Hacker News Reader

This comment has practically nothing to do with the article. As usual, any submission concerning improving the ratio of women to men in our industry immediately becomes a coatrack for digs about "radfem".

For those of you who read the comments before clicking through to the article: this one is a list of things an event organizer did to try to boost attendance among women. None of them appear at all controversial. The "code of conduct" section this commenter takes issue with is table stakes at most major conferences. But that doesn't mean rude commenters will miss an opportunity to beat a dead horse.

Ah in gallops tptacek on his trusty steed. Dead horse indeed.

As usual, any submission concerning improving the ratio of women to men in our industry immediately becomes a coatrack for digs about "radfem".

Just because they don't appear controversial to you doesn't make it so. And am I not allowed to take issue with the "table stakes"?

The problem is you're hijacking a thread about specific, quantifiable steps that one group took, and the results they achieved, in order to spin the kinds of hypotheticals that have a proven track record of spiraling off into wank.

Don't do it. Write a blog post or something. Call your mom.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. The code of conduct was clearly cited as one of the steps taken. I have issue with that step. And I have as much right to comment here as you do. You're free to ignore me. Please do.

It's an article about how a group running a retreat targeted their message to change their customer demographics, no more no less.

Whether or not the mechanisms for doing so have sound philosophical and social underpinnings is quite beside the point--they did X, Y, Z, and it appears to have worked.

Go piss and moan about gender (in)equality elsewhere.

It worked in attracting women (perhaps a certain kind of women, but still). That doesn't mean it didn't have side effects.

I don't understand your problem with people criticizing some of the things they did. It's just saying they wouldn't be attracted to the conference. It's a piece of information the organizers can ignore or not, it's their conference.

I suppose in economic terms it will work out because having more women will attract more men. What mix of people they'll have is another issue.

The organizers went to the radical feminists for advice on how to attract women(Geek Feminism Wiki). Of course it has everything to do with radfem.

There happen to be people who disagree with radfem, so they will be demotivated from attending.

Of course this might be their intention - perhaps they want a feminist conference. Their call.

No, Richards would have been fine, because these things are only prohibited when they reinforce "social structures of domination."

This is in line with the standard "reverse *ism categorically can't exist" claim. Discrimination is only bad when it favors the more powerful group, or so the claim goes. So a person might be rejected by a conference solely beause he is a white male, but because the system of power is (on balance) in favor of white males, that is not racism or sexism and not prohibited.

> Discrimination is only bad when it favors the more powerful group, or so the claim goes

The claim is not (or shouldn't be) that such discrimination can't be hurtful, can't be problematic, or isn't a legitimate target of criticism under some circumstances. The claim is that bigotry and bias in the "other" direction do not constitute structural "*ism."

What's the context of someone being rejected from a conference solely because he's a white male? If someone is rejected because the conference is trying to get broader representation then the rejection isn't just because he's a white male, it's because he's a white male AND white males were overrepresented.

It's unfortunate from a rhetorical standpoint that sexism easily seems like it could mean "any sex discrimination" but is also used to mean "the structural oppression of women."

I welcome the day when the objection is genuinely only about the arguable linguistic inconsistency, but I can't help but thinking the concept is the big hangup, not the word for it.

To answer specifically for Hacker Paradise, "who gets to enforce the code of conduct" is something we have been discussing internally. Casey and I are very much hoping to be part of the group, and as such we are in a somewhat biased position when it comes to addressing any issues that arise. One idea we've been playing with is having a remote neutral, third-party ombudsman that anybody can email (anonymously, if they prefer) to address any issues. The ombudsman would then ostensibly do some investigation and bring the issue up with us if it feels appropriate.

We're still thinking through this - one month to go until the retreat begins - and would love to get HN's input. Has anybody tried anything similar? As an organizer for a ~15-person group and a white dude, I realize and acknowledge that some inherent bias exists. We want to address it as effectively as possible.

Thank you for taking the time to address my concern.

I'm glad we both think it's an important issue in spite of what some other commenters have said.

A couple of thoughts:

A) Codes of conduct are best enforced by example. So be very, very mindful of your own behavior and that will do a lot to deter problems.

B) When I worked at a Fortune 500 company, harassment got reported to HR. HR interviewed people separately. So that might be sort of a vote for a neutral third party to turn to.

(I got interviewed after I emailed a male on my team and copied our boss and told him in no uncertain terms "don't you ever speak to me that way again in a meeting." I was never told the outcome but my suspicion is that he was probably sent to sensitivity training. So, presumably, they decided in my favor. He avoided me and was angry for a time. I spent some months winning his trust again. I eventually smoothed things over. But, no, he never spoke inappropriately to me again.)

Best of luck.

Thank you! Any ideas for whom a reputable, neutral third party might be, that would be interested in an experiment like ours?

Sorry, I have no idea. It isn't anything I have experience with.

Best of luck.

Can you cite any examples of people who have been silenced or shamed by a conference harrassment code?

At a professional conference, it should not be that hard to control your behavior. Just pretend your grandparents are with you. Adults routinely modulate their behavior based on the setting and it really is not a burden.

You can come up with all kinds of theoretical scenarios where you're a conference martyr. But I would really like to hear some specific, shocking examples of this happening to anyone. Because I've heard a lot of specific, shocking examples of women being verbally and physically harrassed.

Can you cite any examples of people who have been silenced or shamed by a conference harrassment code?

You mean besides the Adria Richard's example?

At a professional conference, it should not be that hard to control your behavior.

The conference organizers seem to disagree with you in this case.

a conference martyr good one.

It might be useful to remember how the conference organizers handled that incident:

> Both parties were met with, in private. The comments that were made were in poor taste, and individuals involved agreed, apologized and no further actions were taken by the staff of PyCon 2013. No individuals were removed from the conference, no sanctions were levied.

But let's grant for argument's sake that this was an example of public shaming that cries out to the very heavens for justice. What are some others? Just to balance out the huge number of reported harassment incidents from tech conferences, and the bigger number that must go unreported.

What are some others?

Why is the one example not enough to prove my point? I could name a hundred and you still wouldn't be happy. Why bother.

My argument is that the kind of thing you're concerned about basically never happens, while harrassment at tech conferences happens all the time.

That's an assertion of fact, which you can disprove by giving examples. Maybe I'm wrong and all kinds of men are being kept from conferences, and shamed into silence, by harrassment codes. Tell me their stories!

I'm not concerned about how often it happens. I'm concerned about the potential for it to happen. The Richard's example shows that potential. Your insistence on more examples as some metric of proof is none of my concern.

You haven't yet provided an actual example. Maybe you could start with just one.

Good night gents.

You're worried about the potential of a code of conduct being used abusively. Meanwhile, they exist because of the real, not theoretical, abuse encountered at some events.

There are enough examples of men being ruined by female accusations. Most recent I remember from HN is the GitHub founder being fired. Then there was the guy who reverted the gendering comments on some open source project (was it NodeJS?) and received a shit storm. Another one I remember is the Ruby conference where an employee flirted with her boss at a restaurant (letting her colleagues drink from her navel) and then called rape when he ended up slow-dancing with her. Adria Richards is also a good example - why wasn't she expelled from the conference, what good is a policy if it isn't being enforced?

Your question is of course also absurd because you ask for examples of the absence of something. It doesn't create much publicy if somebody decides to skip a conference. I personally would think twice about going to a conference with such policies because I consider them insulting.

Another victim could be women - if the safe way to attend a conference is not to talk to women. I remember a post on HN by a woman who has long been a coder/hacker and got along very well with the male coders. But recently she noticed that they don't dare to invite her (or was it just the newcomer women whom they didn't know so well yet) to parties and after show events anymore for fear of unwarranted accusations.

> I could name a hundred and you still wouldn't be happy. Why bother.

I could support what I'm saying, but that's too hard. The reality is there aren't many examples of someone being unjustly sanctioned by a code of conduct.

No. I simply refuse to adopt his/your standard of proof. If that makes you think you've won the argument then so be it.

The harassment numbers are not really huge. Feminists try to maintain a list and I think it clearly shows that incidents are rare - and half the items on the list are even cases I personally wouldn't count. But even if you count them all, given the huge amount of IT events, it is a very short list.

I think at the last Chaos Computing Congress there were a huge number of incidents and feminist campaigners threatening people with self-made "red cards". Just to mention one example that might be easily googleable.