Sexism Is Still a Thing At Microsoft's GDC Party (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader writes from an article on TechCrunch: Microsoft hired a bunch of women wearing very little clothing to dance and socialize with people at the company's official Game Developers Conference after-party last night in San Francisco, Business Insider reports. Phil Spencer, head of Xbox, said in a statement to TechCrunch. "At Xbox-hosted events at GDC this past week, we represented Xbox and Microsoft in a way that was not consistent or aligned to our values. It was unequivocally wrong and will not be tolerated. I know we disappointed many people and I'm personally committed to holding ourselves to higher standards. We must ensure that diversity and inclusion are central to our everyday business and core values. We will do better in the future." What's problematic is that Microsoft chose to throw a party that clearly caters to heterosexual men by hiring women as objects of sex.

Comments

And women.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's problematic is that Microsoft chose to throw a party that clearly caters to heterosexual men by hiring women as objects of sex.

And what about the lesbian women?

That's a twofer right there.

What's the problem?

[ZankerH]

I see nothing whatsoever wrong about this arrangement.

Re:What's the problem?

[Ksevio]

That's probably because you are a heterosexual man.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a cute woman getting paid to be pretty.

Re:What's the problem?

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

The only problem I see is lack of professionalism. Having dancers, be it male or female, at a professional event like this underestimates the intelligence of its attendees.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was an eff'in party. What happened to people just cutting loose and having fun every once in a while?

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't events be inclusive of heterosexual men? If their target demographic is 90% heterosexual men, should they not market to them?

Lately, "inclusive" seems to mean cater to everyone but a certain group. In being PC, you're ultimately slighting one group in order to not offend another. That group you're catering to is actually being intolerant of the first group that has to change how they behave to not offend the other. Yet that first group is now potentially offended. People just need to grow up and realize everyone is different and not go forcing their ideals on others.

Re:What's the problem?

[pla]

That's probably because you are a heterosexual man.

...Much like the vast majority of both the devs and the gamers Microsoft hopes to attract at events like this?

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

And a good chunk of the outrage you hear to events like this is less genuine and more virtue signaling.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that women hate each other. They do not stand watching other womens working with little cloths. If those were fat woman dacing they would give a prize to Microsoft or complain that they are making a joke out of them... so it is a no-win situation.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, see, that's the thing. Microsoft, and a lot of the rest of the game industry, *is* actually trying to attract a broader audience these days. The rest of the conference has shown much broader appeal, and more diverse attendance, than ever before -- and that includes what looks like its biggest attendance ever.

That's not who they're trying to attract at events like this, not any more.

Re:What's the problem?

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft is hoping to attract more people in general. The fact that the present audience is so predominantly male is part of the problem that they're trying to solve.

Let me try to make an analogy here.

Suppose you're an owner of a pub somewhere in Mississippi in 1950s. And every day, your pub runs a blackface show. Your patrons - who are all white - love it.

Now someone comes and tells you that this show is offensive to blacks.

What you're saying here is basically equivalent to the owner of said pub saying, "whatever, blacks don't like beer anyway - I'm catering to my customers, and they're all white, see?". Which is flawed for many obvious reasons.

The logical thing to do is to look at the potential customer base, and realize that those 40% of black residents who "don't drink beer" would actually drink it if you ditched the show, or replaced it with something acceptable to both audiences. And then you would attract them all as your customers.

If, furthermore, you care not only about your bottom line, but also about abstract things such as fairness and equality, then you might say, "okay, if I drop this, I might lose some white customers who really just want to be racist, but I'm okay with that".

In fact, you might do that even because you really only care about the bottom line, because having a public image of being non-racist will produce more customers long-term, even if it might drive some existing customers away.

Re:What's the problem?

[Opportunist]

A good chunk? So far I still haven't seen anything that would qualify as genuine.

Re:What's the problem?

[0100010001010011]

And after you stop running the blackface show and start pandering to the blacks. But no matter what you say or do they'll find something else to whine about. Say you put a bunch of them in a new movie, they'll complain that it's somehow sexist. No matter what you do to appease this crowd they just constantly whine. And the new crowd, when they come in, tells you they don't even drink beer. They aren't really drinkers. But they sit and whine about how other people drink beer constantly.

Not only that your old customers have moved on to a new bar. Your new patreons don't actually bring more money in to the bar (since they don't seem to have actual jobs). They don't attract any new customers like them anyway since they don't seem to ever be content with what you do to pander to them, they just like complaining for the sake of complaining.

Re:What's the problem?

[drinkypoo]

In either case, the phrase "check your privilege" is appropriate.

And with that, we have finally decoded your stance. You want everyone brought down to the same level, and anything that emphasizes our differences must be destroyed because you want everyone to be the same.

We aren't, and no amount of wishing will make it so. Only turning humans into identical copies of one another can do that, and I sure don't want to live in that world.

You're pushing a lack of acceptance and calling it being considerate. I call bullshit.

Re:What's the problem?

[Opportunist]

I've read it and my reaction was "meh, someone needed something to complain about it seems".

And I doubt I was the only one.

Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[Chas]

Okay, I get it. It's a good idea to cater to as many possible audiences as possible.

This isn't always possible. Especially with the combative nature of several audiences nowadays.

But why is it okay to clearly cater to heterosexual females, or homosexual men, or homosexual females? But, cater to heterosexual men nowadays and YOU ARE WRONG AND BAD!

I'm sorry but fuck that noise. Every product and every promotion isn't going to appeal to every demographic. DEAL WITH IT!

Seriously, it's gotten to such an idiotic point that it's okay to be anything BUT a heterosexual male nowadays.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[mark-t]

Or... here's a thought.... don't cater to sexuality at all. If people want entertainment that caters to their sexual preference they should be seeking such entertainment on their own time, and not on time that is being paid for by the company dollar.

There's a little something called professionalism, and at a corporate event, this kind of thing is starkly lacking in it.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[MightyMartian]

So any gay men in the room, or any heterosexual women, or hell any fucking married men or religious men can just go get fucked, is that about the size of it?

Nothing confirms that adolescent mindset more at /. than people like you.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[mark-t]

My point is that there shouldn't be eye fodder for ANYBODY at a corporate event because it is tantamount to sexual harassment. The fact that it's people that are being paid to present themselves as sexual entertainment is entirely irrelevant... the sexual aspect is still being foisted upon each of those who were present, whether it was invited by them or not.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[mark-t]

Please... if you are going to throw around ad-hominems, try and be more creative. I'm neither gay nor a prude. I have no problem whatsoever with sex, or even people who would present themselves sexually. Heck, I think even prostitution should be legal. I do, however, have a problem with a deliberately sexually charged atmosphere at a corporate event when the corporation's line of business is entirely independent of it. (At some types of companies, this sort of event could be entirely acceptable and professional).

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go-Go dancers aren't prostitutes. They are professional entertainers that deserve respect as human beings you twat.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[turbidostato]

"My point is that there shouldn't be eye fodder for ANYBODY at a corporate event because it is tantamount to sexual harassment."

Uhhh... no, it isn't.

That you feel harassed by the very natural human nudity (and there was no human nudity at all) is your damn problem, not anyone harassing you.

Get with it.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[Chas]

No. Merely that they recognize when the marketing isn't aimed at them.

Do you get pissed off because Summer's Eve doesn't happen to cater to you?

Should I be OUTRAGED when gay-themed films don't cater to me? Should I demand equal hetero time?

Should I go out and start a war over lesbian-themed advertising?

No.

If the product itself appeals to you, ignore the flashy advertising if it doesn't suit you.

This over-sensitive bullshit is part of what's wrong with people today.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[KGIII]

They don't have to go get fucked but I'm not sure why they'd feel obligated to not let other people enjoy themselves. I understand that it's sad when someone else is enjoying themselves and you're not but everything in life isn't able to please everything else. I'm not sure why people are so hell bent on preventing other people from enjoying themselves. I'm sure there were plenty of other things to do than look at the ladies. It's not like it was just pretty ladies to the exclusion of all else.

If you don't like it, don't pay attention to it and do something else. But, for fuck's sake, stop trying to stop other people from enjoying themselves. It's literally not hurting anyone. It's okay if someone else is enjoying themselves more than you are. That doesn't need to diminish your enjoyment at all. You don't have to be angry that someone else is having fun. Do you get angry when you're too big to ride on the children's rides at the fair? Do you try to kick the kids off because it's not inclusive enough and you can't enjoy it? 'Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

It's yet another case of manufactured outrage. You don't even have a good reason to be outraged except that other people were enjoying themselves and, instead of paying attention to the things they might have enjoyed instead, they paid attention to the fact that others were enjoying themselves more than they were. It's sad, it really is. People have varied interests, let them enjoy them so long as they're not harming anyone. Nobody, nobody at all, was harmed in this event.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[Rockoon]

or any heterosexual women

Heterosexual women like looking at sexualized women or else the fashion industry, which markets to women because they spend a lot more than men on fashion, wouldnt use so many sexualized women.

These social justice warriors like to try to turn this fashion fact into another attack on men, by saying that this "unrealistic" portrayal of women is the fault of the patriarchy. Its not possible that marketing is actually simple, that the marketers are targeting the demographic that they say they are targeting, using the imagery most effective for that demographic, and the demographic in question is where most of the money is.

These sjw's are in femininity denial. The true sexists.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[Chas]

I'm sorry, but defining anything that offends you on a personal level as "sexual harassment" is bullshit.

If it's not your cup of tea, fine. But stop trying to impose your social, sexual, moral and other life choices on everybody else.

You're not a special fucking snowflake. If you don't want to give such a company money, vote with your wallet and shut your fucking mouth.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[Daemonik]

Should I be OUTRAGED when gay-themed films don't cater to me? Should I demand equal hetero time?

If you go to a party and half the attendees are the American Family Council, and the party has gay dancers, would you be surprised that they would be offended? Because reasonable adults who have half a brain pick entertainment that balances with all their guests.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[mark-t]

By that reasoning, it should be illegal to fire an employee for sexual harassment because the employer would be discriminating against their so-called right to be a sexually active person.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so we're clear: Prostitutes are human beings too, and you could call their line of work professional entertainment as well. It's just not the same kind of entertainment. If you want to start an orgy, maybe they can help. If you want people to dance, go with the go-gos.

Re:Because catering to heterosexual men = EVIL!

[MightyMartian]

I have a feeling a good many posters here largely feel this way. Every time some story about sexual escapades comes up, you get the Neanderthals declaring it's their God given right to slap peoples' faces with their dicks, and insisting that if anyone tells them to stop that, they've somehow been harmed because dick-slapping is totally natural and those evil SJW types want to stop them from their rightful dick slapping activities.

Re:Give an inch and they take a foot

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans are sexy, and there's a time and place for sexy. But unless you're arguing that their only fault was not appealing to all sexual orientations, and that scantily clad men or t-girls should also have been included, then maybe we can save the strippers for events where the main topic actually is people's genitals.

whipslash, if you are around

[vivaoporto]

Dear whiplash

With all the improvements that are being made to this wonderful site one of the biggest flaws brought in big part by the previous owners (DICE) was the overly politicised topics that not even tangentially touches the historical major focus of this site: technology and its applications.

It is my belief that, for the original audience of this site, some here since before the 9/11, some even from when http colon slash slash was actually pronounced when reading URLs out loud, the main drive to come and read the front page is to catch up with the latest of the technology and its applications.

This kind of politicised subject (the same going for the U.S. elections, ISIS, the refugee crisis and general gossip) already abounds in the mainstream media and for more than a decade this used to be the place to run away from all that, to read about the subjects that are our jobs and our passions and to welcome our robotic overlords.

Unicode, https, burying videos, all that would be secondary if this kind of article continues to be propped up in here.

It is time for some transparency here: did this article even passed through the firehose? People actually voted for it? Maybe times changed and people here are voting for this kind of article to the front page but, otherwise, it would be a great update, maybe the greatest, to go back to the roots of "News for Nerds, stuff that matter".

Either that or at least inform the audience that Slashdot is OK with this kind of articles, that the desired audience is a new audience with a different profile and give us the alternative to go look for an alternative.

Re: whipslash, if you are around

[godrik]

Dear whiplash,

With all the improvements that are being made to this wonderful site one of the biggest flaws remains. Can we add a feature to slashdot that can help filter out political and social issues?

That way those that don't want to read political/social articles will stop commenting on every single one of them that it is not news for nerds.

In the meantime, this nerd will keep on enjoying your articles without the distraction of useless comments.

Thanks!

Re: whipslash, if you are around

[westlake]

It is my belief that, for the original audience of this site, some here since before the 9/11, some even from when http colon slash slash was actually pronounced when reading URLs out loud, the main drive to come and read the front page is to catch up with the latest of the technology and its applications.

Proof once again of the old adage that some people grow up while others merely grow older.

The evolution of technology is defined by those are affected by it and by those who govern its use. Gender issues in tech are not out of bounds for discussion here, Perpetuating the geek stereotypes of the nineties does not insure the future of Slashdot.

Re: Give an inch and they take a foot

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I would not.

Re:Give an inch and they take a foot

[Anonymous Coward]

Heterosexual male here. No, of course not. How immature and insecure do you have to be to somehow feel offended by the mere sight of something that doesn't interest you? How about you just pay attention to something else, instead of trying to ram your offence down everybody else's throat?

I do think the event should have had male dancers for the ladies and gay males, if they were going to go down this road. Go down it all the way, or not at all - those are the best choices. (I HAVE seen such parties with both male and female dancers, btw!)

Re:Give an inch and they take a foot

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

So you wouldn't have a problem with scantily clad men dancing around. After all, it's only sexuality, and the dancers get paid.

I'm straight, but no, I wouldn't care. I don't feel threatened by buff guys dancing or gyrating or whatever.

In fact, I tend to think it's actually discriminatory not to hire male dancers- hasn't the hue and cry for the last decade been all about "equality" and "equal opportunity"? Why should only women get a chance to make money by being employed as eye-candy at the trade show booths?

Re:Give an inch and they take a foot

[TWX]

Where does one draw the line?

Cisco's recent Cisco Live! event had a stadium full of attendees watch Aerosmith for two hours. Aerosmith has nothing to do with Cisco, or networking, or computers, or technology outside of what of it they use when the produce music. Should this thing, irrelevant to any topic of Cisco's, be dropped as part of the festivities?

Large events are part informative, part marketing, part celebration, and part entertainment. Maybe these tech companies need to be more inclusive if they're going to use sex for part celebration and part entertainment, but on the other hand, without knowing the demographics of the even I couldn't tell you if their choices were balanced against the attendees or not.

missing the point - work function

[emorris]

I really think a lot of people are missing the point here. It's not that scantily clad sexy women are sexist per se, it's that this was a party that employees of a company were presumably encouraged to attend as well as an event showcasing the company's public face. In that environment, everyone should feel comfortable. If one wants to go to a strip club or club where there are go-go dancers, etc., that is their business and they can make that choice.

Re:Give an inch and they take a foot

[bfpierce]

I wouldn't be watching it, but I certainly wouldn't be out there making the claim that this party was sexist because it's 'clearly intended for heterosexual females'.

See how stupid that last part sounds? Do you?

Having fun now a crime

[WaffleMonster]

Fuck Microsoft for caving and apologizing. Fuck the media for continuing to amplify the voices of a minority who always take offense to everything in a never ending pursuit of fostering controversy and whoring attention for hits and views.

Just because you object to something doesn't grant you the right to ruin it for others who disagree with you.

Re: They didn't follow the Rust Code of Conduct!

[Kvathe]

"And if someone takes issue with something you said or did, resist the urge to be defensive. Just stop doing what it was they complained about and apologize. Even if you feel you were misinterpreted or unfairly accused, chances are good there was something you could've communicated better â" remember that it's your responsibility to make your fellow Rustaceans comfortable." Using these guidelines, we can safely avoid any kind of worthwhile discussion and ensure that the weight of your opinion is entirely based on how quickly you can victimize yourself!