47% of applications for our Hacker Retreat were women. Here is how we did it(medium.com)
medium.com
47% of applications for our Hacker Retreat were women. Here is how we did it
https://medium.com/@casey_rosengren/how-we-got-47-female-applicants-for-our-hacker-retreat-430b8a13a6fc
13 comments
From the website:
> It should be noted that this is NOT A VACATION. Participants are expected to work hard during "school hours," Monday - Thursday.
> You are free to choose any project you like, ideally something you think will help you improve as a programmer. Participants are encouraged to work on open-source code and 'for-fun' projects, but they are also allowed to work on commercial projects, such as freelance work or startups. We also encourage participants to spend as much time as possible pair programming and collaborating with other people.
> All included, we think participants could live frugally and get by on $3,500 for the three month period. However, a participant would have more flexibility with a budget of $4,000 - $5,000.
Will anything "cool" come out of this? Who knows. But $5,000 for a three month trip hardly represents an expensive excursion to the tropics, and it appears that the intent is to put in place a structure that participants are expected to adhere to. What's the problem with that? It's not like the hackathons and "schools" in the United States are consistently churning out masterful feats of engineering.
On another note, since when did you have to be overweight, unshaven and overworked to be considered a legitimate programmer? I didn't get that email.
> It should be noted that this is NOT A VACATION. Participants are expected to work hard during "school hours," Monday - Thursday.
> You are free to choose any project you like, ideally something you think will help you improve as a programmer. Participants are encouraged to work on open-source code and 'for-fun' projects, but they are also allowed to work on commercial projects, such as freelance work or startups. We also encourage participants to spend as much time as possible pair programming and collaborating with other people.
> All included, we think participants could live frugally and get by on $3,500 for the three month period. However, a participant would have more flexibility with a budget of $4,000 - $5,000.
Will anything "cool" come out of this? Who knows. But $5,000 for a three month trip hardly represents an expensive excursion to the tropics, and it appears that the intent is to put in place a structure that participants are expected to adhere to. What's the problem with that? It's not like the hackathons and "schools" in the United States are consistently churning out masterful feats of engineering.
On another note, since when did you have to be overweight, unshaven and overworked to be considered a legitimate programmer? I didn't get that email.
I had the same confusion, from their website it's not clear whether the demographic is likely to be novices looking to learn or whether it is for established freelancers etc wanting to work from Costa Rica for a while.
Their website says that they encourage people to work mainly on open-source or fun projects but that would seem to rule out anyone with a family, a full time job or who wasn't already reasonably wealthy.
It wouldn't surprise me if their demographics skewed weird for that reason alone. The age breakdown might be interesting, is this mainly retirees? Gap year students? People taking sabbaticals?
Their website says that they encourage people to work mainly on open-source or fun projects but that would seem to rule out anyone with a family, a full time job or who wasn't already reasonably wealthy.
It wouldn't surprise me if their demographics skewed weird for that reason alone. The age breakdown might be interesting, is this mainly retirees? Gap year students? People taking sabbaticals?
Are you sure the word "neckbeard" is really one you wanted to use here?
Yeah, I meet the overworked and overscheduled parts (and couldn't afford to spend a month hacking on open source in the tropics), but I'm not overweight and certainly don't have a neckbeard. I get that "neckbeard" is more of a cultural term than a literal one, but it seems like even that interpretation has taken on a more pejorative bent lately.
I just meant that they may have inadvertently re-introduced gender into the discussion.
"Neckbeard" is definitely a pejorative term, but that's not in itself a huge problem.
"Neckbeard" is definitely a pejorative term, but that's not in itself a huge problem.
Ah, I missed that subtle point. Very astute.
Fair point, but given the trope I'm looking to invoke ( http://medriscoll.com/post/9117396231/the-guild-of-silicon-v... ), I'm okay with the baggage.
Is there a female version of neckbeard? Or a gender-neutral word with the same connotations?
I fear the obvious wordplay is offensive for the wrong reasons: neckbroad?
Is there a female version of neckbeard? Or a gender-neutral word with the same connotations?
I fear the obvious wordplay is offensive for the wrong reasons: neckbroad?
[deleted]
I've always been uncomfortable about the idea of addressing imbalance by focusing and targeting ONLY the minority. I like your analysis and process of reworking your site to be more appealing to everyone. In fact, I think I'll apply now :D
I like how this article focuses on things you can do now to even the gender balance, rather than just lamenting the broken pipeline.
Love how this is tactically oriented and not just an expose of stuff that happened to work.
This is what we learned - what did we miss?
Anyone else out there with similar or conflicting experiences?
Anyone else out there with similar or conflicting experiences?
Why do we need 50/50 ratios?
We don't unless there is a bunch of money involved. Then the grievance and injustice becomes too much to bear.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25369262/jesse-jackso...
Call me when there is concern about gender ratio among garbage collectors.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25369262/jesse-jackso...
Call me when there is concern about gender ratio among garbage collectors.
Do one thing and do it well. This is a motto for more than UNIX in my opinion.
Are you hacking or are you retreating and obtaining social justice? Because meanwhile, real hackers are really hacking and they generally don't care about gender ratio nor group retreats to Costa Rica.
Don't think this is a dig just at this conference either. I get irate when I see fireman in uniform out collecting for charity and things like cowboy or biker churches. Fireman should be fighting fires. Churches shouldn't have anything to do with cowboys nor bikers (not a church attender...just something personally annoying I noticed).
Separate your concerns and you won't lose sight of the proper function of each component. Just my opinion. Others may feel differently.
Are you hacking or are you retreating and obtaining social justice? Because meanwhile, real hackers are really hacking and they generally don't care about gender ratio nor group retreats to Costa Rica.
Don't think this is a dig just at this conference either. I get irate when I see fireman in uniform out collecting for charity and things like cowboy or biker churches. Fireman should be fighting fires. Churches shouldn't have anything to do with cowboys nor bikers (not a church attender...just something personally annoying I noticed).
Separate your concerns and you won't lose sight of the proper function of each component. Just my opinion. Others may feel differently.
Fair enough. For us, the thing we are trying to 'do well' is to build the sort of community that we'd enjoy living in while we work on our various projects. Perhaps it's a point of personal preference, but we enjoy living within a diverse community.
Disagree with our values or priorities? No worries - start your own flavor of community project and let's exchange notes. Ain't the free market grand.
Disagree with our values or priorities? No worries - start your own flavor of community project and let's exchange notes. Ain't the free market grand.
Well I wish you the best of luck. I'm sure there are plenty of people with whom this project will jive.
I don't see it. But I'm in my 40's, have no tattoos, no fedora, a normal haircut and no beard so I don't know that diversity extends far enough for me anyway. For me, hacking is not about vacation nor social engineering and never the twain shall meet. But style preferences may vary. If it works for others, by all means disregard and carry on. I'm not intending to start a community. There are already plenty of those that grew organically over the decades where I live. I generally turn up my nose at them as well, so don't take it personally. Making a better living space is a laudable goal.
I don't see it. But I'm in my 40's, have no tattoos, no fedora, a normal haircut and no beard so I don't know that diversity extends far enough for me anyway. For me, hacking is not about vacation nor social engineering and never the twain shall meet. But style preferences may vary. If it works for others, by all means disregard and carry on. I'm not intending to start a community. There are already plenty of those that grew organically over the decades where I live. I generally turn up my nose at them as well, so don't take it personally. Making a better living space is a laudable goal.
Firefighters should be fighting fires 24/7 and not have enough free time to do charity work?
Sure, they should have plenty of time to do charity work. On their own time, out of uniform, as individual citizens, as members of the Elks Lodge, members of a church, members of a soup kitchen, whatever,.... just not on work hours as firefighters. Their job in that capacity should be simply to fight fires (and perform related public services).
Again, just my opinion.
Again, just my opinion.
Do firefighters routinely do charity collection while on the clock? I don't think I've ever heard of that, but I'm from the UK not the US. Are they from small fire depts that operate as charities and rely on donations to stay open or are they collecting for unrelated charities?
Yes, it's pretty common in the US. They stand at traffic lights in uniform with empty fireman boots for passing motorists to deposit money for causes unrelated to the fireman mission... Muscular Dystrophy research among other things.
And to respond to above post, yes, they are often being paid while doing this http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/01/charity-taxpayer....
But the point is not about receiving payment. The point is, they are representing themselves as fireman out doing something other than fighting fires. And this irkes me.
I'd love to go to Costa Rica and plan to at some point in the future. But when I go to Costa Rica I'm going to surf and drink beer and eat a lot of seafood and lie in a hammock and do some shopping. I certainly don't plan to waste time in front of a computer writing code during this period. I do that here every day and I don't dream about Costa Rica nor worry about how many women nor minorities are in cubes next to me while I'm doing it.
And to respond to above post, yes, they are often being paid while doing this http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/01/charity-taxpayer....
But the point is not about receiving payment. The point is, they are representing themselves as fireman out doing something other than fighting fires. And this irkes me.
I'd love to go to Costa Rica and plan to at some point in the future. But when I go to Costa Rica I'm going to surf and drink beer and eat a lot of seafood and lie in a hammock and do some shopping. I certainly don't plan to waste time in front of a computer writing code during this period. I do that here every day and I don't dream about Costa Rica nor worry about how many women nor minorities are in cubes next to me while I'm doing it.
So, firemen raising money for muscular dystrophy research during the time when they have not been called to put out a fire actually annoys you?
There may be a word for this. Possibly several.
There may be a word for this. Possibly several.
Yes, it does annoy me (not a major annoyance but an annoyance still). Do you disagree with separation of concerns or feel firefighters are raising more money than their salaries and expense of getting them there? If so, don't be shy. Just tell me you disagree and why.
There are words for people who make comments with implied insults. Passive aggressive is one of them.
There are words for people who make comments with implied insults. Passive aggressive is one of them.
The fire service has a lot of downtime, yet you still have to have a lot of folk salaried, not all of them can just be on call. Given you have a lot of salaried folk sitting there waiting for fires to occur, I see no reason for them to not help out with other things. They are being paid to sit around a lot otherwise.
And sorry if you thought I was being passive aggressive, I was aiming more for comedic sarcasm.
And sorry if you thought I was being passive aggressive, I was aiming more for comedic sarcasm.
I highly doubt any firefighters are doing charity work while getting paid. Most of them are probably just wearing the uniform because kids think firefighters are cool. And firefighers _are_ cool, so I don't think it is completely unwarranted.
+1 rming the picture of four dudes playing foosball
I agree it's not a great picture.
One of the things that makes it a poor choice is that one of the people is probably female but she's been cropped almost out of the image.
One of the things that makes it a poor choice is that one of the people is probably female but she's been cropped almost out of the image.
awesome work!
Good work. My only objection is the endorsement of the Geek Feminism Wiki, which is an unreliable source.
You know what? I have some misgivings about some things on the Geek Feminism Wiki too. But I think the argument that there's nothing to learn from it is an untenable stretch. There's valuable information on it.
Singling out one specific issue in a source in order to discredit it in its entirety is a rhetorical tactic that is both popular and disingenuous.
Singling out one specific issue in a source in order to discredit it in its entirety is a rhetorical tactic that is both popular and disingenuous.
Do you mind going into a bit more depth here? The GFW was pretty useful re: the references it pointed us too. What makes it unreliable?
(genuinely curious, clearly still learning here)
(genuinely curious, clearly still learning here)
1) The editorial guidelines (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meta:Editorial_guidelines) state:
While citations are preferred wherever
possible, we do not require them. Much
of our wiki is primary source material,
sometimes added anonymously in order to
avoid backlash against the whistleblower.
Original research is welcome.
Is there an alternative that you think is better? Also, is their "version" of feminism a problem since they're so clear about what it is? It doesn't seem like they're hiding their perspective at all, so readers can decide how to interpret based on that knowledge.
Their version of feminism isn't all that clear at all from the description. Essentially all forms of feminism that revolve around women's "feelings and lived experiences" use them to prop up their underlying ideological beliefs - the only feelings and lived experiences that are accepted are the ones that confirm their ideology.
You can see this in the list of out-of-scope items. For example, no "apologia for misogynist, anti-feminist, oppressive, or other harmful actions or ideas" is allowed - in practice this tends to include stuff like having an unfeminine attitude to sex and sexuality, doing sex work, being friends with anyone who does, opposing bans on it, being kinky, or complaining about any bad experiences you've had with other mainstream feminist women including systematic online and offline harassment (which is a serious problem for some groups of women).
If you think about the guidelines it's easy to tell they exclude some women's feelings and lived experiences, but there's no way to tell which. The linked page makes it sound like the policy affects oppressors when it's mostly those who are worst off that get screwed.
You can see this in the list of out-of-scope items. For example, no "apologia for misogynist, anti-feminist, oppressive, or other harmful actions or ideas" is allowed - in practice this tends to include stuff like having an unfeminine attitude to sex and sexuality, doing sex work, being friends with anyone who does, opposing bans on it, being kinky, or complaining about any bad experiences you've had with other mainstream feminist women including systematic online and offline harassment (which is a serious problem for some groups of women).
If you think about the guidelines it's easy to tell they exclude some women's feelings and lived experiences, but there's no way to tell which. The linked page makes it sound like the policy affects oppressors when it's mostly those who are worst off that get screwed.
> You can see this in the list of out-of-scope items. For example, no "apologia for misogynist, anti-feminist, oppressive, or other harmful actions or ideas" is allowed - in practice this tends to include stuff like having an unfeminine attitude to sex and sexuality, doing sex work, being friends with anyone who does, opposing bans on it, being kinky, or complaining about any bad experiences you've had with other mainstream feminist women including systematic online and offline harassment (which is a serious problem for some groups of women).
Am I misunderstanding you? If your point of view is against sex work and "unfeminine" attitudes towards sex (wtf does that even mean anyway), it seems to me that you are being misogynist and quite possibly oppressive. I don't doubt those people exist, I've met quite a few of them, but that doesn't say anything directly about what the geek feminism wiki does and represents.
> If you think about the guidelines it's easy to tell they exclude some women's feelings and lived experiences, but there's no way to tell which. The linked page makes it sound like the policy affects oppressors when it's mostly those who are worst off that get screwed.
Is there any evidence to suggest that geek feminism wiki does that? Are viewpoints on sex work or sexuality skewed towards one point of view, or are there many points of view about those subjects on the wiki?
Am I misunderstanding you? If your point of view is against sex work and "unfeminine" attitudes towards sex (wtf does that even mean anyway), it seems to me that you are being misogynist and quite possibly oppressive. I don't doubt those people exist, I've met quite a few of them, but that doesn't say anything directly about what the geek feminism wiki does and represents.
> If you think about the guidelines it's easy to tell they exclude some women's feelings and lived experiences, but there's no way to tell which. The linked page makes it sound like the policy affects oppressors when it's mostly those who are worst off that get screwed.
Is there any evidence to suggest that geek feminism wiki does that? Are viewpoints on sex work or sexuality skewed towards one point of view, or are there many points of view about those subjects on the wiki?
If your point of view is against sex work and "unfeminine" attitudes towards sex (wtf does that even mean anyway), it seems to me that you are being misogynist and quite possibly oppressive.
No, that's just sex-negative feminism. It's pretty common. In fact, the two major opponents to pornography have always been the conservative right and the feminist left. Opinion on BDSM is usually a litmus test for sex-positivity or sex-negativity.
As a whole, GFW appears to be sex-positive, with a few caveats as to how it understands objectification.
No, that's just sex-negative feminism. It's pretty common. In fact, the two major opponents to pornography have always been the conservative right and the feminist left. Opinion on BDSM is usually a litmus test for sex-positivity or sex-negativity.
As a whole, GFW appears to be sex-positive, with a few caveats as to how it understands objectification.
> 2) The Geek Feminism Wiki, although simply referring to itself as "feminist", subscribes to a particular form of third-wave poststructural feminism that is not so much concerned with equity, as it is preoccupied with dubious and subjective gender politics. Indeed, their editorial guidelines outright say "[We]... accept each person's self-reporting of their feelings and lived experiences as valid". Ultimately, this leads to a lot of bias, misrepresentation and is only a specific feminist viewpoint.
What you are saying is very wishy washy. You say dubious and subjective gender politics, but what does that even mean? Also, how exactly does accepting someone's self-reporting about lived experiences lead to a single point of view and allow for misrepresentation? If we are excepting self reporting and lived experiences, we are by definition excepting quite a large set of points of view.
What you are saying is very wishy washy. You say dubious and subjective gender politics, but what does that even mean? Also, how exactly does accepting someone's self-reporting about lived experiences lead to a single point of view and allow for misrepresentation? If we are excepting self reporting and lived experiences, we are by definition excepting quite a large set of points of view.
Postmodern gender theory, the application of Frankfurt School narratives (pseudo-Marxist dichotomies reasoned over scenarios where Marxism isn't traditionally applicable, like race, sex, etc.) and so on.
Well, in theory, yes. Not at all in practice. The vast majority of people who edit the wiki are part of a general postmodern feminist hivemind, and those who espouse more traditional feminist viewpoints about gender equality without the vast baggage of sociological theory that is taken for granted tend to be reverted. You can read the editorial guidelines, it's all in there.
Well, in theory, yes. Not at all in practice. The vast majority of people who edit the wiki are part of a general postmodern feminist hivemind, and those who espouse more traditional feminist viewpoints about gender equality without the vast baggage of sociological theory that is taken for granted tend to be reverted. You can read the editorial guidelines, it's all in there.
facepalm(1)
hartator(3)
Harassment includes verbal comments that reinforce social structures of domination related to gender, gender identity and >expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.
And who gets to determine if I'm doing any of these things? The conference organizers? If I attend this conference, how can they assure me that I won't be at the mercy of conference attendees that suddenly decide I'm harassing them simply because I say something within their vicinity they disagree with a la Adria Richards?
Although I guess Richards would have been taken to task for "harassing photography". Although by that point it would have been too late anyway.
The problem with these speech codes is that they're just as easily used as a way to silence and shame people who's views differ from those of organizations like geekfeminism (i.e. not radfem).
You don't have to be a feminist to treat women respectfully.
And who gets to determine if I'm doing any of these things? The conference organizers? If I attend this conference, how can they assure me that I won't be at the mercy of conference attendees that suddenly decide I'm harassing them simply because I say something within their vicinity they disagree with a la Adria Richards?
Although I guess Richards would have been taken to task for "harassing photography". Although by that point it would have been too late anyway.
The problem with these speech codes is that they're just as easily used as a way to silence and shame people who's views differ from those of organizations like geekfeminism (i.e. not radfem).
You don't have to be a feminist to treat women respectfully.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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'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'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.
You haven't yet provided an actual example. Maybe you could start with just one.
Good night gents.
> 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.
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.
When did we become so concerned with awesome vacation getaways with code happening and less with, you know, programming?
I think it's awesome that there are people who have the free money/time/resources/independence to go spend 12 weeks hacking in the tropics, but unless we see some baller results I can't help but shake the feeling this is an experience for trendy kids and not for the hardworking, overweight, overscheduled neckbeard.
I hope you folks are able to publicize a bunch of cool stuff that comes out of this! That might give it a bit more street cred.