Live data from Hacker News

Sexual Harassment at DefCon (and Other Hacker Cons)

schneier.com

251–260 of 267 posts

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

#251
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there something about these cards that prevents them from being used regardless of the gender of the participants?

No. These are just a bunch of guys predictably derailing the discussion of how women are harassed at tech conferences with, "But sometimes it's a guy, too! Ergo, we shouldn't get anywhere in this discussion!"

If a person effectively says, "whatever, when men endure what women have to, then we'll talk," you bet I'll respond to that as it implies whatever men go through is less important. I don't have a downvote button so the only recourse is responding.

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

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When such "women in IT" posts make it to the front page I'm usually rolling my eyes and think it's yet another PC guy/gal who chooses to be offended way too easily and made a mountain out of a molehill because some presentation slide alluded to porn or somesuch. This on the other hand... wow, just wow. It's sexual harassment, no question about it, and should be dealt with and punished as such.

Based on your other comments in this thread, it's hardly surprising that you are quick to dismiss women's issues. Your attitude needs adjusting.

Did you not read the second paragraph of the comment?

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

#253
post #80

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…

Never take advice from someone who thinks it's meaningful to talk in terms of "what women want", as if there's this undifferentiated mass with a unanimous set of values. If you haven't noticed that different women want different things, and are attracted to different kinds of guys, that might explain why you have trouble telling the difference between flirtatious give-and-take, and one-sided harassment. Or for that m…

Never take advice from someone who thinks it's meaningful to talk in terms of "what women want", as if there's this undifferentiated mass with a unanimous set of values.

Never underestimate the power of generalization. Women are shorter than men. Women are slower than men. Women are physically weaker than men. These generalizations allow for individual exceptions, of course, but they are true in an important statistical sense. They allow us to predict that, for example, most top basketball players, powerlifters, and sprinters will be men. Indeed, it's no coincidence that the recently completed Olympics had separate competitions not only for physically disabled athletes (the Paralympics), but also for women. They could not in general compete otherwise.

Returning to your point, I doubt you really believe that it's meaningless to talk in terms of "what women want". Despite variation in individual tastes, in general women are attracted to charming, confident men. Moreover, I'm sure you could add a few more adjectives to that list. QED.

How about if we correct that to: "when the girl responds positively to the guy, and he keeps going, it's flirting, but when she responds negatively (or tries to avoid him) and he keeps going anyway, it's creepy/sexual harassment".

I wish you were right. Much of the time, men have no slack in this regard—in today's hypersensitive environment, it's often "one strike and you're out". The costs of being accused of sexual harassment are high, while the costs of making false accusations are low; this leads to predictable results.

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

#254
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of the red card if someone touches you inappropriately why not slap them in the face - hard.

This is exactly the consensus that all but one of my hacker friends, including the women, have come to. No. If you assault me, guess what's happening? I'm going to hit you in the fucking face, and most of the people here, since we're, you know, a community are going to physically remove you from the area. Edit: if this wasn't clear, the "I" in this story is would be my female friends.

If you haven't thought up any of the many good reasons why that might be dangerous/impossible, you haven't put much effort into it.

- Toucher is an 800-pound gorilla.

- Toucher is your boss.

- Toucher is more important to the venue than you are.

- Toucher is going to be believed, and you are going to be disbelieved.

- Toucher is going to be supported, and you're going to be shamed for "making a fuss".

- Toucher is someone you have to live with.

And so forth.

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

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see some evidence before believing such a tale. If such punch cards did exist, then I'm sure that there would be a picture of one online. In other words: Screenshot, or it didn't happen.

I’d like to give you a yellow card for your tired and sexist casual and nonsensical dismissal of a claim made by a woman about an actual experience she had. With all the shit women get whenever they raise their voice on these matters, they truly have near-zero incentive to conjure up lies. Worse, her example of the cards is hardly the worst, most inconceivable thing to be suggested as something that really does happe…

Who says the guy didn't just make stuff up? Do you honestly think that is beyond someone who walks around asking women to show their breasts? In other words: he didn't say she didn't experience it he doubts the veracity of the mans account. As usual that much thought didn't occur to some white knight with his shiny 'sexist' club.

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

#256
post #141
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Women (and men) are attracted to assertive behavior, not aggressive behavior. Huge difference.

I'd venture to say that for a shy person the difference isn't necessarily that large, I can understand missing social cues when you are constantly ignoring warning signs just because you are out of your comfort zone. (that said I will never understand nor defend the scenarios depicted in the article)

I'd venture to say that for a blind non-participant the difference isn't necessarily that large.

Meanwhile, aggression covers a lot of ground, which includes clubbing someone over the head, and generally being a jerk. But the fact that someone uses this word with two "g"s and two "s"s to describe some part of the process of building a happy family does not mean that other people are going to automatically know how to build a happy family after having read the paragraph that uses those words...

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

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d like to give you a yellow card for your tired and sexist casual and nonsensical dismissal of a claim made by a woman about an actual experience she had. With all the shit women get whenever they raise their voice on these matters, they truly have near-zero incentive to conjure up lies. Worse, her example of the cards is hardly the worst, most inconceivable thing to be suggested as something that really does happe…

Who says the guy didn't just make stuff up? Do you honestly think that is beyond someone who walks around asking women to show their breasts? In other words: he didn't say she didn't experience it he doubts the veracity of the mans account. As usual that much thought didn't occur to some white knight with his shiny 'sexist' club.

Actually, yes he _did_ say he didn’t believe her account of it: “If such punch cards exist…”

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

#258

I wasn't sure what to think of the red/yellow cards when I first heard about them, but the suggestion that it should be bystanders them giving out is awesome . Everything we know about human psychology suggests that a disapproving peer group is a strong behavioral deterrent.

Honestly, I find the cards incredibly weird. I can imagine a class of 10-year-olds using them, but adults?

I like how this implies that soccer players are 10-year-olds.

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

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Tyrannos…

You cannot argue that “it’s tough being a guy” and then say you weren’t comparing it to being a woman. Actually, I just did. What the hell else were you comparing it to, being a Tyrannosaurus? I wasn't comparing it to anything. 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. Great, that's not something I can control, now is it?…

You may not have intended to compare it to anything, but you were. The words “incredibly tough” cannot be used without being in comparison to something, because without the comparison they _lose all meaning completely_. So however you want to spin it, whatever, but your words were words of comparison.

1) A skyscraper is really small. A skyscraper is really big. 2) A skyscraper is really squishy. A skyscraper is really cuddly.

All of the above are implicit comparisons, but the ones in 2) are really dumb and make no sense. Are you suggesting you really meant to fit category 2 despite pretty clearly using terminology befitting category 1? It's really better for you to just own up and admit you made a small mistake, than to dig your heels in deeper and show your reluctance to listening, to being receptive to learning anything new.

Everyone has their own problems in life. The issue at hand is women suffering from problems caused by the very same people who repeatedly attempt to diminish the severity of their (women’s) problems and try to make it about men, instead. Again.

“what we need is more shared understanding, that goes both ways”

There is plenty of understanding of your position already. It's not a hard one to figure out. We're calling out the sense of entitlement, privilege, and refusal to stop whining about your problems every time we're trying to have a conversation about _someone else's_ problems.

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

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment should get downvoted to oblivion for its sheer lack of originality, panache, and basic human empathy, but let me humor you with a response: When 1 in N women can serve in the military without being raped by their fellow servicemen, then we can talk. And then can we have the conversation wherein you attempt to defend your apparent belief that people dying in service of their country is superior to people…

The fact that you consider involuntary sexual intercourse as worse fate than death speaks volume of your lame political correctness.

I don't regard rape as a fate worse than death. It should be regarded as a crime worthy of prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, and right now it isn't.

If people in the armed forces were killed by their fellow soldiers at the rate women in the armed forces are assaulted and/or raped (which would mean a Fort Hood massacre every _week_), it would get a lot of attention, and the perpetrators would actually be prosecuted instead of shielded from consequence. But when a victim of assault reports it in the military, the consequences usually fall on the victim and the perp gets to walk. I think any rational human would find that sickening.

I also take umbrage with your sugarcoated characterization of rape as "involuntary sexual intercourse," as if it could happen by accident. There is no such thing as "involuntary" sexual intercourse. Sex requires consent. If consent is not given or is revoked, it immediately becomes assault and/or rape, and the person who disregards that becomes an assailant and/or rapist. Your use of dismissive, diminishing rhetoric to describe (or even excuse) the traumatizing act of sexual assault/rape is a lame and misguided attempt of political correctness of your own preference. Which is a nice way of saying that you're propping up rape culture.

I don't know you, but based on your comments you seem to have very little to no empathy for victims of assault. I would implore you to examine why that is.

Post reply on HN