Startups have a sexism problem(money.cnn.com)
money.cnn.com
Startups have a sexism problem
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/25/technology/innovation/sexism-startup/index.html
11 comments
Sad to see CNN give further validity to this non-story. Especially since it has already been established that there was no actual sexism involved.
It's as if they intentionally tried to write the worst possible article on the issue.
Startups are one of the LEAST discriminatory environments I have ever worked in.
In corporate america, you can usually find some subtle undercurrents of discrimination wherever you work. But in a startup company, everyone has so much vested in the success of the venture. If you can code, or sell clients, or recruit partners effectively, or fill some other critical function, then most entrepreneurs will move heaven and earth to hire you, their teams will welcome you with open arms, and you will be heartily thanked and celebrated when you deliver. When everyone's money and future is on the line the bullshit evaporates pretty quickly, as it should.
In corporate america, you can usually find some subtle undercurrents of discrimination wherever you work. But in a startup company, everyone has so much vested in the success of the venture. If you can code, or sell clients, or recruit partners effectively, or fill some other critical function, then most entrepreneurs will move heaven and earth to hire you, their teams will welcome you with open arms, and you will be heartily thanked and celebrated when you deliver. When everyone's money and future is on the line the bullshit evaporates pretty quickly, as it should.
Why is no one in these stories even questioning the concept of whether any joke about sex or sexual innuendo is inherently sexist?
Whilst not my personal comedic cup of tea, sexual innuendo is just a pun. Puns might be uninspired non-comedy, but a sexual pun is no more inherently sexist than a non-sexual pun.
Is the idea that because it was a woman who felt uncomfortable about a sexual innuendo, it was an inherently sexist act? People feel uncomfortable and offended with jokes all the time, that doesn't define their sexism or lack thereof.
This whole thing smacks of artificial controversy. It's a shame two people had to lose their jobs over what appears to be a total non-issue.
If this is the most blatant example of sexism in the tech industry / "start ups", one might think there are other more important things to focus on and get people fired for.
Whilst not my personal comedic cup of tea, sexual innuendo is just a pun. Puns might be uninspired non-comedy, but a sexual pun is no more inherently sexist than a non-sexual pun.
Is the idea that because it was a woman who felt uncomfortable about a sexual innuendo, it was an inherently sexist act? People feel uncomfortable and offended with jokes all the time, that doesn't define their sexism or lack thereof.
This whole thing smacks of artificial controversy. It's a shame two people had to lose their jobs over what appears to be a total non-issue.
If this is the most blatant example of sexism in the tech industry / "start ups", one might think there are other more important things to focus on and get people fired for.
Of course I'm nobody but if I had to say something to women it would be this: real geeks don't care if you're women, just code or hack hardware. Go create. Nobody in his right mind would question the worth of geniuses like Jeri Ellsworth, Jessica Mah of InDinero or Tan Le of Emotiv. These three just went and created stuff. Women don't need approval or permission to be great and real geeks don't care that they're women.
However, and I mean that for men as for women, gay or straight, of any color or race, don't take offense when people are talking among themselves about things which do not concern you in any way. Chances are you heard wrong. Don't eavesdrop on people's conversations with the ambition to become "modern Joan of Arcs".
Otherwise, welcome to our family.
However, and I mean that for men as for women, gay or straight, of any color or race, don't take offense when people are talking among themselves about things which do not concern you in any way. Chances are you heard wrong. Don't eavesdrop on people's conversations with the ambition to become "modern Joan of Arcs".
Otherwise, welcome to our family.
"What's hard is she isn't the first person to get fired for speaking out, and she won't be the last."
No, she wasn't the first person to get fired.
No, she wasn't the first person to get fired.
the sad thing is, the whole PyCon situation is not even a representative example of sexism.
if you're a woman planning to walk into a men's restroom, don't complain about what you hear and see - their comments were not targeted towards her, nor towards women. the whole thing makes about as much sense as some guy going to a largely-female yoga class and outraged about two women making jokes about breast sizes.
if you're a woman planning to walk into a men's restroom, don't complain about what you hear and see - their comments were not targeted towards her, nor towards women. the whole thing makes about as much sense as some guy going to a largely-female yoga class and outraged about two women making jokes about breast sizes.
> if you're a woman planning to walk into a men's restroom, don't complain about what you hear and see
Are you trying to imply that PyCon is a "boys club" and that women have no right to expect to feel comfortable being there?
Are you trying to imply that PyCon is a "boys club" and that women have no right to expect to feel comfortable being there?
nothing of the sort is implied, but the fact that it's currently 95% boys is a reality that will not change overnight. if you're someone who's easily offended by immature jokes of any sort, then you should expect to feel uncomfortable around any group of people who tend to make immature jokes.
...and programmers/techies make a lot of immature jokes :P
...and programmers/techies make a lot of immature jokes :P
CNN has a pageviews problem.
Don't worry, they're working on it.
Don't worry, they're working on it.
Why are self-espoused feminists so sex-negative?
To give a sincere response, "sex-negative" doesn't mean embracing sexual behavior and discussion in every possible context.
I've thought about it more, and I think my question is more appropriately, "why are corporations so sex-negative"?
Adria Richards didn't tattle on these two men because she is a "feminist". Is she a feminist? Who knows. I don't think "not working to the detriment of women" counts anyone as a feminist--being decent towards women should be the default state without a specific name. Her actions were more likely driven by a need to seek validation for being a good, compliant worker, in the corporate mold, as expected of her.
Her expectation that she would gain more attention for complaining about the absolutely minuscule sexual content of their jokes than she would for complaining about disruptive noisiness indicates a corporate culture that is so sex-negative that it cannot tolerate even the mere mention of sex. By extricating such a fundamental aspect of the human condition from the place where people spend most of their waking lives, it serves to dehumanize the worker. The message is, when you are at work, you are not a person with needs, you are a part of the corporate machine.
The dehumanization enables further. Why dip into record corporate profits for seniority-based raises when the worker fulfills no greater functional role to the company, regardless of inflation impacting the employee's real net worth just as much as it helps the company's valuation? And the self-policing compliance of informant systems builds a distrust between coworkers, thereby preventing attempts to collectively act against the corporation.
The worker is thus merely one, solitary unit, easily bullied into the most profit maximizing mold.
Adria Richards didn't tattle on these two men because she is a "feminist". Is she a feminist? Who knows. I don't think "not working to the detriment of women" counts anyone as a feminist--being decent towards women should be the default state without a specific name. Her actions were more likely driven by a need to seek validation for being a good, compliant worker, in the corporate mold, as expected of her.
Her expectation that she would gain more attention for complaining about the absolutely minuscule sexual content of their jokes than she would for complaining about disruptive noisiness indicates a corporate culture that is so sex-negative that it cannot tolerate even the mere mention of sex. By extricating such a fundamental aspect of the human condition from the place where people spend most of their waking lives, it serves to dehumanize the worker. The message is, when you are at work, you are not a person with needs, you are a part of the corporate machine.
The dehumanization enables further. Why dip into record corporate profits for seniority-based raises when the worker fulfills no greater functional role to the company, regardless of inflation impacting the employee's real net worth just as much as it helps the company's valuation? And the self-policing compliance of informant systems builds a distrust between coworkers, thereby preventing attempts to collectively act against the corporation.
The worker is thus merely one, solitary unit, easily bullied into the most profit maximizing mold.
"I've thought about it more, and I think my question is more appropriately, "why are corporations so sex-negative"?"
Because of power hierarchies. It is in their best interest to find behavior of a sexual nature inappropriate, fairly independent of context.
Because of power hierarchies. It is in their best interest to find behavior of a sexual nature inappropriate, fairly independent of context.
how? why?
Nor does it imply the exclusion of sexual behaviour/discussion in every possible context. (assuming here you meant to say "sex-positive")
This conference was a big event with lots of people and lots of talking. I think it would be odd if in all those countless discussions someone didn't mention something sexual just by accident.
Whilst I don't think sexual innuendo's are particularly witty, I would hardly count 2 of them in a conference with hundreds of people as a grotesque and unnecessary insertion of sexuality into a non-sexual context.
This incident does reek of sex-negativity. If this was any other form of joke someone didn't find funny, it would be a non-issue. But peoples uncomfortability with anything remotely sexual means it gets perceived as sexist. I mean, sex kind sounds like sexist right?
This conference was a big event with lots of people and lots of talking. I think it would be odd if in all those countless discussions someone didn't mention something sexual just by accident.
Whilst I don't think sexual innuendo's are particularly witty, I would hardly count 2 of them in a conference with hundreds of people as a grotesque and unnecessary insertion of sexuality into a non-sexual context.
This incident does reek of sex-negativity. If this was any other form of joke someone didn't find funny, it would be a non-issue. But peoples uncomfortability with anything remotely sexual means it gets perceived as sexist. I mean, sex kind sounds like sexist right?
"assuming here you meant to say 'sex-positive'"
Yep.
"This incident does reek of sex-negativity."
Again, it's all about context. Feeling negative about sexual discussion at work and at conferences does not mean that you can not promote positive attitudes in your private life and among your friends.
I don't find the specific example that all this originated the best representative of the attitude, but you do not have to be okay with every childish/naive dirty joke in every environment to have a healthy attitude towards sex.
Yep.
"This incident does reek of sex-negativity."
Again, it's all about context. Feeling negative about sexual discussion at work and at conferences does not mean that you can not promote positive attitudes in your private life and among your friends.
I don't find the specific example that all this originated the best representative of the attitude, but you do not have to be okay with every childish/naive dirty joke in every environment to have a healthy attitude towards sex.
I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with your core premise.
It's funny to see how this story migrated from being about the tech industry to being about startups. Are the two synonymous now to people outside the industry?
It's about pageviews my friend. You know, writing anything controversial and attaching it to a broad evergreen topic like 'Start-ups' will result in more pageviews. Which means more money for the site. Fuck these shitty media sites. Infact, this is a very poor reporting on the incident and has so many un-related knots.
Feminists start up a problem.