It can be really hard in a situation like that to stand up for yourself, especially if you don't want to cause a public fuss. I'm female, and at PAX East I was approached a couple of times (at social events, by attendees) and rather inappropriate things were said to me; it's hard to do anything other than just want to get out of that sort of a situation. Something inside you says "I can't believe he really means this", or "Did he really just say what I think he said?" - it is very much l'esprit d'escalier when it comes to standing up for yourself.
I always find it easier to speak up for other people than myself. One of the tricks I use when negotiating is to imagine I'm negotiating a salary for someone else so it stops being about me.
I'm also terrible at doing this, too. I think you're right though - it is easier to do it for someone else! But when you're in a confrontational situation that you haven't sought (unlike a salary negotiation, which you have probably sought), it's more about the "seat of your pants" type stuff, in which I tend to try to avoid escalation and/or the confrontation itself. Of course it's always easy to come up with "well I should have said x" or "I should have kicked him in the y" after it's over.
Seat of your pants type stuff is hard. It can help to go over all the "shoulda saids" afterwards so that you are a little quicker on the draw the next time. It also helps me personally to remember that just as I was socialized to behave a certain way, so were men. Many of them are happy to be given a different option for how to interact with women, assuming I give them the benefit of the doubt, treat it like a bad habit rather than a personal sin, and give them some option better than letting me abuse them instead of letting them abuse me.
Intended to be helpful, not critical. Have a great day and thank you for participating.
Yeah, to be fair, I am getting a bit better than I was 10 years ago about this stuff. I'm now far more likely to call someone out on bs than I was back then. But it's taken a long time and a lot of skin-thickening to get that courage up.
Though I have never been to PAX East I would still say: I'm sorry.
It's incredibly perverse, the way I was socialized in the US. I was taught essentially that love was always "at stake" in every discussion with the opposite sex, and that if I didn't have love, whether by commitment or conquest, then I was worthless. I ultimately had to resolve the problem that I wasn't treating ladies as genuine human beings by jumping off the deep end, and accidentally inventing a personal religion. Basically I committed to the worthlessness and resolved to make it my own, because it was better to treat others as real human beings. In doing so I suddenly discovered that love isn't static, isn't a substance, and that along that earlier path, real love was in fact impossible. So by embracing worthlessness I accidentally discovered worth.
I can't apologize to those I have wronged before, and those that have wronged you can't apologize to you now, but though it is empty, I would apologize to you on their behalf. I'm sorry; I've learned.
(Some) guys are told that their value as a man is tied to how good they are at "getting" women. So every conversation with a woman is framed in terms of an existential threat: if you're not getting enough women, you're not a real man.
We seriously need a social protocol for situations where A says something which makes B feel very sorry, but the proper recipients of B's apology are no longer available to hear it. It felt way too cheesy to just apologize to myself, so I apologized to you, but that doesn't make me feel any better about my womanizing and discriminatory past. Live and learn, I guess.
But it's still the right thing to do, and pointing this out is not victim blaming. And posting a blog to an audience that already agrees with you is not going to effect change. Confronting the perpetrators will.
These comments are asking why she didn't do this or that, or saying she shouldn't be upset because that's just how it is, which is textbook victim blaming.
And judging by the comments in this thread alone, I hardly think it was posted to an audience that already agrees.
Sure, it's the right thing to do, that doesn't make it easy. And saying "well, you should have done this" when it's quite difficult to do is moving the responsibility for how the situation progressed to the victim.
The fact that these situations occur frequently in tech circles is indicative that things still need to be done about embedding the issues into the general consciousness of people in tech circles. If it were a one-off situation, and everyone were horrified by it, it would be easier to say "well, it was just that one guy". But the fact that it still happens frequently, and reading the comments here and elsewhere that shift the blame of the outcome to the victim... makes me think that we haven't quite got to that stage yet. Sadly.
I really wish I could find an article I read a while ago, in response to efforts in an open source community to create a "Code of Conduct" for their tech conferences. It was from a woman who had worked in blue-collar industry before and had moved into tech. She said all the things that I, as a man, cannot say, without being labeled a 'victim blamer'. It's not: it's putting the blame on the actual individual who caused the problem, rather than blaming it on the circumstances.
She made a bunch of observations. Firstly, that sexism in tech, while it happens, is nothing compared to the sexism you'd find in the average tattoo parlour or mechanical workshop. At least in tech there is the option of sitting down and writing blog posts about things and getting validation even weeks after the fact. In other sectors, you either confront the sexist in their face immediately, or you will lose face and not be taken seriously.
But she also rightly pointed out that establishing a "code of conduct" and expecting people to abide by it will not change the behavior of those who act sexist or inappropriate today. Either they do it out of ignorance, or they don't care. But they're not going to change until specific instances are pointed out.
Additionally, I've noticed on multiple occasions that putting sexism on a special pedestal and making it a mission to eradicate it just has the opposite effect. People start seeing it as a right to never be offended, based on their own narrow personal and/or cultural view. For example, there was an entire shitstorm in this community about a 'sexist' tweet, which literally did not contain any gender reference. It merely implied that there was a gallery where you could view all the conference attendees that had uploaded a picture and, tongue-in-cheek, suggested you go look for that attractive developer you saw last time. Which isn't that strange, it's hard to remember faces and names in large groups.
You'd think the tweet said "Come perv over hot geek chicks here." It would invite harrassment, sexualizes things unnecessarily, etc., and all this in a completely one-sided debate about validating the hurt feelings of a few women, completely ignoring all the men and women who didn't see any offense, who 'obviously' didn't 'get it'.
And actually, that offended me. Because it implies that a) the only people who picture-stalk are straight men b) if given the opportunity to do so, men can't help themselves.
It takes the discussion away from the individual who did something wrong, and instead paints a giant target on a nebulous generalization of a very diverse group of people.
Echoing liedra's point -- "it's worse elsewhere" is a poor excuse for inaction when we, in fact, are here (not working in tattoo parlors, for example).
Also worth noting that the fact that a woman wrote the article has little to do with how "true" it is; maybe this goes without saying, but "woman" don't have selected representatives who can reasonably speak for all of their experiences. Unless the article author is citing some actual data, she's just guessing as much as you are.
Codes of conduct really can help, if they achieve widespread acceptance. People are social animals; they care if everyone around them thinks less of them because of their actions. They find out what the people around them think sometimes because of direct confrontations, sometimes because of other things... imagine "John Doe" at a popular conference, sitting through a presentation on some retarded code of conduct, dumb modern political correctness cranked up to 11! -- and John leans over to crack a joke about it to the normal-looking guy next to him, but then he realizes the guy is nodding along with the presenter, and was now standing up to give a frickin standing ovation -- what, really? -- and, oh come on, just about everyone was standing up now? Cheering all that rubbish? He'd feel a bit lost, I think -- recognizing the disconnect -- and that probably wouldn't change his habits of thinking all that much... but it could certainly give him pause before telling that same joke about blondes and whiteout on computer screens in front of so many of these same people.
This isn't data; this is my hopeful imagining... but it's worth putting some energy into trying to fix this problem, in many ways at once (why not?) vs. putting energy into stopping others from trying to fix it.
At the very least, if you agree there's a problem, say so (instead of finding ways to dismiss it) when the topic comes up; people are listening.
Just a point about this discussion point - just because a situation is worse elsewhere doesn't make it acceptable in tech.
I agree that sometimes it goes a little overboard. But there are also genuine moments when sexist bullshit should be called out for what it is. I don't know anything about the "gallery" tweet, but you need to consider a wide contextual impact of things you say and do, especially when it comes to minority groups. Having a gallery of people involved in the conference is fine, but why bring attractiveness into it? Why not just say "interesting" or "talented" instead? It strikes me as just being a bit thoughtless of the promoters, really.
At which point does "considering the wider impact of what you do" cross into "pandering to people with an inflated sense of self-importance" though? I've seen endless discussions online where the latter isn't even acknowledged as an actual possibility. In particular, it seems North Americans are far more eager to side with an offendee than e.g. Europeans.
Jesus fucking christ, get some assertiveness training if you're having that much trouble with something so basic. Life is tough, if you don't learn to elbow your way in you'll always stand on the side-lines and will forever be relegated to being a spectator.
You're very privileged to have grown up in a social setting that rewards you for your assertiveness. Not everyone, and especially women, has had the same environment and socio-cultural expectation of them. It'd be lovely to foster a culture in which these issues weren't issues - but for now we have to address the fundamental differences in how we treat women and girls, as far as assertiveness is concerned, from how we treat men and boys.
Actually, I was bullied by a caretaker and certain peers when I was a kid and had anxiety related issues as a result. After abusing drugs and neglecting myself for a long time, I faced my problems and learned to stand up for myself. Way to hold a prejudice against me based on my gender, genius.
There's no need to be rude. Everyone has different experiences. Not everyone is assertive or has the opportunity to learn to be assertive. Especially when social expectation is against them.
You're missing the point of what assertiveness is. It's about creating opportunity, not sitting on your ass and waiting for the world to cater to your needs. Life is what you make it and one has nobody to blame but themselves for where they go. True, we don't choose the starting point, but we do choose the destination.
The core of assertiveness is disregard for cultural expectations. Girls are rewarded for meeting unhealthy expectations, while we boys are punished for failing to meet unrealistic ones, and seeing that and the widespread lack of sympathy is more effective at eventually enabling many of us to start saying "fuck that".
This is an incredibly male view of things. Why is assertiveness the better choice? Why should life be about elbowing your way through everything? Why do you have to be such a tough guy?
> you'll always stand on the side-lines and will forever be relegated to being a spectator.
I don't make the rules, it's just the way nature is.
I think that a distinction must be drawn between being assertive and being abusive. Assertiveness is, in my opinion, nudging your way forward and reacting to people's objections by talking to them then taking their opinions into account and, if they lack assertiveness, representing their opinions. If someone else is also fighting for that spot, team up with them and work together.
In contrast, abusiveness is nudging your way forward at the expense of peoples' well-being and not respecting others' right to assert themselves.
In other words, it's the difference between fighting for yourself and fighting for everyone including yourself.
