorry this happened to you and I hope you believe me that not all guys think this way.
They have moms for sure, and sisters maybe. But that's irrelevant. They are behaving this way because that's how they see their dads treating their moms and sisters growing up. If they see their dad treat the mom with a sexist attitude (such as by expecting her to do the house chores or slapping her ass in front of the kids) then that's how they treat women later in life.
I obviously never get comments like this (being a man in a male-dominated field), but I hear about some women in the industry getting it more often than others. I'm sure there's reporting bias, but at least some of the women I've talked to seem to think it's not a common problem for them at least (but happens to others).
I wonder if there are specific things which make it more likely for some women to be harassed like this. And, is relatively mild stupidity like this correlated in any way with more serious issues (either assault or serious job discrimination)?
I think two things make it more likely for me to encounter incidents of sexism:
1) I do some programming for my job, but a majority of it involves going out and meeting other developers, learning about their work, and seeing how we can make our API better for them. I live in SF so I can't get a coffee without bumping into another developer. I bet I have many more interactions than someone who is developing full time in their home or office. More interactions increases chances for good and bad types of interactions.
2) Since I have been researching sexism in the industry, I have started to notice small slights and snubs more. I went for years brushing off countless minor incidents. I still don't get offended easily, but I do notice things more. For example, checkout the gun.io landing page right now (Beards of Experience). I like gun.io, but their homepage is definitely not female-friendly, and I noticed it immediately.
I'd wager that people who have had some kind of experience that really bothered them, or ones who have recently started learning more about gender bias, will suddenly start to notice all the little "micro agressions" more. Even my male colleagues have started noticing them more since we have been discussing it recently.
One of them even said "it's like when you get a new car, you suddenly start to notice how many people drive the same car as you do".
Also I guess people are more likely to either be "careful" or to adapt their behavior successfully if there's one woman on a 5 person team and one or more of the guys are in some way sexist or inappropriate, than if it's a casual interaction with someone at a coffeeshop or conference.
I don't know how I feel about the "Beards of Experience" thing. I guess I'd be annoyed if it were a permanent branding of the site, but as a one-off short campaign, I'm I think I'm fine with it. It does only focus on a specific group (I assume it is "unix neckbeards vs. hipster/corporate/suave designer developers", ignoring women entirely), but for a short marketing message, it's probably better to strongly appeal to a subset vs. be "meh" for everyone. It's not on its face offensive, which would be bad even if 5-10% of people were seriously offended and 50% were approving, just narrowly scoped. But it's obviously bad if that kind of exclusion is the default across the whole industry all the time.
It's stupid crap like "Beards of Experience" though that fall out of the ephemeral "boys club" in our industry which in turn re-enforce it. This ultimately allows morons like that mentioned by the OP to have the balls to stay something overtly sexist. It's all part of the same problem. It's a giant embarrassment and it wasn't always like this. And it's not a "technology" thing or a "software" thing, it's a "startuppy web/mobile application development" thing so it has nothing to do with the actual discipline but more to do with a rotten aspect of the culture that's grown out of control.
The solution, in my view, has less to do with going out of our way to bring women into the fold and more to do with not putting stupid shit like "Beards of Experience" on your homepage.
Concur about "Beards of Experience"; maybe if there were a tastefully done "Braids of Experience" that corresponds to it on a timed slider it may not be as lopsided as just having "Beards of Experience".
It's not offensive, but it is mildly sexist (implying that only those who have beards can be that experienced, and as women cannot generally grow beards…)
I think you're making the mistake of critiquing the beards thing in isolation. The point is that it's a drop in a bucket. You can look at any individual marketing campaign and come up with perfectly valid reasons it's not really sexist, but in aggregate it's problematic.
The key word in mwetzler's comment is "microaggressions". It's the small things which are probably defensible in isolation but when viewed together exhibit some pretty obvious patterns.
If we accepted that "Beards of Experience" is sexist, we would have to accept that it's also racist (many Asian men can't grow beards like the guy on gun.io) and maybe homophobic. Don't you think it would get ridiculous at that point?
What about parenting sites where the design and images are clearly targeted at mothers (and not fathers)? Are they evil? Sexist?
I don't see anything that makes me think it's homophobic? Are you implying that gay men tend to be beardless?
And yes. Parenting sites that assume that fathers can't be parents are sexist. Parenting sites that assume that fathers won't be primary caretakers because their target demographic's culture is sexist and doesn't understand that male parents are important are fence-sitting and sexist by omission.
I don't see anything that makes me think it's homophobic?
Me neither. But then again, I don't see anything that makes me think it's sexist. Or racist, for that matter.
And yes. Parenting sites that assume that fathers can't be parents are sexist.
Well, that's the problem I'm trying to highlight. They probably assume no such thing. But we must brand them as sexist by the same token that we are not supposed to tolerate a guy with a beard on an IT recruitment site.
Here's another example: when Nike uses a photograph of a tall black guy to advertise their basketball shoes - are they being racist, sexist and disrespectful to short people?
> Well, that's the problem I'm trying to highlight. They probably assume no such thing.
That's true. It's a good thing someone points it out, then.
> Here's another example: when Nike uses a photograph of a tall black guy to advertise their basketball shoes - are they being racist, sexist and disrespectful to short people?
There's nothing evil or even sexist, IMO, about reinforcing stereotypes. However, given that there is a shortage of tech workers, and there are fewer women in tech than would be predicted based on accomplishment in other fields (bio/chem/pharma/med, specifically), I think it's reasonable to make an effort to be inclusive and try to reach out to women when recruiting or conducting other professional activities.
It's even more wrong to criticize someone aggressively for sexism in this case, but overall I think there would be net gains to everyone by attracting and retaining more women in technology. So, while it's not evil or sexist, "beards in technology" is counter to one's own interests even as a male in technology.
It's not evil. It's not mean-spirited. It is a tad sexist, but not in a super offensive way. Probably the worst thing about it is that it's turning away some women and some feminist men. I doubt Gun.io intended that.
I think it's a good example of an easy thing to change for the tech community to be more inviting to women. If we want to break down stereotypes and gender ratios in tech, one thing we can do is make it more inviting for women to work here.
Probably nothing. There would maybe be a few blog posts about it. Their comments would be filled with men defending his actions and suggesting that anyone calling him out was lying, that the real problem is "women that get offended too easily" or "women that don't get jokes," and straight-up male superiority.
Pretty much. I for one have had it up to here though. The next incidence I encounter will be called out at the very least to the person's face on the spot, if not also online.
I don't know how it works in the US, but it's her face and her name, so can't she just get a lawyer to get a court to order the website to hand over some details? And then get another court to get the ISP to hand over some more details? And then give those to the police?
When I think about it, people in SF should know better; but based on personal experience bad offensive remarks happen a lot more often than most people would think for such a progressive city. It's one reason I hate the thought of working in the city again.
The last part better explains it. It doesn't change the fact that it was sexism, but I categorize this one as stupidity and awkwardness instead of malice.
>>Afterwards, a well-known, elite developer asked me if I programmed. When I said yes, he said that made me 50% less attractive. Then he asked me if I cooked and cleaned. To my face.
You should have smiled and told him no, because you programmed a robot to do all that stuff for you. Then punched him in the face.
Afterwards, a well-known, elite developer asked me if I programmed. When I said yes, he said that made me 50% less attractive. Then he asked me if I cooked and cleaned. To my face.
You don't have to be high profile to deal with this stuff. Just being in a room where you're 1 female out of 15 males is enough to get this kind of attention.