I'll give a nice subtle example of sexism that I committed.<p>Back in the 1990's I helped teach a AI Systems course. It had a fair few female students - probably more than average for that sort of course actually now that I think about it.<p>Part of the work I did was helping in the practical labs. I thought I was doing a pretty good job - until one of the smarter students took me aside and pointed out a rather dumb unconscious behaviour of mine.<p>I was systematically helping the women more.<p>The men I'd help when they asked, or when they'd obviously hit a wall and were making no progress. With the women I'd step in almost as soon as they hit a problem. Anybody who has done teaching will tell you that students progress by solving their own problems - not by having the teacher step in and solve 'em for them. I was hurting those students progress by stepping in too early. I was stopping them learning.<p>I'd love to say that I immediately saw this as a problem... but I didn't. Because - y'know - despite the 70's being my first decade I was a pretty right on guy! I wouldn't be doing sexist things! Uh uh. Not me.<p>Fortunately some vague remnant of intelligence kicked in after about 20m of muttering (backed up by some personal memories of the problems that being helped too much can cause) and I accepted that I had fucked up and started fixing that behaviour. And thanked the student who had pointed it out. To be honest it's still something I watch myself for when teaching today. A chunk of my social and cultural programming is still trying to tell me that women need to be helped more.<p>And that - to some extent anyway - is the problem I see with some folk when the sexism topic comes up.<p>These days the majority of people I encounter don't think men are superior to women, or that women are incapable of being in technical fields, etc. Compared to 20 or 30 years back the incidence of "women in the home" or "women don't do computers" folk I encounter is very small.<p>The problem is with the folk like me ;-) The folk who think behaviour X can't be sexist - because they're not a sexist! Because the behaviour is almost - or even entirely - unconscious and shaped by the previous N decades of culture and society.<p>Things do change - but oh so slowly.... and those habits can be a complete sod to break.
As a normal male I find it perplexing how anyone could find the majority of these things appropriate.<p>I can't speak for women, but it seems a little extreme to assert that women should be shielded from innuendo in case it reduces the males into a pack of sexually charged morons.
It upsets me that we are only able to share sanitized parts of ourselves depending on the situation. I realize that it is a necessity to tone down our ancillary personality traits when among strangers and acquaintances, but setting arbitrary rules and guidelines about expected social behavior seems to be killing a fly with jackhammer -- neither effective nor practical.<p>I also sympathize with those that feel alienated in environments that <i>should</i> be welcoming to people of all demographics. I would not personally partake in any of the things this person speaks of (with the exception of sexual innuendo and only if I was in known company). The parenthetical may seem hypocritical, but it's part of my personality. For better or for worse, toilet humor is something I find funny. Blame it on my upbringing or my public education, but it's a part of who I am. I cannot turn that off, no matter what the setting is.<p>Ultimately, if someone is making you uncomfortable or crossing any sort of personal boundaries you've set, it's your responsibility to let that person know. If they ignore and persist, it warrants elevation to a higher authority. We must remember that human interaction is <i>human</i> interaction. There are too many variables involved to write a guide book.<p>All of that being said, I appreciate posts like Ruth's. Anything that helps me expand my own world view is invaluable and praised as a great asset. If the debacle at PyCon has taught me anything, it was that we all need to sit down and listen to each other.
<i>> Rule of thumb: if I think we’re on hugging terms, I’ll go in for the hug. Otherwise please don’t touch me.</i><p>Looks like you're sexist too!<p>You should check your double standards at the door if you want to be taken seriously.
> Again, context matters: you’re not just hanging out at a bar drinking with your buddies, chatting up the attractive woman sitting next to you. You’re at an industry function, talking to women who are your industry peers. They’re simply not there to be hit on – even in ways that might not be creepy in another setting.<p>Wait a second. Is the bar reserved by the conference organizers for the exclusive use of conference attendees? Or is this just the regular bar at the conference hotel, open to not only conference attendees, but attendees of other concurrent events there, and open to individual hotel guests there as not part of an event, and open to anyone who cares to wander in off the street?<p>If the latter, then I can't agree with some blanket rule against asking someone about considering a romantic relationship. Quite a lot of people, of all sexes, genders, and orientations, want romantic partners who are their peers, but must exclude the possibility of such partnerships with their co-workers because of the problems that can cause in their work place. Many such people (of all sexes, genders, and orientations) congregate at parties and bars at conferences because those are one of the few occasions to meet peers in a social situation that allows seeking romantic partnerships.<p>Use common sense. People who are at the bar because they have switched from "conference" mode to "social" mode and are looking to meet new people for social purposes should be distinguishable from people who are at the bar because they wanted to find a place that they could drink while they continued discussing the subject of the conference. The former should not ask the latter for dates. When in doubt, play it safe and don't ask.
At most of these conferences many of the attendees DO go out to the local bars after the conference hours are over for the day. I assume at that point "normal" bar behaviour is OK?
I imagine this is going to be controversial:<p>> <i>Listen, guys. You have to stop trying to pick up women at conferences. You just have to stop doing it. Again, context matters: you’re not just hanging out at a bar drinking with your buddies, chatting up the attractive woman sitting next to you. You’re at an industry function, talking to women who are your industry peers. They’re simply not there to be hit on – even in ways that might not be creepy in another setting</i><p>I think the problem here is that hitting on someone is <i>sexual</i>, not <i>sexist</i>. However, in an environment where the gender balance is so skewed, what is <i>sexual</i> almost unavoidably leads to a <i>sexist</i> atmosphere.<p>To put it another way, the problems of being hit on apply to gay men. It is not inextricably linked to male-over-female dynamic.<p>So I agree with the overall intent of the OP here. I think many reasonable guys would be defensive about acting like normal sexual creatures...however, it is important to not vilify sex, but to point out how it can lead to unintended consequences in this kind of environment.<p>So rather than saying that the "pickup game" is sexist, I would just say that it is inappropriate at an event where the participants are ostensibly there for professional reasons, no matter if you're male, female, gay or straight
i wonder how often things like "the pick up" happen in other industries as well. I would imagine women just see it in practice more often in the tech industry simply because of ratios. When you're the only woman there you're more likely to get hit on 500 times than if there were 500 women there. I also wonder if it's less acceptable in tech industries because you have bright women who would rather be respected because of their minds than their bodies, and are willing to say something about it. Not to mention, how often does the whole "boss having affair with secretary" happen? The problem is systemic everywhere. I just have a feeling it's more pronounced in tech because the same women see the problem over and over, versus a lot seeing it here and there.
Since the author accepts that these things are not sexist, but rather inappropriate - can the title be updated? Or why not call them racist, evil, etc?