
Horror Stories From Women in Tech - yahelc
http://jezebel.com/#!5781523/horror-stories-from-women-in-tech
======
edw519
First this:

 _"The first half is going to be your pitch, the second will be me hitting on
you."_

Then this:

 _"Honestly, the thing I'm most excited about is the prospect of seeing you
naked later tonight."_

Please don't forget that any pitch must work _both ways_. We entrepreneurs
should be evaluating potential investors with at least as much rigor as they
evaluate us. They're not _giving away money_ to lucky lottery winners, they're
trading it for something else, something often much more valuable than their
money: our blood, sweat, and tears in what could be a once in a lifetime
opportunity.

It's difficult to find a silver lining in this cloud, but let me give it a
try:

Anyone spoken to by people like these, no matter who they are, should thank
these investors for eliminating themselves. Better to find out what they are
like now before wasting any more time (or worse) on them. The only thing that
really surprised me about this story was:

 _She said she felt nauseous but pressed on with her pitch._

Why bother? Better she should focus her energy on building a great business
that will attract investors with professionalism and integrity. They're out
there, just harder to find.

At least they were until the pigs like this opened their mouths.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_Why bother [pressing on with her pitch]?_

It might well have seemed like the most diplomatic path out of the room.

One might also make allowance for shock. When you're stunned, a natural
reaction is to fall back on the script.

If I might dare to speculate further... One wonders how easy it is to know
just when to walk out. I'm a man, a straight man, a clueless straight man, so
I have no real first-hand idea of what it's like to be hit on all the time.
But my understanding is that women get hit on a lot. Like, really a lot.
Depending on the woman and the circumstances, one might even use the word
"constantly". So one imagines that few women in tech can afford to have a
hard-and-fast "if you hit on me I'll walk out in a huff" rule. Instead, one
imagines that at one time or another _every_ woman has felt that "nauseous"
feeling of being hit on against her wishes. And that "at one time or another"
can sometimes mean "several times per day".

And I'll bet it wears you down. Or toughens you up. Actually, I'll bet it does
both, at exactly the same time. My guess is that the poor woman in that story
was pressing forward, rolling her eyes inwardly, _and_ feeling nauseous and
miserable all at once. She kept going because she had trained herself to
suppress that desire to retch, even though her nausea was her subconscious
trying to tell her to flee the room.

But all I can really do is guess, of course.

------
sp332
There are "groups" of people. You don't talk to your family the same way you
talk to your friends. You don't talk to older people the same way you talk to
younger people. I'm not even talking about the conscious stuff, like maybe
trying to watch your language around certain groups. People unconsciously talk
louder to older people. It's not because people consciously believe that all
older people have hearing problems, it's just a pattern that they picked up by
watching other people. Certain things get absorbed unconsciously. There are
lots of ways of saying "I'm interested in your project". Sometimes, a person
will only mean to say just that, but they will unwittingly couch it in a
sexist form that they learned from other people. They don't mean to _be_
sexist, but certain attitudes, vocabulary, phrases, etc can simply be copied
from other people without understanding exactly how they affect the listener.

This isn't easy to fix. If we treat women like men, many of them will be put
off. But apparently a lot of people (possibly including women?) in our "geek"
culture don't know _how_ to "be friendly to women", even when they want to be
(because they've learned bad habits from other people). We can only fix this
if women point out good role models for the rest of us to follow, or give us
an itemized list of things that make them feel welcome. Pointing out bad stuff
strikes me as ineffective.

~~~
erikpukinskis
First of all, _recognizing_ the bad stuff IS a good thing that (many) women
like. If you're with a man and a woman and the man tells a sexist joke, and
you and the woman recognize that and don't laugh, then she feels like she's in
the in-crowd and he feels like the odd man out. Congratulations, you just made
a woman feel more comfortable. The reason we talk about the bad stuff is so we
can practice in our head steering clear of it.

Actually, I think that's about it! Be helpful and friendly just like you would
to a male developer and Don't Do Sexist Shit, and you'll be in good shape.
Tech is fun. Women are innately drawn to nerding out the same way that men
are. If they can do that without having sexism shoved in their faces every
five minutes, then that's a pretty welcoming space. The positive is the
absence of the negative.

As for a list... to some extent, it's not fair to ask women to not only deal
with the assholes, but spend even more time teaching the earnestly "want-to-
learn" guys what to do. Teach yourself. The internet is full of feminist
advice.

A good place to start is just to subscribe to the Geek Feminism blog
(<http://geekfeminism.org>) and read it with an open mind. If you want to go
all out, dig through the archives. Feministing (<http://feministing.com>) is a
great all-purpose feminist primer too.

And know that the folks who run those blogs generally Know Their Shit. They've
been doing it for a while, and their analysis is mostly spot on, so if you
find yourself thinking "this is insanity" just spend some time trying to
really dig into their perspective before you go running into the fray with
guns blazing.

And high five for wanting to learn. That's awesome, I respect that.

~~~
sp332
Yeah, the list-making thing was kind of a despairing joke, because people have
actually tried it. I realize it's not really fair to ask for that kind of
list, but if you're going to make one, make it a list of _positive_ things
people should do, not just negativity. If someone only knows how to express
themselves in a sexist way, then telling them not to do that makes them feel
like they're not allowed to talk to women anymore. Giving them something
acceptable to do instead leaves them with some options.

------
dasil003
I find myself torn between the "assholes are assholes, deal with it" and
"woman have to deal with a lot of bullshit in tech" viewpoints.

I guess the reason for me is that I recognize that the best course of action
for the individual woman is not to spend a lot of time complaining, but to
recognize that tech is, for better or worse, a man's world, and the way to get
ahead is to simply learn how the game works.

On the other hand I don't want to give assholes and their apologists a free
pass. If it seems like some women are overly sensitive about this issue, it's
important to realize it's because they are dealing with this shit all the
time. It's similar to racism, and why reverse-racism claims by whites fall
flat—because they already have every advantage, and they don't have the weight
of that historical oppression on their shoulder. Does that mean that you have
to be a little more sensitive to minorities and women? Sure, but with good
reason. It's just basic interpersonal relations to understand that people may
be sensitive about stereotypes that they deal with repeatedly.

That's where I think a lot of guys in tech go wrong—they want to believe in
objective equality, so they trot out some examples of shit that guys have to
deal with that women don't, which may be true, but it's irrelevant to the
ultimate question of how common dynamics actually make people _feel_.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Who do you think is oversensitive to it? What do you think would be an
appropriate amount of talking about it?

------
johngalt
No one complains about the lack of female plumbers, sanitation engineers, or
electricians. Men are four times more likely to be murdered, and ten times as
many are in jail. Why is it that genders are supposed to be equal except when
men are considered inherently inferior?

Life isn't fair and people with treat you unfairly. No this doesn't entitle
you to special treatment. Yes it will limit you if you fixate on it.

~~~
Rariel
I couldn't help but wonder while reading this comment--have you ever
experienced any sort of discrimination or are you a member of any minority
group (person of color, gay, non-christian, etc.)?

"Life isn't fair and people with treat you unfairly. No this doesn't entitle
you to special treatment." Who is asking for special treatment? Women just
don't want to be discriminated against because of their gender--how do you get
special treatment from that?

Additionally your logic is flawed--just because _you_ have never heard anybody
complain about the lack of women in blue collar jobs (the only jobs you
mentioned) doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And please explain how men being four times more likely to be murdered and ten
times as many are in jail ( I'd love you to site where you came up with those
statistics and their methodology in obtaining them btw) makes men "inherently
inferior?"

~~~
sosuke
A quick Google pulled up the Wikipedia article on Incarceration
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration>) which actually puts the males
at a lower 7 times more likely than women.

Here are the stats for 2005 on murder citing men as 4 times more likely to be
murdered. <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm>

~~~
Rariel
Thanks but I was truly interested in finding out where OP got these stats
from, meaning did he also do a quick google search or does he just know these
things.

I mentioned methodology in my post because that (to me) is the most important
part of validating any statistics. My UG education was in a social science so
I pay attention to those types of things. Stuff like this "Homicide as defined
here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful
killing of one human being by another. The general analyses excluded deaths
caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and
attempts to murder. " So we're saying vehicular manslaughter and shooting
somebody in the head are the same while in reality they are completely
different. Would you say that if you accidentally kill hit somebody and they
die this is a murder? I wouldn't. But those cases get tacked on and divided
and put through algorithms under the auspice of nurder. Additionally this
"While many agencies report supplemental data on homicides, much of the data
concerning offenders may not be reported because no suspects were identified.
The most significant problem in using SHR data to analyze offender
characteristics is the sizable and growing number of unsolved homicides
contained in the data file. " So they guess based on what they do know, I have
a problem with that. "In other words, offender profiles for unsolved crimes
are estimated based on the offender profiles in solved cases matched on victim
age, sex, and race; circumstances of the homicide; location of the homicide;
and gun involvement; as well as year. All offender-based estimates were
imputed using this procedure. "

Those are only a few excerpts that cast doubt on the true validity of the DOJ
stats. We have an obsession in this society with quantifying things, even when
they can't really be put in to nice little statistics.

------
anoncon2020
The article does a poor job of convincing me that any of these problems are
unique to the tech industry.

Journalism: [http://jezebel.com/#!5738019/where-are-the-women-at-
highbrow...](http://jezebel.com/#!5738019/where-are-the-women-at-highbrow-
magazines) Film: <http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/research.html> Music:
[http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/news...](http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/news/e3i3a5fb1561d2145a3761cc5529f5b780c)

A more appropriate title would be 'Horror Stories from Women dealing with
Wealthy Men in Powerful Positions"

Can anyone name an 'Industry' in which is this NOT the case? Otherwise,
singling out the tech industry is counterproductive and unfair.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I don't work in any other industry. If I was a doctor, I'd want to learn about
sexism in healthcare. But I'm not. I'm in tech. I want to know what's
happening in my industry.

------
ja27
I had one male coworker ask a female coworker what bra size she was. (He was
shopping for implants for his now ex-wife.) Awesome. She went into an empty
office and cried.

~~~
puredemo
Sounds a bit over-sensitive to me. I certainly wouldn't cry about being asked
what size my chest is.

------
reso
Other headlines today from jezebel.com:

Pete Wentz Discusses Divorce, Thanks God For Charlie Sheen

Woman injured by Dolphin jumping into her boat

ABC Casting for "Stem-Cell Face-lift" Show

Al-Qaeda Expands into Women's magazines

~~~
danilocampos
Oh, well, in that case, let's pack up and go home, guys. There can't possibly
be anything to learn here.

The only thing that really troubles me about the otherwise excellent Hacker
News community is this defensive/dismissive streak that shows up every time
the subject of "women in tech" is raised. It's especially mystifying to me
given how obvious the problem is: (gross generalizations follow)

\- Many nerds have a shocking talent for being insular, insecure dicks

\- Most nerds aren't women

\- Nerds dominate tech

No chance at all this ends poorly for the outsiders, right?

~~~
peterbraden
I feel like you could make your point in a more constructive way. Let's keep
things civil on here.

~~~
danilocampos
I respectfully disagree and, if I may be frank, resent the parental tone.
Except in egregious circumstances, I'd counter that the vote arrows beside
each comment are a sufficient mechanism for expressing this view, just as it's
frowned upon to post a comment that says nothing more than "I agree."

Sometimes irony is the only appropriate way to respond to the absurd. By
carrying a remark like this to its logical conclusion, you can expose its
absurdity with substantial economy. While I trust my fellow HNers to avoid
outright name-calling and ad hominem, I also trust them (occasionally in
error) to not have a stick-up-the-ass as we exchange ideas.

~~~
puredemo
You aren't really exchanging ideas, but rather making repeated, sweeping
generalizations.

------
ahoyhere
Oh please. Occasionally running into a rude man? THE HORROR! THE HORROR
SPECIFIC TO TECH!

I found it interesting that the women didn't just walk out of these
situations. Why were they willing to submit themselves to such indignities?
Surely they weren't forced to continue pitching. But no... they wanted the
money.

If you want the money more than you want respect, well, you're not going to
get respect.

As a woman genuinely in tech -- which, coincidentally, means a lot more than
"in search of VC" -- I can say that I've been treated ill by just as many
women as men over the years. But when a woman is horrible to you, you don't
cry sexism, because well, she's got the same equipment as you do. Also,
nobody's interested, because "everyone knows" women are catty, shallow, and
wield their social abilities like a weapon. Kind of like how "everyone knows"
men are uncultured brutes, who look down on noble, long-suffering women,
assume they are dumb, and hit on anything that moves.

Please.

Fact: some people are shitty. By "people" I mean "of any and all genders,
equally." If a person is shitty to you in what seems like a gender-specific
way, chances are s/he is shitty to people of a different gender but in a
different way.

Take it personally and you're just telling yourself a story. But in reality,
it's not about you. The way a person treats you is very rarely about you. It's
about them. So ignore them and move on with your dignity intact, and stop
telling yourself lies.

By the way, selling cosmetics -- but being in search of VC -- does not a
"woman in tech" make. For the love of god, are your cosmetics web-enabled?

~~~
Rariel
"Oh please. Occasionally running into a rude man? "

The point was not there is an occasional rude man, the point is that there is
a reoccurring theme of inappropriate discrimination based on gender. Of course
there are going to be rude men. As you pointed out, there are rude people
everywhere. But what if that rude person is only rude in certain situations to
a certain type of person--that makes a difference, no?

"As a woman genuinely in tech..." I think that is a bit pompous--under your
definition is groupon tech? All they do is glorified coupons, not very techy
under your standards yet google, a tech company, wanted to acquire them...

"Take it personally and you're just telling yourself a story. But in reality,
it's not about you. The way a person treats you is very rarely about you. It's
about them. So ignore them and move on with your dignity intact, and stop
telling yourself lies."

Would you tell this to MLK or Harvey Milk? I doubt it. Over simplifying the
problem and claiming it's all in these womens' heads isn't going to make it go
away.

~~~
ahoyhere
Let's see -- are we actually comparing legal, systematized repression vs a
couple dudes being rude dogs? When, if that dude was a boss and not a
potential investor, said rude behavior would in fact be illegal?

Straw man, my friend. They are nothing alike.

I have run into many rude men at bars when attempting to buy drinks. Some have
even butted in while I was dancing with another woman. I guess it's time to
write an expose entitled "Sexism in the Beer Drinking Industry."

~~~
Rariel
You are oversimplifying this whole debate. It's not just a couple of "rude
dogs," and if I supplied you with several stories of discrimination against
women by VCs, etc would you still say it's just a couple of rude dogs? How
many would it take for you to believe there is a systematic problem here and
not just random men being jerks?

Your belief that sexism in tech is not really sexism and just isolated
incidents strikes me as very odd. You analogy to men in bars is completely
unrelated and completely not analogous. I'm an attorney and a your whole
argument about rude behavior being illegal, well, I would like to see that
hold up in court. Proving any type of discrimination is very difficult.

~~~
ahoyhere
Pretty sure that if your boss tells you he's going to spend 30 minutes trying
to get you in his bed, that's sexual harassment. Apparently there are "laws
designed to protect you from sexual harassment":
[http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=...](http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sexual+harrassment+laws&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

As an attorney, you know that there is an enormous gulf between "what is
illegal" and "what will hold up court."

As for it being "systematic" -- how many stories of rude and raunchy VCs would
it take? Infinity and beyond!

A thing is not "systematic" unless a bunch of people get together and decide
to do it together, intentionally -- and with a process. Otherwise it is merely
"widespread" -- just like rude men with poor social skills hitting on women is
wide spread in many, many situations that do not involve VC.

------
rubashov
> "Who's watching your kids?" She retorted, "Who's watching yours?"

Let's be honest. It's a rather valid question, from an investor perspective.

~~~
hmahncke
It's a valid question only if the investor commonly asks it both to men and
women.

~~~
rubashov
Not really. Men and women are different and relate to families differently.
Deal with it.

~~~
BCM43
_Not really. Men and women are different and relate to families differently.
Deal with it._

I'm not really sure what to say to this other than I would prefer not to see
such blatant sexism anywhere, but especially not on HN.

