Sexist Presentations At Startup Competition Prompt TechCrunch Apology

Funny by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 01:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would have thought that their talk was satirical with an ironic twist, thereby not being sexist at all in the given context.

How wrong the political correctness freaks have proved me once more!

Re:Funny by arth1 · 2013-09-09 02:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

The ones at fault here are the ones bringing 9 year olds to a Techcrunch conference. Much more "adult" stuff than this could have been discussed, and within context too.

eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 01:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

That is not sexism, poor taste at best.

Re:eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 02:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Objectification is conventionally considered sexism even when it doesn't contain explicit stereotypes, because it's implicitly dehumanizing.
Would it have been sexist if the talk were given by a woman? I don't know about you, but I know a few women (yes, mature adults) who would use that app. Objectification by members of the opposite sex is considered sexism by the PC crowd. When my wife does it, it's OK. Or when a woman gets breast implants so her tits will get noticed, it's OK. When my lesbian friends do it, it's OK. But when a young man does it, somehow it is now sexism?
I call it bullshit.
Re:eh? by i+kan+reed · 2013-09-09 02:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, women can be sexist. Objectification can go both ways, and can even be homosexual. Oddly, in public avenues like these, it almost always appears to come from politically dominant classes, and these hypothetical questions are almost never relevant. How strange is that?
Re:eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 02:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Once upon a time these things had a meaningful definition but now everything that's bad or insensitive gets clumped there even though it's miles away from the original concept. Thus, now we get to live in a world where making stereotypical joke is conventionally considered the same as genuinely claiming that some groups of people are inferior to others and discriminating against them is okay.
Re:eh? by hedwards · 2013-09-09 02:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Objectification of women is conventionally considered sexism. Objectification of men is just hunky dory. Seems to me that women ought to clean their own house before bitching about when men do it. Or at least make some meaningful effort to do so.
Not to mention all the TV, movies and video games that reduce the role of a man to a paycheck or cannon fodder.
Re:eh? by hedwards · 2013-09-09 02:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's called selection bias. Whenever I see it around here, it's generally women. Mainly because men are too afraid of having a spurious law suit filed against them.
Most of the lectures on equal rights are really just a cover for feminist propaganda. Tons of statistics taken out of context and god help any that bother to point out that there's cherry picking going on to make things look bad for women.
Re:eh? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2013-09-09 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's get something straight. Men are not politically dominant. Rich men are politically dominant.
If men in general were politically dominant, then it wouldn't be the case that 75% of all homeless people are male while there are numerous homeless shelters that cater strictly to women.
If men in general were politically dominant, then we wouldn't have men being forced to pay child support for children that the courts acknowledge aren't even theirs.
If men in general were politically dominant, then Title IX wouldn't instruct colleges to kick out men on the mere allegation of sexual misconduct (the "preponderance of evidence" clause) rather than requiring actual evidence.

--

Technoli
Re:eh? by stdarg · 2013-09-09 03:00 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, you're wrong, so that's the end of your line of reasoning.
Case in point, I was watching UK X-Factor this weekend and one of the hosts (Nicole Scherzinger) acted inappropriately when a 17 year old boy began yodeling. She acted overtly flirtatious towards him, started swaying and dancing and touching herself suggestively and commented on his looks (calling him hot, delicious, etc). Her comments and her "female gaze" and the disparity in power (host vs contenstant, age, social status, etc) made the whole thing very objectifying.
As far as I know, nobody has made a big deal of it.
Now if one of the male judges acted the same way towards an underage female contestant, it would be an outrage and accusations of sexism and pedophilia would fly about.
Re:eh? by Vanderhoth · 2013-09-09 03:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Case in point. St. Mary's University in Nova Scotia, Canada. Have a look at some of the outrage there. Drunk students during frosh week sang a chant that's been going on for a couple of years. "Young, Y = Your sister, O = Oh, so tight, U = Under age, N = No consent, G = Grab that ass, St. Mary's boys like them young".

The students that took part in the chant were sent for sensitivity training. It seems like everyone and their dog wanted these kids expelled and sent to jail for conspiracy to commit a criminal act. Anyone that says, it's a bunch of stupid drunk teens out on their own for the first time is met with accusations of being pedophiles and death threats.

Read the comment section, there are tons of people throwing outrage and expect the boys to be castrated, despite the fact that more than half of the participants were female.
Re:eh? by tommeke100 · 2013-09-09 04:09 · Score: 2

"mere allegation of sexual misconduct" does not equal "preponderance of evidence".
"Preponderance of evidence" means that if given the evidence and witnesses it's more likely that "sexual misconduct" happened, they lose.
This is apparently the standard in most civil cases in the US.
Apparently this breaks constitutional rights in some cases and is a pretty arbitrary way of ruling, IMO.
Re:eh? by Dave+Emami · 2013-09-09 04:12 · Score: 2

Objectification is conventionally considered sexism even when it doesn't contain explicit stereotypes
Among people in the Grievance Studies majors and similar folks prone to using terms like "objectification" and "<something>-justice", yes. In the real world, not so much.

because it's implicitly dehumanizing.
Perhaps they're implying it, and perhaps you're merely inferring it. There is a difference, and people of the above-mentioned mindset tend both to ignore or to not realize the difference, and to be downright eager to detect it if they aren't already to the point where they see it in everything 24/7 already.

You don't consider it sexism.
It's not sexism, because an -ism is a belief system. What belief system were the two Australian guys espousing, beyond the perfectly-normal "I like boobs"? Unless you're a telepath (in which case, contact James Randi and collect your million dollars), the evil beliefs you might attribute to the speakers are going to be conjured from your brain and from others who also carry the "men who openly express attraction to women they find attractive, are bad" meme.
And yes, I mean normal. Most of the things men and women find attractive about members of the opposite sex are cues about how good of a job that person will do in enabling you to produce healthy offspring that will survive to adulthood. Your viewpoint is the sexual equivalent of veganism -- an attempt to impose a behavior pattern completely contrary to human nature.

--

"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Re:eh? by NeutronCowboy · 2013-09-09 04:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

If men in general were politically dominant, then it wouldn't be the case that 75% of all homeless people are male
Homelessness is often correlated with mental illness, which is preponderant in men. Next.

there are numerous homeless shelters that cater strictly to women.
Those are battered women shelters. Domestic abuse is still heavily skewed towards women being victims, largely because they are on average physically weaker.

If men in general were politically dominant, then we wouldn't have men being forced to pay child support for children that the courts acknowledge aren't even theirs.
A single anecdote based on a time frame where men where so dominant socially and politically that a divorced mother would be condemned to a life of abject poverty. The reason for these laws is because it used to be that women were incapable of finding jobs anything other than secretaries or nurses. Add to that that mothers were in the vast majority of cases "home makers", being divorced was close to a poverty sentence.

If men in general were politically dominant, then Title IX wouldn't instruct colleges to kick out men on the mere allegation of sexual misconduct (the "preponderance of evidence" clause) rather than requiring actual evidence.
You watched too much CSI. Preponderance of evidence is the standard for any civil case. Which is what Title IX cases fall under.
I agree that some feminist claims, as well as laws designed to deal with male supremacy need to be revisited. But your examples aren't helping your argument.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:eh? by i+kan+reed · 2013-09-09 04:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

To be fair, advocating a felony is actually an exception to free-speech, and would likely have been sent to jail for suggesting murder instead of rape with their chant. People tend to not have a sense of humor about things where they think their safety is actively being threatened.
Re:eh? by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-09 04:57 · Score: 2

For every anecdote like this you can find one showing how women were treated unfairly. Claims of rape being dismissed, saying she was "asking for it" because of the way she dressed or because she got drunk. There was a case on the radio a few weeks ago where a woman was being divorced but because she couldn't get a state lawyer under new rules and her husband was the only one with an income his lawyer was taking her for everything she was worth, including the kids.
As for internet comments... Come on bro, this is the fucking internet. It's full of shouty morons and will only ever make you angry if you assume it is any kind of reflection of real life or the majority view.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:eh? by hedwards · 2013-09-09 05:31 · Score: 2

I'm not derailing anything, it's completely relevant. The ill effects that come from men's unhealthy self image are huge, and yet there's basically no attention paid to it.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that they're equally sized problems, but the attention paid to the objectification of men is practically zilch. It's OK to portray men as cannon fodder, but somehow suggest that women are sexy and somehow that's crossing the line.
Re:eh? by Belial6 · 2013-09-09 06:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Oddly, in public avenues like these, it almost always appears to come from politically dominant classes, and these hypothetical questions are almost never relevant.
That is simply untrue. For example, in the last big media hoopla about this, it was Adria Richards complaining about men making a joke about 'dongles' after she had, at the exact same event, made a joke about stuffing socks in your pants to make the TSA think they were your dick. The only reason you think that the jokes come predominantly from men is because you are a misandrist.
Re:eh? by Vanderhoth · 2013-09-09 07:11 · Score: 2

I think it really degrades the seriousness of rape when people start throwing out false stats and claims.

I was having a facebook back and forth on objectification of women in advertising with an old friend of mine. I met her when she was doing her BA and I was in Com. Sci. She's getting a Psy. D. now and majoring in sociology, but specializing in women's studies. At some point in the conversation she told me 1 in 4 girls are raped at university. I assume she's the expert and was quite shocked because I work with a lot of women and had lots of female friends from when I was in university. Given the 1 in 4 stat I should know at least a dozen that have been raped. Female friends and co-workers aside because I didn't want to ask them about such an touchy topic, I have two sisters, a wife, sister in law, mother, step-mother, mother in law and a couple nieces (university age). Surely one of them would have been a victim or know someone that was a victim given that figure. Nope, when asked none of them know of or have any friends that were raped in university, that they know of anyway.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but when you throw a stat like that out there you should be able to back it up, but when I questioned the stat and asked if she knew anyone who was raped, she told me she didn't personally know anyone and most rapes go unreported. Well if they're unreported then how can you factor them into your stat. Easy, the number was extrapolated it from reported and confirmed rape victims, basically assumed X number of women aren't reporting rapes for every Y that do report them.

Then I told her this is why I think sociology is not a science, they make stuff up and can't repeat experiments with consistent results. I haven't heard from her since, but I completely understand why.

Should have done it on MTV by Chemisor · 2013-09-09 01:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

So it's wrong for a guy to talk about "taking a picture of yourself staring at tits" and to simulate masturbation in public, but it's perfectly all right for Miley Cyrus to do the same (and more!) on national television in front of millions of people? I guess they should have done it on MTV; then it would have been ok.

Re:Should have done it on MTV by catfood · 2013-09-09 01:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Try to keep up. Feminist blogs were full of criticism of that performance. I realize that ruins your little rant and your fantasy of persecution, but there it is.
Re:Should have done it on MTV by catfood · 2013-09-09 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

If he wants to make the statement that feminists were all cool with the Cyrus performance, he should check and do his damn research first. Knowing what you are talking about is important.
Re:Should have done it on MTV by serviscope_minor · 2013-09-09 01:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Knowing what you are talking about is important.
You must be new here.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Should have done it on MTV by Lasrick · 2013-09-09 02:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Jesus. Why do you change the subject? Did I or anyone say it's okay to present graphic violence as entertainment? You are deflecting from discussion about what these two grown men did at a professional conference, which many people attended for the technical information. When you buy a ticket to a movie or a performance, you have a general idea of what you are going to get. If you want to see gratuitous sex and/or violence, you may choose to do so. And others may choose not to. When at a professional conference, the intent is altogether different. People are there for a variety of reasons, and having these men push their sexist, misogynist agenda on them is wrong.
Re:Should have done it on MTV by djlemma · 2013-09-09 02:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

What, exactly, makes you think that people consider Miley Cyrus' behavior to be "perfectly all right"? Seems like the overwhelming reaction to her performance was one of disgust.
Re:Should have done it on MTV by QilessQi · 2013-09-09 02:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

Me. And a number of my married male friends.
Supporting feminism has nothing to do with your gender or sexual preference. It's about recognizing that women are still not treated with equal regard and respect in certain spheres -- the tech sphere being one of them.
If you support the rights and reproductive freedoms of your sisters, daughters, female friends, girlfriends, wife, and mother, then you might find interesting news and political writing on feminist blogs. If you're unconcerned about these issues but are curious about why so many women are angry at the treatment they get in society, you might want to read a few of those blogs to get an idea.

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Re:Should have done it on MTV by hedwards · 2013-09-09 02:34 · Score: 2

But no one actually cares about feminist blogs.
FTFY
Re:Should have done it on MTV by QilessQi · 2013-09-09 03:06 · Score: 2

As for those blogs, I won't go there any more because it's mostly man bashing and tripe about how women deserve things that they haven't earned.
So we've established that you don't know what you're talking about, since you criticize blogs you don't read. Excellent. Do continue.

Any man that's a feminist is a turn coat that should be avoided. Sort of like those self hating Jews. Never trust anybody that's learned to hate their own kind.
(Claps.) Outstanding! Since you obviously hate men who believe in equal rights for women, you're a turncoat by your own twisted logic. Arguing with you must be like facing an enemy on the battlefield who immediately points his gun backwards and shoots himself in the face. Thanks for the laughs!

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Re:Should have done it on MTV by dr_dank · 2013-09-09 03:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Mod this up for the worlds first twerking strawman!

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Re:Should have done it on MTV by stdarg · 2013-09-09 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your loss, my friend. Feminists are just people who believe that women should receive equal pay for equal work, should have the right to control their own bodies, and should have the right to be treated with respect regardless of what they're wearing.
You're so naive! If that's all feminists want, they should unify around that message instead of all the garbage about the patriarchy. I mean really, what does the crusade against the word "women" (womyn!!!) have to do with what you said? Don't pretend that type of feminism doesn't also exist.
Also I disagree with the right to be treated with respect regardless of what you wear. That does not exist for either sex.
Re:Should have done it on MTV by MightyMartian · 2013-09-09 04:28 · Score: 2

From the reaction shots in the audience, particularly that of Will Smith and his family, I did not get the impression that the majority were in the "You go girl!" camp. Most seemed shocked, a few started to fully comprehend what they were seeing and they were not pleased. Cyrus may have gained some "cred" with her intended audience, but somehow I think there are a few Hollywood parties that she won't be invited to.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Should have done it on MTV by QilessQi · 2013-09-09 05:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're so naive! If that's all feminists want, they should unify around that message instead of all the garbage about the patriarchy. I mean really, what does the crusade against the word "women" (womyn!!!) have to do with what you said? Don't pretend that type of feminism doesn't also exist.
Of course that type of extremist feminism exists. So does the type of Christianity which believes that Jews are servants of Satan. Should we judge all Christians because a small percentage of self-declared Christians are irrational bigots? No. So don't pick the most radical fringe of self-declared feminism and argue that all feminists are like that. Because if you know better, then you're arguing disingenuously; and if you don't know better, then you're the one who's naive.

Also I disagree with the right to be treated with respect regardless of what you wear. That does not exist for either sex.
If it becomes commonplace for a man to be roofied and gang-raped by a bunch of women, and then told by the cops "well, he was asking for it because he was dressed provocatively", then I'll believe that we've achieved parity. But we both know that won't happen.
And if you don't believe in the right of all people to be treated with basic human respect regardless of gender and appearance, then you're on the wrong side of history.

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Re:Should have done it on MTV by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-09 05:14 · Score: 2

I mean really, what does the crusade against the word "women" (womyn!!!) have to do with what you said?
Any group can be dismissed as extremist by simply focusing on the most extreme members. Extreme environmentalists who want to return to an agrarian society, extreme nuclear advocates who want mandatory irradiation of children, extreme animal rights activists, extreme right/left wing political activists, extreme followers of religion etc. They don't represent the majority or the mainstream view, but people love to bring them up in an argument because they are an easy straw man to knock down.

Also I disagree with the right to be treated with respect regardless of what you wear. That does not exist for either sex.
Even this is an example is taken to the extreme just so you can rail against it. What most feminists are actually arguing for is the acknowledgement that dressing a certain way is not an invitation to rape someone. Some people argue that if someone goes out dressed provocatively and gets drunk they are basically offering themselves up to whoever they end up unconscious in bed with, man or woman, gay or straight.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Should have done it on MTV by GuB-42 · 2013-09-09 06:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are plenty of variations of feminism, but the most vocal are the kind that don't just want to be treated as equals, they want to be superior.
Also, none of the smart geek girls I know are feminists, they don't have to.
They usually handle working around men quite well while still being feminine. In fact almost all of them prefer that to all-women workspaces. And if they do a good job (and they do because they are smart ;)), not only they get all due respect but they are also defended by their colleagues in case someone gets the wrong idea.
Re:Should have done it on MTV by Belial6 · 2013-09-09 07:19 · Score: 2

I was going to agree with your point on the difference between Miley Cyrus at an awards show, and a tech conference, but then I started typing "Awards Show" and realized that the titstare app at a tech conference is far more relevant than Miley Cyrus gyrating half naked with furries at an awards show.

You also have the nice piece of logic "well someone else did something bad so this bad thing is ok too".
I'm not going to side with the parent poster, but the logic he is trying to employ is the same logic that gets used to show discrimination when it isn't white men. If drivers who are black and speeding get ticketed and drivers who are white get pulled over and given a warning, we would all agree that it was racial discrimination. The fact that white people were speeding does not make it OK for black people to speed, but it would show that white people and black people are being held to different standards, and one has the advantage. As a society we consider that very very bad. By the same token, if men are being lambasted and 'slut shamed' for relatively benign sexual expression, while women can do simulated sex on stage in far more public venues, then there shows the same kind of discrimination.

Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 01:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm offended by your post. You should be forced to apologize.

It's not about the 9-year-old girl by catfood · 2013-09-09 01:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

It would have been just as sexist without her there.

Re:It's not about the 9-year-old girl by Eunuchswear · 2013-09-09 02:52 · Score: 2

It's sexist because it reduces the chances of any woman being there in future, 9 years old or not.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Sexist, or just stupid? by guytoronto · 2013-09-09 01:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not sure this is sexist. I see it as just plain stupid to present something like this to a conference. It's two young programmers who didn't really think things through.

Re:Sexist, or just stupid? by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-09 04:18 · Score: 2

I'm not sure this is sexist.
That's indicative of the whole problem here. Yes, this is exactly what sexism is: "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" (from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism)
Uh, you do know that chicks stare at tits, too, right?

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 01:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nonsense. This is an isolated incident. The people putting women off technology are those going around claiming that all men are like this, and that it's a widespread problem.

Silicon Valley Culture by EMG+at+MU · 2013-09-09 01:52 · Score: 2

About two weeks ago we had this story Silicon Valleys Loony Cheerleading Culture is Out Of Control.

Titstare just seems like a satire on the completely pointless app genre that seems to be the new popular thing to do if you are a young hip coder looking to score big in the new social/app bubble we are in.

Didn't Facebook start as a way to rank girl's appearance at Harvard? Who's to fault these guys, they could be the next Zuckerberg. Titstare is (however tongue-in-cheek) indicative of the trend of creating valueless apps and hyping them up to billion dollar status and then selling to the highest bidder trying to reinvigorate their failing business. (example: AOL/MySpace/HuffPost).

Re:Immaturity, not necessarily sexism. by catfood · 2013-09-09 01:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Giving a 24-year-old man and a 28-year-old man free passes on creepy behavior you might gently correct in a 10-year-old boy? Yeah, that's pretty sexist.

If you're going to give a presentation at a tech conference, yes, a certain level of maturity is required. Letting that go because "boys will be boys" is privileged bullshit.

Re: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 01:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, women need a dickstare app for balance.

Irony? by wbr1 · 2013-09-09 01:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Submitted by beaverdownunder Perhaps!

--
Silence is a state of mime.

Re:Congratulations by i+kan+reed · 2013-09-09 01:57 · Score: 2, Funny

"You treat women like human beings, you must be a particularly physically weak male. Cower before my obviously flawed logic, and limited mental capacity"

Please just get over it! by Pikoro · 2013-09-09 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Women have boobs. People jerk off. Stop trying to hide obvious human sexuality issues from everyone. EVERYONE does this stuff. Why hide it? This puritan crap needs to go away.

--
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"

Stupidity != sexism by hsmith · 2013-09-09 02:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Breaking news: men are fascinated with breasts. It is pretty much universal and isn't sexist.

Obviosuly their display in front of children was uncalled for.

But something to do with gender doesn't mean it is sexist. It is killing what true sexism is, real discrimination.

Re:Stupidity != sexism by SirGarlon · 2013-09-09 03:19 · Score: 2

I submit that a nude statue of a woman is not sexist, but a wet T-shirt contest is. They both involve boobs, but the context matters.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:Stupidity != sexism by stdarg · 2013-09-09 03:48 · Score: 2

Why is a wet T-shirt contest sexist? I mean, perhaps since (generally) only women are allowed to enter it's sexist against men, but I doubt that's what you meant.
Are phenomena like boy-bands sexist against men? It's awfully degrading to men that millions of women are ogling and rubbing themselves off thinking of One Direction or New Kids on the Block right?
Re:Stupidity != sexism by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-09 05:32 · Score: 2

Why is a wet T-shirt contest sexist?
It's not sexist per-se, it's just degrading to women. Let's stop arguing about semantics and get back to the issue.

Are phenomena like boy-bands sexist against men?
They are certainly degrading to some extent. Most men can never look like those made-up and airbrushed guys, selected purely based on looks. Since many of them can't even sing or write songs they are purely there for the way they look it definitely is objectification of men based on an unrealistic and unobtainable fantasy image of the male body.
That's the mainstream feminist view, BTW.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

About the 9 year old girl by schneidafunk · 2013-09-09 02:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Here is her story and app.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin

All about context by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 02:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

While I don't approve of either act, there's a difference for what an entertainer does onstage and what happens in a supposedly "professional" environment.

Entertainers do crazy stuff onstage for attention all the time. This is the industry that gave us Lady Gaga and Kylie Minogue, and introduced the term "wardrobe malfunction." It's a show. It's designed to provoke, and entertain. If you're not into it, don't watch MTV (I don't understand why anyone would have in the last 10 years, but there I go being old again).

A professional technology conference is not an entertainment venue. It's for serious business. Sure, you can inject humor into a presentation or two to make people smile and keep it light. But it's not a venue for shock or "look at me!" attention grabbing. It's where we as an industry come together to share our knowledge with each other. It's where we showcase the best of what being in technology is.

So to inject something fairly deliberately offensive into that environment reflects on the industry. And not just the presenters. It's everyone who didn't walk out. Who laughed. Who applauded at the end. They, more than the presenters, are the problem.

If you're in the industry, you can't "opt out" of going to events like this without hurting yourself professionally. Unlike pure entertainment, it shouldn't be incumbent on the audience to "just don't come if you're offended" in CASE something like this is presented. Either this is who we are as a technology industry, or it's not.

Re:Congratulations by i+kan+reed · 2013-09-09 02:06 · Score: 4, Funny

I've never been quite so insulted in a manner that made quite so little sense in my life.

Re:Congratulations by Myu · 2013-09-09 02:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oh, ffs, the reason you don't make category-targetted jokes like this isn't because it causes offense (it does, and people are entitled to be offended, but that's neither here nor there), but because it's a pointed act of exclusion. Some people are offended by my use of the term "ffs", and that's fine, they are right to be offended, and I'm being offensive here for a reason. But I'm not in the process of making this point telling those same people that they're not welcome in this discussion. Approvingly presenting a product about staring at women's chests in a technology conference very much is.

--
Myu: ... The map's upside down...

Re:I was wondering what that galloping sound was by i+kan+reed · 2013-09-09 02:13 · Score: 2

Oh how scathing, being accused of coming to rescue of [ERROR MISSING FEMALE IN CONVERSATION] for the hope of sex with them. There is absolutely no reason to defend the notion that all people are created equal beyond combination pity-thanks sex.

Re: by clickety6 · 2013-09-09 02:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes, women need a dickstare app for balance.
By all accounts, the whole audience was staring at two of them...

--
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------

Re:Congratulations by LordLimecat · 2013-09-09 02:18 · Score: 3, Informative

How do we stop racism? Stop talking about it.
--Morgan freeman

Same for sexism. Stop getting outraged and making a huge fuss over it, and get over it. People say things that are offensive around me all the time, but my getting outraged wouldnt really change much.

Sadly, they're looking at symptoms. by intermodal · 2013-09-09 02:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

The real problem is that we have reached the point where the puritanical values have caused men's reactions to breasts to become national news, and to where breastfeeding mothers are made to feel they are doing something shameful.

Stupid, stupid Americans. I doubt the Aussies even considered America's hypersensitivity in the process.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Re:Congratulations by serviscope_minor · 2013-09-09 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

How do we stop racism? Stop talking about it.

Yeah, Martin Luther King Jr should have just STFU about his dreams.

IOW sometimes shutting up is not the right choice.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Re:Congratulations by hedwards · 2013-09-09 02:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Umm, I don't know about you, but when I stare at tits, I prefer them to be female tits. Moobs are just nasty.

Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 02:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, Martin Luther King Jr should have just STFU about his dreams.

IOW sometimes shutting up is not the right choice.

Martin Luther King Jr. lived in a vastly different time.

It's 2013 and a black guy's President. Not that black people - or rather, people in general - should not be on guard for it... But the current media frenzy over making every single goddamned thing that happens a racial issue? Time to put Sharpton and Friends into the closet. Keep picking at a wound and it won't heal. Keep pretending we're still in the 60s and we'll never leave them.

Re:Really? by orthancstone · 2013-09-09 02:38 · Score: 5, Funny

They are probably the future creators of, "Ow, my balls!"

Typical hypocrisy of the politically correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 02:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Political correctness is inextricably linked with hypocrisy. It is impossible to be politically correct without becoming a hypocrite.

One cannot take a stand against "exclusion" or "intolerance" without becoming exactly that which they stand against. Not tolerating those who are intolerant is in itself a form of intolerance. Excluding those who wish to engage in exclusionary behavior is in itself a form of exclusion.

The inherently hypocritical and contradictory nature of political correctness means that it is an intellectually invalid position to take. Anyone who professes to embrace political correctness cannot be taken seriously.

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by MightyMartian · 2013-09-09 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Part of being a functional adult is being able to navigate the society you live in. Telling tit jokes to a mixed audience is not adult behavior.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Congratulations by Dexter+Herbivore · 2013-09-09 02:49 · Score: 2

Everyone seems to be focussing on "Titstare" which was admittedly juvenile, sexist and potentially offensive. It may just be me, but what's the problem with "Circle Shake". It was juvenile and potentially offensive, but was it sexist? It keeps getting mentioned in the same breath but I just don't see the comparison. One was objectifying women, the other was a joke about masturbation.

Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-09 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

In what way is staring/commenting on a womans tits "not treating them like a human being"? Its very easy to know that women are humans and still admire a nice set of tits. Just like a woman can know a man is a human and still admire his pecs or his dick or whatever. Youre an idiot.

Re:Congratulations by ImdatS · 2013-09-09 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Feminism, Sexism, Machoism, ...ism, ...ism, ...ism...

I'm still searching for Humanism, believing that that would be the solution. But, alas, it seems I'm always searching in all the wrong places...

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by ranton · 2013-09-09 03:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

No True Adult would tell tit jokes to a mixed audience. They must not be... True Adults!

Now, that's just vague. Who are you to decide that people who tell certain types of jokes don't act like adults (Whatever that means; it's subjective nonsense as far as I'm concerned.)?

I agree it is hard to set unambiguous rules on what it takes to be a respectable adult. The complex nature of social human interaction is one reason why creating human-like AI is so hard.

But luckily humans are not restricted to robot-like rule sets when determining appropriate behavior. Anyone who has trouble understanding why tit jokes in a professional mixed audience are a bad idea has some serious developmental issues. Either that or they are just an argumentative ass.

Just because something is subjective (like respectable behavior) does not mean people should disregard that it exists.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke

Re:Congratulations by Joce640k · 2013-09-09 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Congratulations Jethro Batts, 28, and David Boulton, 24 for showing young women interested in technology exactly what assholes they have to look forward to growing up.

You mean it's only 'technology' people who do/say things like this...? Thanks for the warning.

--
No sig today...

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-09 03:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

But luckily humans are not restricted to robot-like rule sets when determining appropriate behavior. Anyone who has trouble understanding why tit jokes in a professional mixed audience are a bad idea has some serious developmental issues.

Wait, but you just said...

So.. humans aren't restricted to robot-like rules, but any person who doesn't understand why they should have to adhere to an arbitrary set of robot-like rules "has some serious developmental issues?"

Second thought - if this is a "professional mixed audience," why the fuck was a 9-year-old in attendance? Are child labor laws a bit more lax down under, or am I missing something here?

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by LateArthurDent · 2013-09-09 03:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Part of being a functional adult is being able to navigate the society you live in. Telling tit jokes to a mixed audience is not adult behavior.

Mixed audience? What is this, the 1950's?

Part of the whole thing about treating women equally is giving up on the ridiculous concept that women aren't interested in sex and that, as a result, sex jokes are only appropriate around males. Women have tits, men sometimes stare at them, pictures that catch them in the act is funny. There's no reason women shouldn't hear this joke, or feel threatened by it.

The problem isn't that these people weren't "acting as adults." The problem is that a society that freaks out when a boob is shown for half a second in the middle of the superbowl aren't acting like adults. It's a fucking body part. It's not going to scar children for life. They've all seen it before and sucked upon it.

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by NatasRevol · 2013-09-09 04:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

The 9 yr old had a better app & presentation than the 20 something immature idiots did.

She was more professional than they were.

So why shouldn't she be there?

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by Belial6 · 2013-09-09 04:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

why the fuck was a 9-year-old in attendance? Are child labor laws a bit more lax down under, or am I missing something here?

This struck me immediately. This was clearly an adult event. I have no problem with parents deciding that their child is mature enough to handle going to an adult event, but it is ridiculous to get upset that someone at the adult event presented material that was offensive because your child was too young to see it.

Of course, I highly question whether Titstare is anything more offensive than this nine year old girl sees on a regular basis. It certainly isn't any more sexualized than the rack of women's magazines that she would be seeing while standing in line at the grocery store with her parents. It certainly isn't any more sexualized than the 8 foot posters in the windows of Victoria Secrets at the mall. And it certainly isn't any more sexualized than the commercials that play on TV either in her own home, or in the many places outside her home that have TVs playing.

This isn't about offensive material being presented to a child. This reeks of the same kind of misandrist behavior that we saw with the Adria Richards situation. A situation where 'sexual jokes are fine if your a woman, but if you have a penis, sexual jokes make you evil'.

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-09 04:46 · Score: 2

The worst part, to me, is that the 9-year-old herself probably wasn't offended in the least, but nobody thought to ask her opinion - they were too busy being offended on her behalf.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Congratulations by guises · 2013-09-09 05:18 · Score: 2

Martin Luther King Jr. lived in a vastly different time.

Maybe if you live up north, but down here the differences are a lot less dramatic. "Stop talking about racism" will be a good idea eventually, but we're not to the point yet where we can just let it drop.

Re:Congratulations by ohnocitizen · 2013-09-09 05:20 · Score: 2

No one is claiming *all* men are like this, but some are - and it is a problem. Victim blaming and closing your eyes won't help solve a very real problem (http://www.marieclaire.com/career-money/jobs/geeks-attack). This is not an isolated problem - its an indicative incident and a teaching moment. Let's not waste it by jamming our fingers in our ears and humming angrily. Let's listen.

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by SecurityGuy · 2013-09-09 05:22 · Score: 2

Wait, we're supposed to ask 9-year-olds what's appropriate for them rather than make decisions based on our own decades of experience, which, for the record, includes having been a 9-year-old once?

I've been doing this whole parenting thing all wrong!

Re:"forced to apologize" by seebs · 2013-09-09 05:25 · Score: 2

They're useful, though, because the way people retcon their own beliefs from their behaviors (yes, really) means that people "forced" to apologize are noticably more likely than others to avoid those behaviors in the future, and change their perception of the things at issue.

--
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-09-09 05:46 · Score: 2

They've all seen it before and sucked upon it.

Some of us were bottle fed, you insensitive clod.

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by geekoid · 2013-09-09 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, it was clearly a professional event. Learn the difference between age and professionalism.

I would have been offended by the lack or professionalism they had. As someone who has been in the industry for over a quarter a century, this shit needs to stop. It's hurting the industry.

"This isn't about offensive material being presented to a child"
Correct, its about the completely lack of professionalism, and offending half the population. It's about idiots like these making women uncomfortable, and it's about ending the boys room attitude rampant in the industry.

'sexual jokes are fine if your a woman, but if you have a penis, sexual jokes make you evil'

did the girl tell a sexist joke? no? then it's not the same fucking thing, is it?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Congratulations by glavenoid · 2013-09-09 07:24 · Score: 2

Not only my comment, but the overall tone of this entire thread. The hostility and contempt shown for people, not only women but all people, is pretty sobering. And the fact that these slashdotters lack the insight and self-awareness to recognize that *they* are absolutely and undeniably the reason that many women feel unwelcome in the tech-sector is depressing.

--
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable /. beta rollout fallout.

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by infinite.intimation · 2013-09-09 08:32 · Score: 2

You miss the point, demonstrated by your reliance on attacking "puritanical" things ie. 'superbowl breast incident'. Irrelevant red herring. It isn't "seeing a breast" that bothers people here... it is treating women as objects to stare at, and not respect. Or rather, continuing, like is so absurdly common in the 'tech' industry, to do so. It has implications, because when an atmosphere of "heh, heh, boobs, to stare at, which is what they are for- lawl" is created and fostered (as was DEFINITELY being done, once again), it impoverishes us all, by driving women, and also men who hate that sort of objectification and diminishing of women, their minds, and sum of all abilities, rather than "things to look at", it shuts out, minimizes, and silences women (and men who don't cry out for "biological" [read sad and demeaning] excuses). People are not all fools, and many, by allowing this sort of stuff to be so pervasive as to be cliche, will come to realize that their input is not valued by many, and that they could only "appeal" to "men" by their bodies, rather than to be able to receive respect and dignity through their minds, actions and deeds (like any man would desire [but because of history, seems to get by default, without having to "earn and prove it" as women experience), in particular, here and elsewhere, the young women who might want to one day participate in that 'tech' industries.
humor is often used to "break societal expectations", to "shock"... this is not shocking and not breaking any expectations; this is one more example among millions, of men waddling along oblivious to their privilege, one more among millions of examples of having the "punchline" be one which settles on those already marginalized in an industry which pervasively has a problem with marginalizing and driving out women, and people from other minority groups.

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by Darinbob · 2013-09-09 10:01 · Score: 2

I have never seen a professional conference before the last decade that would have presented anything a 9 year old would have been offended or shocked by. It's only recently that this juvenile male behavior has started coming out in force, and even then only in a programming conferences for apps or interpreted languages.

And yes, a simulated masturbation app is more crude and sexualized than you will see in a store checkout line.

But who cares if the 9 year old sees this stuff in public? Can't a conference rise to a higher level than that?

Sexual jokes at a professional conference are bad if you are male or female, this should have the same standard you have at any reputable corporation. If you tell a bunch of rude jokes at work where everyone in the aisle is a guy and then shut up as soon as the female HR rep walks by, then you're in a group that needs a lot of help. This is boorish behavior, plain and simple and I am utterly baffled why so many of these boys can't understand that.

This was different than Adria's case by Dr.+Evil · 2013-09-09 10:12 · Score: 2

This reeks of the same kind of misandrist behavior that we saw with the Adria Richards situation. A situation where 'sexual jokes are fine if your a woman, but if you have a penis, sexual jokes make you evil'.

I agree with your position about Adria Richards, but in her case, the jokes weren't about women, they were about penises and sex. She just assumed they were about women, and for whatever reason, asserted that they were degrading to women.

In this case, the jokes *were* about women, and they weren't some guys in the back of the room talking to eachother, they were two guys on the stage. They were selling an app which encourages voyeurism and harassment. It should have been weeded out by the conference before it reached the stage.

I'm not sure this would even be okay for a porn conference... the voyeur and harassment aspects are... really bad.

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-09 10:29 · Score: 2

We're offended by the shoddy unprofessionalism at the conferences, and at the ongoing decline of the computing industry.

Got a mouse in your pocket or something? Or are you claiming to be the voice of the entire industry?

We had many more females in programming in the early 80s than we do now, and part of this may be due to the rabid sexism that is not only tolerated but applauded.

At least 2 citations needed: one for "more lady programmers 30 yrs ago than today," and another for "rabid sexism that is... applauded."

No, we absolutely do NOT need an adults-only part of a programming or computing conference.

I didn't say you and Mighty Mouse did; read what I wrote. Specifically, the bit at the end where I point out that doing so wouldn't fix anything.

If you've got a porn app, then present it at a porn conference.

Why not at an app conference? Porn stars aren't really the target audience for a porn app, you know - pitching it to them would be an utter waste of time.

Besides, it doesn't have to be a porn app, it could be something completely benign yet offensive to someone... like maybe some sort of "avoid fat people" app or something... you get my point.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by Darinbob · 2013-09-09 10:42 · Score: 2

So you think equality means that you can tell sexist jokes freely in any context? Yes women like sex but that does not mean that apps that simulate masturbation aren't offensive.

One part of sexual equality that women want is to stop being objectified. And these apps just continue that. Granted this is not really a technical conference (it's just a "show us your apps" get together), but can you imagine this behavior elsewhere? Do accountants at a conference see presentations entitled "Comply With Sorbanes-Oxley Like a Porn Star"? That would be idiotic, and yet someone does that at a programming conference and they're defended for it and people who said it was in bad taste are spammed with hate messages.

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by Darinbob · 2013-09-09 12:09 · Score: 2

I don't have citation for more ratio of female computer professionals than 30 years ago, it was mentioned on the radio this morning. But I'll Google that for you, and select the top hit:

http://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/BytheNumbers09.pdf

Heard it wrong. The percentages are what I remember but it was for computer science degree graduates for women; 37% in 1985, 18% in 2010. I was a university senior in 1985 and we were talking about the problem of there not being so many women in computing back then, so imagine how much worse it is now.

Re:Power trip and nothing more. by quantaman · 2013-09-09 14:42 · Score: 2

Mixed audience? What is this, the 1950's?

Part of the whole thing about treating women equally is giving up on the ridiculous concept that women aren't interested in sex and that, as a result, sex jokes are only appropriate around males. Women have tits, men sometimes stare at them, pictures that catch them in the act is funny. There's no reason women shouldn't hear this joke, or feel threatened by it.

The problem isn't that these people weren't "acting as adults." The problem is that a society that freaks out when a boob is shown for half a second in the middle of the superbowl aren't acting like adults. It's a fucking body part. It's not going to scar children for life. They've all seen it before and sucked upon it.

It's about context. Telling sexual jokes in a comedy club when they're expecting and receptive to it is fine. Telling sexual jokes in a tech conference where women are already an objectified minority who are dealing with a lot of unwanted sexual attention is not.

--
I stole this Sig

Slashdot Mirror

Sexist Presentations At Startup Competition Prompt TechCrunch Apology

89 of 762 comments (clear)