1. “think before you open your mouth”

   LOL, I’ve seen guys around pretty women. The problem is this causes them to STOP thinking. They literally act really really strange.

   

   Chris Norström

   February 9, 2012

   •

2. The post is about othering, and I was pointing out how in a (well-intentioned) attempt to be inclusive, Dan was actually being exclusive. Since it seems his intentions were good, I figured he’d be willing to accept feedback on how to be more inclusive in the future.

   

   Tim Chevalier

   February 9, 2012

   •

3. What if a woman introduced a moderator like this?

   Jeremy is one of the smartest guys I know, and I thought that he was a perfect pick for the role of moderator.  When we selected Jeremy and he said yes, he was a sexy single guy. And since that time, he’s become a sexy married man, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up.  So we’ve got not only a very talented, but a happy moderator.

   If I were Jeremy, or a friend of his, would I be offended?
    

   

   Dave Burchell

   February 9, 2012

   •

4. Finance and sales actually have one of the largest male/female earnings gaps. One of very few that’s worse than the technical sector. No, I will not provide a reference – this has been the truth for your entire life, and it is not my job to do such basic research for you.

   And yes, jokes are a factor. Just imagine a group of N “shy and awkward” programmers, where one of them is constantly the butt of the others jokes. Do you imagine that has no effect on them? Yes, there are obviously more issues at play, but that does not negate this one.

   I’d also disagree that there’s anything unfair about publicly airing an event that happened at a public event. Yes, it is certainly uncomfortable; no one wants to have to think of themselves as having sexist tendencies. Similarly, no one wants to be the one standing up and saying it about someone else. But being quiet has categorically not worked.

   I think this is among the best ways to put it; it calls out the problem, not the person. Much of the problem is that we like to reduce “sexist” to an identity – someone is or isn’t “a sexist” – which in turn lets us imagine ourselves as “not sexist” and ignore those times when we very blatantly are (even though it may be accidental, or said with the best intentions).

   

   Matt

   February 9, 2012

   •

5. “Scientifically speaking”, some women have only one X chromosome, some have 3 or 4, there are men with 2 X chromosomes and no Y chromosomes (but one of their X’s has a gene normally only found on Y chromosomes), etc.

   Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders for a short list of possibilities; based on the frequencies reported in those articles,  thousands of women and men in the US don’t have the chromosomal makeup you expect, with no pretending involved.

   

   Jeremy Leader

   February 9, 2012

   •

6. Misleading Dan. Terribly misleading. :)

   

   Guest

   February 9, 2012

   •

7. The real question everyone should be asking was did  Rebecca feel like it was a sexist comment? Now that would be something I’d be interested in hearing and interested in you writing about. Have you invited her to comment? Listening to it in context, I truly do not believe this was meant to be a sexist comment. The intention behind it was one of congratulations on her marriage and was meant to invoke humor from the audience, which it achieved. 

   

   Ralph Miller

   February 9, 2012

   •

8. The real question everyone should be asking was did  Rebecca feel like it was a sexist comment? Now that would be something I’d be interested in hearing and interested in you writing about. Have you invited her to comment? Listening to it in context, I truly do not believe this was meant to be a sexist comment. The intention behind it was one of congratulations on her marriage and was meant to invoke humor from the audience, which it achieved. 

   

   Ralph Miller

   February 9, 2012

   •

9. Thanks for calling this out, Dan. Seriously. THANK YOU.

   

   Monica Guzman

   February 9, 2012

   •

10. It diverges because the focus of the post wasn’t how many chromosomes the moderator had but rather how they were treated. I would say ‘treated by the opposite sex’ but no doubt you and Tim would turn that into a discussion of it’s own and argue that wasn’t diverging from the post topic either. 

    The point Dan was making is the same as many ‘women’ in SEO/Digital/Tech have also been highlighting lately is – that there’s a lot of sexism in these markets and it’s a topic worth covering and promoting. To try and point out the flaws of inclusion and exclusion within the specifics of the post is a load of crap and just an opportunity to be “clever”.

    

    Chris Gilchrist

    February 9, 2012

    •

11.  I’m honestly not sure what you believe you’re contributing by dismissing discrimination against a group that you’re (I assume) not part of as unimportant and not worth discussing.

    

    Tim Chevalier

    February 9, 2012

    •

12. I believe you are actually a “brunet” entrepreneur, good sir.

    

    Anonymous

    February 9, 2012

    •

13. Actually it’s about being sexist and instead you’ve decided to mention ‘othering’ and bring that to the author’s attention. Hence diverging and using it as a platform as I originally mentioned.

    

    Anonymous

    February 9, 2012

    •

14. I think referring to them as women, rather than by chromosomal details, acknowledges and accepts the gender they’re living and performing, which is the sensitive and compassionate thing to do. (And sidesteps any risk of alienating transwomen, who may not have two X chromosomes.)

    But I also don’t think this detail (which was just an oversight in the service of interesting writing) should distract from your excellent post and your great points.

    Thank you for calling out the subtle, sexist language that can crop up in this scene.

    

    corey

    February 9, 2012

    •

15. Nearly always when I see people talk about discriminiation in one way, I feel awkward. The reason is, that I often get the feeling that the silver-armored-heroes are themself discriminating the “victims” and also the “discriminators”. Otherwise these examples could also be understood as a stupid mistake, that people tend to do from time to time. If someone introduces Steve Ballmer focussing on his weight, most people also would think about it as inappropriate. But it is quite likely there wouldn’t be a discrimination war breaking out because of that.

    And about the “aggressors” I just want to add, that there are of course a lot of people in tech, who feel awkward around women and handling their own sexuality. That’s why they are in tech! If it’s so important for the heroes to protect women as what they are, then these people should also protect nerds for what they are.

    Thinking about all that more deeply for some time I decided that some discriminiation must be accepted. Often you can’t be morally right to all people at the same time. Even if you say “treat everyone equally” you have some problem with a game called soccer and people sitting in wheel chairs or people being blind. Also you can’t really treat all 7 billion people on this planet absolutely individually. First of all you won’t learn to know all of them well enough and second you will not be able to handle all that information. In the end you are just human and need to generalize, which itself means discrimination (without the bad connotation).

    

    A Commenter

    February 9, 2012

    •

16. Nearly always when I see people talk about discriminiation in one way, I feel awkward. The reason is, that I often get the feeling that the silver-armored-heroes are themself discriminating the “victims” and also the “discriminators”. Otherwise these examples could also be understood as a stupid mistake, that people tend to do from time to time. If someone introduces Steve Ballmer focussing on his weight, most people also would think about it as inappropriate. But it is quite likely there wouldn’t be a discrimination war breaking out because of that.

    And about the “aggressors” I just want to add, that there are of course a lot of people in tech, who feel awkward around women and handling their own sexuality. That’s why they are in tech! If it’s so important for the heroes to protect women as what they are, then these people should also protect nerds for what they are.

    Thinking about all that more deeply for some time I decided that some discriminiation must be accepted. Often you can’t be morally right to all people at the same time. Even if you say “treat everyone equally” you have some problem with a game called soccer and people sitting in wheel chairs or people being blind. Also you can’t really treat all 7 billion people on this planet absolutely individually. First of all you won’t learn to know all of them well enough and second you will not be able to handle all that information. In the end you are just human and need to generalize, which itself means discrimination (without the bad connotation).

    

    A Commenter

    February 9, 2012

    •

17. You should look up the definition of sexist. Dumbass.

    

    rushonerok

    February 9, 2012

    •

18. You should look up the definition of sexist. Dumbass.

    

    rushonerok

    February 9, 2012

    •

19. All human beings are primates without free will whose lives are pointless since they die anyway. Is that inclusive enough for you?

    

    Guest

    February 10, 2012

    •

20. All human beings are primates without free will whose lives are pointless since they die anyway. Is that inclusive enough for you?

    

    Guest

    February 10, 2012

    •

21. great post.  i was at an event where an older guy (50’s married with college kids) was saying stupid flirty things to a young woman entrepreneur about how pretty she was etc.  i pulled him aside and said for him to cut that shit out.  so not cool.  he had no idea what i was talking about.  i asked him if his son was pitching me would he want me telling him how hot he looked? he got it, sent me a gift and next day and thanked me.  it is never too late to learn.  speak up.  most of these guys have no idea what an ass they are making of themselves.  

    

    Gotham Gal

    February 10, 2012

    •

22. I totally agree…but I also believe women have to be bold enough to correct people when situations like that occur, to try and prevent it from happening again.  Some females use “sexy” as a tool to be put in that sort of position and aren’t offended by the “patronizing treatment”.   

    

    The SEO Rapper

    February 10, 2012

    •

23. my guess would be “brun”

    

    Validemail

    February 10, 2012

    •

24. Nope. I’d be flattered.

    

    Ralph Miller

    February 10, 2012

    •

25. Hmm… while I agree with you in principle, sexism in tech is more than everyday chauvinistic disrespect. Really there are far worse things going on that virtually no one points out. Like the fact that whenever I’m at a tech event by default every single male there assumes I’m a designer … or someone’s girlfriend. That’s a big problem that I think a lot of technical men don’t understand. 

    Ultimately if you’re conditioned to assume that the woman is not the technical one (even when she’s at a hackathon, wearing blue jeans and a startup Tee, drinking beer and eating pizza like everyone else) you’re going look at her abilities differently. It means that in order to compete for jobs, funding and opportunities, technical women have to be SUPERIOR to all male candidates. If she’s just equal, that unconscious bias that women =/= technical negatively affects the way she is perceived. Her skills get downplayed, even if they are equal to other males being considered.

    

    Marianne

    February 10, 2012

    •

26. Thanks!  Honestly, I felt torn about speaking up during the event.  Was this guy a rotten apple, or just being thoughtless?  Should I turn a panel discussion in to a public shaming?  Is it appropriate for me, as a guy, to speak on behalf of someone sitting next to me who’s perfectly capable of speaking for herself?  Did I miss some nuance in the introduction that made it OK?  Did he *really say that*?!

    So it took me a while to digest and process before I was ready to say anything about it.  Hopefully next time I’ll be a little quicker on the draw.

    

    Dan Shapiro

    February 10, 2012

    •

27.  Tim, I completely appreciate your reply — most feminists consider
    cisgendering to be sexist behavior. Also, as I bet you are aware, it’s a
    pretty sophisticated critique.

    Culturally, we’re still the Q on the
    LGBT, so to speak. And most people have never hear of intersectionality or kyrarchy. So it’s ~ almost ~ unfair to toss this one at Dan.  And I understand you’re intending to be kind and helpful.

    It’s always an issue though, whether to support someone who’s calling
    out sexism or to use that opportunity to point out that same person’s
    sexism.

    I personally struggle when I see someone taking a stand to confront sexism, when
    they are also un-consiously reinforcing racist, ableist, classist,
    heteronomative, … etc. worldviews. So, I’ve got a default, which is to
    publicly support the person who speaks out, and privately later give them a little gender studies 201.  In my experience, people usually feel vulnerable after they speak out … it often works better to wait.

    Yes, I do see the irony in raising questions about your critique only hours after you made it. I offer it with best wishes, and appreciation for all allies.

    

    cv harquail

    February 10, 2012

    •

28. Cutting him off at his knees probably would have been a good start. Honestly, it is a very tough call to make. I am sure she felt like “what an asshole” but it isn’t easy to say something.

    

    Gotham Gal

    February 10, 2012

    •

29. Cutting him off at his knees probably would have been a good start. Honestly, it is a very tough call to make. I am sure she felt like “what an asshole” but it isn’t easy to say something.

    

    Gotham Gal

    February 10, 2012

    •

30. I don’t want to speak for anyone in particular, but I talked to quite a few people in attendance and none of them took it the way you describe. 

    

    Dan Shapiro

    February 10, 2012

    •

31. They’re quite well respected in the community.  If they want to write a rebuttal, I’m happy to post it here.  But he seems like a decent guy, and if I had to guess, I bet he’s probably embarrassed in retrospect by what he said.  We all say thoughtless things sometimes, and I suspect he didn’t mean any harm by it. 

    

    Dan Shapiro

    February 10, 2012

    •

32. That’s disappointing to hear. I guess it also depends on how well you know someone. If he doesn’t really know her, then the comment goes up on the sexist scale. If he’s best friends with her, then probably not so much.

    

    Ralph Miller

    February 10, 2012

    •

33. Thanks for speaking up Dan. 

    I think the best way to correct someone is privately. Pulling them aside later and saying “Hey..I really thought Rebecca deserved more respect than that. You and I know she has chops, but there might be folks in the audience who don’t know her background, and that’s what the intro is for” gives the person a chance to realize their error and hopefully fix it without becoming defensive and digging in.

    That said, if they don’t accept the correction graciously I’d let them have it with both barrels. It’s entirely fine for someone else in the community to say *I* was offended by this. (Anti) Social behavior affects everyone present.

    

    Shasta

    February 10, 2012

    •

34. Last year I was working on a big ecommerce site on the eastside in Bellevue and I was asked to get up and clean up the cafeteria. When I asked if any men in the company were required to do this and they said oh they have the offices (all the women worked in the cubicles). End sexism wherever you find it. Unfortunately sexism is still everywhere, killing off talent everyday which happens to be female.
    Nice Job Dan.Your post makes me happy.

    

    Ann-Marie Stillion

    February 10, 2012

    •

35. I’m glad to see this. Thanks for speaking up.

    

    Liz Henry

    February 10, 2012

    •

36.  Thanks for sharing. Just to comment on whether to say something now or later. If at all possible say something now. It sets the tone. In your case it could just have been a “personally I would have liked to hear about Rebecca’s credentials … and congrats to you Rebecca by the way” or something along those lines. That way you can show the “team color” and that you are not on his team.

    

    Pia

    February 10, 2012

    •

37. Here is why it is NOT in women’s best interest to “get used to it and ignore it.”

    From Marianne, posted about 30 minutes after you:
         “Hmm… while I agree with you in principle, sexism in tech is more than everyday chauvinistic disrespect. Really there are far worse things going on that virtually no one points out. Like the fact that whenever I’m at a tech event by default every single male there assumes I’m a designer … or someone’s girlfriend. That’s a big problem that I think a lot of technical men don’t understand.”

    As this kind of attitude is left to continue unabated by “getting used to it and ignoring it,” it gets harder and harder to do my job because everyone assumes that I got the job out of some sort of token/quota system, as OBVIOUSLY a WOMAN couldn’t do this “hard tech job,” it requires a MAN’S brain to do that kind of work.  

    In my twenty years in high tech, I had hoped to see this kind of BS decline, but it has actually stayed just the same — well, until I started having to work with a large contingent of men imported from Asian and Middle East countries; many of them have no respect for women, and some flat-out refuse to work with you, because they are used to people “getting used to it” and accepting their sexist behaviours.

    

    Guest

    February 10, 2012

    •

38. That’s actually a nice way to handle it.  File that for later.

    

    Dan Shapiro

    February 10, 2012

    •

39. The intro wasn’t the best way to handle the situation. All in all, however…pretty mild stuff.

    Was the woman in question offended? Has she said so?

    

    Greg Maletic

    February 10, 2012

    •

40. Thanks for asking! And for the record…Dan asked too.
    A little extra context: the gentleman who introduced me served on the board at NWEN, mentioned my leadership there, and discussed my knowledge, connections, even suggesting they sought someone with my domain expertise and substance for the panel- all wonderful sentiments!
    Let me also calibrate a “hero” comment that was made. I am no damsel in distress, no shrinking violet, and while judging a Startup Weekend event, called out a (perhaps well-meaning) but tone-deaf presenter when he described stay-at-home-moms as “not working” (with nary a nod to stay at home dads) and implied some wage discrimination (he misspoke and re-stated— now *that’s* what a teachable moment is all about).
    So was there a teachable moment here? Absolutely. Was the intent well-meaning? I believe so. I do think it’s important to recognize the many shades of grey on the spectrum of sexism. It’s easy to demonize, and it’s a defense- if only monsters engage in this behavior, and I’m not a monster, then I must be ok. Chances are, we’re all guilty of prejudice of some sort, and recognizing it in its many forms, examining both intent and impact, calling it out when we see it- and looking for it in the mirror- are all part of working against this plague.
    Dan is a dear friend, but he and I went a couple rounds in this post as to how I’d *like* to be described. And this was our own teachable moment. I’d rather be known as a powerhouse than a personality, but when it’s all said and done, I’m pretty difficult to offend. As I said in the opening, I may be more like Dan in calling out generally offensive behavior (vs that which may be about yours truly). So it takes a village and I LOVE that this dialog is taking place.
    One last thing- though I may be difficult to offend, you can do so in two ways very quickly (1) call me Becky (2) refer to my business partners at GeekWire as “my bosses.” They’re not. We’re a team, we are all owners of the business, and we are accountable to each other. I drive the business and keep the lights on. And yes, I wear heels. Part of feminism– and humanism– is owning who you are.
    Thanks for the opportunity to engage on a timely- and timeless-topic.

    

    Anonymous

    February 10, 2012

    •

41. Hmm, that’s interesting because I always have people introduce me as “genius programmer with a huge c*ck”, and it never gets a good response.  Maybe I’m in the wrong field? 

    

    Pauls

    February 10, 2012

    •

42. Sometimes I have them just say, “Here’s Paul, quite possibly the biggest d!ckhead in the room.”

    

    Pauls

    February 10, 2012

    •

43. Sarah, I’m sure your application will be fairly considered. Regardless of what one person did at the panel, I can assure you that Andy Sack and TechStars are very interested in funding competitive women-founded teams.

    

    Sasha Pasulka

    February 10, 2012

    •

44. I think the point Dan and others are making is, people cannot tell what one identifies himself or herself as based purely on appearance. I would disagree with your statement “you can usually, though not always, determine that from the ways in which someone chooses to present themselves.” That is not to say however that discrimination does not occur against, say, someone who looks like a guy, but appears feminine is his/her demeanor. In short, reading Dan’s choice of words did not make me feel he implicitly excluded this type of discrimination.

    

    verboze

    February 10, 2012

    •

45. Oh come on, Ralph. That’s absurd. Five people in stage. She is the only woman (read: not like ‘the norm’)

    The others are introduced based on their professional experience. She, alone, is introduced with no mention of her professional creds, and only mention of her hotness and her recently changed marital status.

    Some day when the organizers are enlightened enough to have a 50/50 panel, and intermix is the norm, then fine, let’s all get distracted from the fact that we’re there for a PROFESSIONAL PANEL and start talking about each others’ hotness and marital status, whether they be male or female. In that setting, we’re no longer being sexist, we’re just being stupid and off-topic.

    

    Ralph’s Mother

    February 10, 2012

    •

46. Oh come on, Ralph. That’s absurd. Five people in stage. She is the only woman (read: not like ‘the norm’)

    The others are introduced based on their professional experience. She, alone, is introduced with no mention of her professional creds, and only mention of her hotness and her recently changed marital status.

    Some day when the organizers are enlightened enough to have a 50/50 panel, and intermix is the norm, then fine, let’s all get distracted from the fact that we’re there for a PROFESSIONAL PANEL and start talking about each others’ hotness and marital status, whether they be male or female. In that setting, we’re no longer being sexist, we’re just being stupid and off-topic.

    

    Ralph’s Mother

    February 10, 2012

    •

47. But it was still wrong. Which is why we must call it out as it happens. Otherwise, no one ever learns.

    If you don’t tell your child not to pick their nose or chew with heir mouth open, they will never learn not to.

    Behavioral change requires — and every mother knows this — call it out on the spot so the transgressor can see and understand the act and its context, and coach for what should be said next time.

    This IS learnable, if we’re all vigilant and also accepting that everyone has the potential for positive change.

    

    Tereza

    February 10, 2012

    •

48. But it was still wrong. Which is why we must call it out as it happens. Otherwise, no one ever learns.

    If you don’t tell your child not to pick their nose or chew with heir mouth open, they will never learn not to.

    Behavioral change requires — and every mother knows this — call it out on the spot so the transgressor can see and understand the act and its context, and coach for what should be said next time.

    This IS learnable, if we’re all vigilant and also accepting that everyone has the potential for positive change.

    

    Tereza

    February 10, 2012

    •

49.  That isn’t transphobia, that’s what most people mean by the words “men” and “women”. If your definitions are not the same, that isn’t because other people hate you or are unfair.

    

    Guest

    February 10, 2012

    •

50.  That isn’t transphobia, that’s what most people mean by the words “men” and “women”. If your definitions are not the same, that isn’t because other people hate you or are unfair.

    

    Guest

    February 10, 2012

    •

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.