Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 267 posts

Re: Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

#221

Post by Achshar »

illuminate wrote: post #202
hackinthebochs wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoted because your posts are unnecessarily hostile to people who are posting innocent questions/observations.

Hostile I am, but constructively so. They should not feel so entitled to have everyone fall for them, simply because they "deserve" to be loved. They (being anyone who thinks "women love jerks" is an acceptable thing to say undigested) need to step way back and think about why they find themselves in this position without blaming women for not wanting them as they are.

I have said this in another comment. [edit: I see you are the same person :)] I did say I have seen it work, but that does not mean I envy them. I am not saying weather something is right or wrong. I am just putting forward what I have seen and trying to make sense of it.

They need to step way back and think about why they find themselves in this position without blaming women for not wanting them as they are.

The point I was trying to make is that people are expected to adhere to "rules" that either don't exist or not well defined and hence subject to change from person to person. Generalizing is not an option because such thing are usually complicated and the accused might not have don't it intentionally. It is sometimes simply not clear where to draw the line.

Re: Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

#222

Post by Achshar »

illuminate wrote: post #203
Achshar wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, i did say i have seen it work, but that does not mean i envy them. I just meant that people are usually expected to adhere to rules that are not clearly defined and change from person to person.

Thanks for the clarification. Shouldn't the concept of who a person wants to date change from person to person? There are suggested behaviors, but solid "rules" are generally dictated by people trying to sell a book of questionable value, not people legitimately trying to help you succeed in your dating life :)

Indeed, the concept of who a person wants to date should change from person to person. --- (1)

But a case of harassment/flirting is not black and white because (1).

Re: Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

#224

Post by FuzzyDunlop »

illuminate wrote: post #88
FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a feminist perspective, it's not very empowering to a woman to have to resort to props and other crazy schemes to get unscrupulous men to fuck off. Men don't have to do it, why should women. I think it'd be helpful to identify why this problem exists in the tech field. Is there a chicken and egg situation where more women in tech would solve these problems, but something about tech prevents more women getting in…

"From a feminist perspective, it's not very empowering to a woman to have to resort to props and other crazy schemes to get unscrupulous men to fuck off. Men don't have to do it, why should women." Like Hollaback, this is a very imperfect, but apparently effective solution. I appreciate your appeals to straw Feminism, but "women should react the same as men to every situation to 'prove' they are strong" is not it, it…

It's not that they "should react the same", it's that - ideally - they shouldn't have to act differently to be treated equally.

I'll concede that imperfect but effective solutions are probably necessary to help foster this sort of equality in the long run, though, and the more people who step up and take responsibility for pushing the change (regardless of gender), the better.

Re: Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

#225

Post by hackinthebochs »

ceol wrote: post #220
hackinthebochs wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made sure to qualify the context of my comment to make my points as clear as possible. These strawman arguments that inevitably get trotted out get incredibly tired. You're not going to find too many people around here to fall for that argumentation tactic. Hitting on != groping people and you damn well know it.

The original article was talking about a woman who was groped and assaulted. To quote the parent: > It sounds like a lot of this stuff happens at bars during events, not at the events themselves. No one started talking about specifically being hit on until you brought it up, so either you were talking about what the woman went through and mistakingly called it "hitting on", which is what I assumed, or you're talking…

Rereading the conversation chain I admit to misunderstanding the context of this thread. Reading through a bunch of comments I'm sure context bled between threads in my head (HN's pythonesque block comment structure doesn't help matters). Although I qualified my statements very specifically as I anticipated possibly misreading or missing something along the way.

Re: Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

#226

Post by bas »

papercruncher wrote: post #15
brianjyee wrote: post #3

Not specific to hacker culture, but I always felt there was a bit of a double standard when it comes to alpha male behavior. Women are attracted to aggressive men. Women like men who take charge. Women like men who are the initiators. Now obviously there is a line that crosses over into sexual harassment, but the fact is that men who behave aggressively are the ones who succeed in sexual pursuits most often. It's alm…

Sure, at a night club... maybe. But not at a professional conference.

DEF CON is not a professional conference. It's hacker spring break.

Re: Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

#227

Post by demewmew »

s_baby wrote: post #194
demewmew wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what agpen is trying to say is, "Statements like this are offputting to some people [women] who want to participate in tech." That's going to vary by the individual, but acknowledging that these statements have an offputting effect is proof in itself. Most people reading those statements aren't going to step in and say "this makes me not want to participate," because they know they won't be taken seriously. S…

Your statement is more sensible and on the fence. She's implying men are the root of women's problems in tech. That there is a conspiracy to marginalize. Women have broken into countless so-called "boys clubs". Doctors, lawyers, marketing, etc... How is tech an exceptionally hostile environment towards women?

You're making a lot of assumptions that may not be correct in your reading, because they certainly weren't explicitly stated: in particular, that agpen is a woman (not a given from the comment in question), and two, that "men are the root of women's problems in tech."

agpen is criticizing boys' clubs, a term that encapsulates a certain culture, behaviors, and set of beliefs. The gender of those participating in that culture is typically male, but women can and do perpetuate boys' club cultures on their own, often because that's the only way they can gain admission. It's fairer to see criticism of boys' clubs as a criticism of that culture and set of behaviors, and the idea that one must participate in those behaviors in order to be accepted, not of men in particular.

How is tech an exceptionally hostile environment towards women? http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents - Schneier links to this in the OP. If your response to that is "sexism happens everywhere," well, I'd like it to stop happening everywhere, and I'll start with my home turf.

Re: Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

#228

Post by mcguire »

unreal37 wrote: post #11

Are there problems that actually occur AT the defcon conference? Sounds like most of the anecdotes are from parties, where alcohol is a factor. Is defcon a conference or a party?

According to this comment:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/sexual_harassm...

DefCon is a party.

Re: Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

#229

Post by KuraFire »

mindcrime wrote: post #210
ceol wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to being a woman, it is not difficult to be a guy. I'm not sure how you can look at this article about how so many women get sexually assaulted or harassed at tech conventions and think, "It's so tough being a guy ." Not all women are looking for a hookup every time they leave their house. If you hit on a girl at a convention, and she thinks you're creepy, it's your fault. You shouldn't be hitting on her. Yo…

Compared to being a woman, it is not difficult to be a guy. I don't know about you, but I'm not trying to make any such comparison. Nor do I find it to be relevant. This isn't about "is it harder to be a guy or a girl," it's about the fact that it's tough to be a guy OR a girl. IOW, women aren't the only ones who have challenges when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex. And I don't believe it makes sense to loo…

No dude, it’s fucking easy being a guy, twice so if you’re white, three times so if you’re straight. In fact, that’s so true it has come to be known as The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...

You cannot argue that “it’s tough being a guy” and then say you weren’t comparing it to being a woman. What the hell else were you comparing it to, being a Tyrannosaurus? However tough you may think your position in life is, chances are pretty high you’re living it on The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is.

Re: Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

#230

Post by demewmew »

edghf wrote: post #158
Achshar wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this thread we find relationship advice from geeks (average HN reader I presume). It is funny because I speak as one and HN is the last place I expect to read such comments. But saying "I'm sorry; I didn't mean to offend you. Could you tell me what about what I said bothered you? " is the most technical and least pro-flirty (is that even a word?) thing I have read in this thread. As a more technical person myself,…

At the point someone has called you out for being sexist, the relationship you should be focused on pursuing is the one with the next person, because your shot with this one is gone.

Yes! And if you're so worried about how "technical" you'll sound when asking for feedback (which you may or may not get - nobody's entitled to give it), you also miss out on the potential to get some data points to refine your approach in the future. Sounds like a good opportunity to repeat that same old mistake all over again and write it off as "I just wasn't flirty enough." Not the problem, never was the problem.
Post reply on HN