
Startup dudes: Cut the sexist crap - gurgeous
http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2012/02/startup-dudes-cut-sexist-crap/
======
fishtoaster
For context, here's the text of the audio of the guy introducing her:

"So Rebecca Lovell is the chief business officer of Geekwire, and I got to
know– you can read the bio– what's written, but just for some personal color:
So, Rebecca took over as executive director of the Northwest Entrepreneur
network while I was on the board there and just blew us all away with her
expertise, her knowledge, her connections, and her charm. And when we were
putting together this program, we were looking for a real dynamite moderator
who really knew the subject area, might know some of the potential panelists,
and who could really add something– some substance to the program.

Rebecca's one of the smartest ladies ..."

~~~
vectorpush
Thanks for this. The sexy comments were obnoxious and almost certainly
wouldn't have been made about a man, but this context paints a different
picture than the one the author was trying to convey.

" _These would all be appropriate topics to use when introducing someone, man
or woman. Here’s what the man introducing Rebecca chose to say instead_ "

It seems pretty clear that the omitted portion of his introduction explicitly
recognizes her merit. I favor the author's overall point, but by deliberately
excluding this portion of the text, he opens himself up to straw-man arguments
about the misleading lack of context.

~~~
sliverstorm
_The sexy comments were obnoxious and almost certainly wouldn't have been made
about a man_

Hmm. Perhaps not directly, but is it inconceivable that an announcer might say
something about how sharply a man is dressed?

~~~
vectorpush
I think you make a reasonable point, but this particular comment was wrong
because the comment was rooted in the speaker's sexual preferences. It is
unlikely that the speaker would ever describe a man as sexy because
heterosexual men generally do not view other men through the lens of
sexuality. Calling someone sexy carries a pretty clear implication that
they're "a valid candidate for sex", an implication which men do not have to
process while interacting with 95% of their co-workers.

~~~
steve-howard
I should hope that calling someone a "sexy married woman" would not intend to
imply that she's a valid candidate for sex. Not that it's particularly
tasteful either.

~~~
vectorpush
I take it you're suggesting that his acknowledgment of her marriage implies an
obvious understanding that she is not _available_ as a sexual candidate, but
his reference to her as sexy still reveals his _approval_ of her appearance
with regard to her value as a sexual partner _for anyone_ (in this case, her
new husband, who he points out is lucky to have her)

------
c0riander
Some of these comments baffle me.

Look, it doesn't matter what someone said before or after they sexualized
someone in a professional context. Here's why: human beings are smart. They
know that things people say matter. Thus, if you are commenting on someone's
appearance or sexiness in a professional context, _that must matter to you._

Why is that important? It serves to undermine the person it's said about.
Rather than being judged on their work, or their connections, or what not -
they are now being judged for their appearance. And that steals credibility
they may have had in other, legitimate arenas.

It says, I like you because you're attractive, not because you deserve it.

("Oh, Nancy's not a good lawyer - everyone just thinks she's pretty." "Well
Bob got that promotion because he's so good-looking. He didn't really deserve
it." Etc.)

And yes, in some contexts, we expect to be more casual and colloquial. But if
you're in a professional setting, unprofessional remarks do insidious harm to
the subject.

~~~
jessedhillon
_Some of these comments baffle me._

You might be surprised to learn that 30 y/o virgins and other sexually
frustrated nerds are resentful of women, and consequently, don't believe that
sexism exists.

Let someone oppose this comment by asserting that the pristine, untouched
nature of their junk is irrelevant to their point -- but the sexy
attractiveness of a female speaker is fair game.

~~~
haberman
> 30 y/o virgins and other sexually frustrated nerds [...] the pristine,
> untouched nature of their junk

For someone who is offering a critique against inappropriate comments, what
makes this ok?

You've just ridiculed an entire group of people for what can be a very painful
life circumstance, many of whom would never make or defend the kinds of
comments you are criticizing.

~~~
angelbob
Would they actually (out loud, audibly) object to those comments, or would
they just "never make or defend" them?

I ask because letting these things slide, or worse letting the comments seem
approved-of by mass silence, _is_ doing active harm.

~~~
haberman
It sounds like you're arguing that men have to "earn" not having their
genitalia discussed or being mocked for their loneliness. Am I reading you
right?

Fuck this. This situation is not a license to lash out at an entire group and
say things that in any other circumstance would be offensive and
inappropriate.

I would answer your question about objecting to those comments, but it seems
pretty clear that there's an impossibly high standard for what a guy has to do
to not be "guilty" for this crowd. Not even the guy who posted this blog entry
objected "out loud, audibly" to this introduction at the time.

~~~
jessedhillon
_...it seems pretty clear that there's an impossibly high standard for what a
guy has to do to not be "guilty" for this crowd._

Are you kidding me? Have you read the other 100+ comments on this thread? My
own comment went from +11 to +4, so you have plenty of company. By "this
crowd" you must mean the handful of people who aren't scrambling to sustain
their invulnerable self-image by cobbling together some half-assed theory from
the little bits of pop-psych they've read.

What is your big upset about? If someone introduced you at a conference as the
"guy who has never been laid" instead of "the guy who did brilliant thing X,"
you'd have no problem seeing why that would be hurtful. Shit, at least not
being laid is the result of your own (in)action, and therefore something
you've arguably earned; being "sexy" is an artifact of an organism's
constitution. Perhaps by hurting you, I've sidestepped the intellectualizing
process that prevents you, or someone like you, from understanding that there
are fundamental emotional wounds involved, not abstract intellectual concepts.

Unsolicited advice to any man who still doesn't get it: when someone says
"that hurts me" don't come back with "no it doesn't, here's why..."

~~~
potatolicious
Unsolicited advice to you: when countering hurtful statements, don't throw
more onto the pile.

Your response to "that's not sexist!" is "yes it is you bunch 'o lonely
virgins!"

Is this HN or high school?

------
gibybo
I don't know the context here (full audio is not loading for me), but doesn't
it seem reasonable that it was just his way of congratulating her for recently
getting married? I could imagine a similar intro being used for a guy that was
just married too.

EDIT: I got the full audio to work and the introduction is longer than the
quote he pulled out. Judging from his tone and the earlier part of the
introduction, I really don't think he was doing anything but trying to
compliment/congratulate her (though admittedly he could have done a better
job).

~~~
jfarmer
I'd encourage this for a thought experiment.

Take a step back. Bottle your immediate reaction to this article.

Starting asking yourself a few questions. Why did the author react this way to
the introduction? Why do so many people in the comments seem to agree?

Avoid easy, dismissive answers. "Because they're illogical," "because they're
too sensitive," "because they're not thinking this through," etc. are not good
answers. They're easy answers.

If it helps pretend there's a woman upset by this sitting across the table
from you. Have a conversation with her. The goal is to really understand why
she's upset.

Or imagine what the husband in the audience felt -- if I were him, I'd be a
little embarrassed and apologize to my wife afterwards. I'd also send a
follow-up email to the moderator and the person who organized the conference
voicing my displeasure (as the husband).

I'm not being flippant. Think deeply about why people are reacting this way,
and avoid easy answers.

~~~
NinetyNine
I think you have a very good point, and a great technique. In general, it
works great when reacting to things.

In this case though, you have a third party journalist complaining that a racy
joke is a cultural set back to an entire group of people ("startup guys").
It's pretty far out there. The commenters are mostly agreeing with a
generalization of the headline, something along the lines of "there is too
much sexism in tech", which is probably true.

~~~
jfarmer
All but the most blatant examples of sexism (and racism -- "food stamp
President" anyone?) are like this. At worst they seem insensitive, at least in
isolation. That's why it's so easy to talk about getting a thicker skin, etc.

I know this will seem like I'm dismissing you, but looking at your profile I
see you're a current student at RIT.

There is a backdrop here and it's hard to see from the other side of the
country. Heck, it's hard to see right here in Silicon Valley unless you're in
the middle of it and sensitive to it.

Many people are the former, but not the latter.

You might accuse me of using weasel words -- "many people," "most instances,"
etc. -- and I won't blame you.

What I can say, though, is that there's a lot between the lines here. Anyone
who spends time in Silicon Valley and isn't completely unaware sees it and
knows it.

See my top-level comment on this thread:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3573674>

~~~
NinetyNine
My profile is outdated, I've been working in the valley for 8 months. If
anything, the sexism at RIT was far more widespread.

------
nailer
There's another side to this as well: it distracts from your message and makes
you sound weird and creepy.

Don't introduce people as sexy unless you're trying to make a joke about being
weird and creepy. In which case, make it a guy, and compliment the way their
hair smells for extra weird and creepy.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
> In which case, make it a guy, and compliment the way their hair smells for
> extra weird and creepy.

In trying to be aware of gender issues, it seems you've (accidentally)
stumbled into homophobia or mysandry. You're implying that sexualizing a man
is "extra weird and creepy", something which many people would disagree with.

Simple rule: don't sexualize people in a professional setting, unless you are
trying to market their sexuality.

~~~
fjh
I believe that you have misread the GP and the "for extra weird and creepy"
refers only to the part after "make it a guy".

~~~
aaronblohowiak
The implication is still there that making it a guy is okay because
sexualizing males is somehow materially different / more acceptable than
sexualizing females. Perhaps it is with respect to the minority population of
women in tech, but it is not more acceptable when we consider the implicit
judgement of homoeroticism that makes this sexualization less damaging than
the sexualization of a female.

~~~
fjh
I took the GP to mean "make it a guy, because singling out a women because of
her sex in a mostly male environment is not cool". I may be wrong, but
principle of charity and all that.

I'm definitely not trying to defend homophobia, totally agree with you on
that.

~~~
nailer
Hey there.

"make it a guy, because singling out a women because of her sex in a mostly
male environment is not cool"

Yep, you got it right. Good comedy always aims upwards. Women put up with this
shit a lot, so it's not funny.

------
jfarmer
I see this shit all the time, and most men don't even realize they're doing
it. Lots of startups quickly converge to a culture that's little better than a
frat house.

If you think this is much ado about nothing, consider this: the subtle sexist
parts of your company's culture will turn off any qualified woman from working
there.

And we all know how _EASY_ it is to hire in Silicon Valley these days.

I'd also like to add, one of the most positive experiences in my startup life
was working for Brian Sugar and Lisa Sugar at Sugar, Inc.. This was my first
job at a proper startup and as a male I was in the minority.

I joined as #10 or so, and the first non-founding engineer. One third of the
founding team were female. The second engineer we hired was Lydia Wagner.

From #10 to #30 or so I think I was one of only two or three male hires.

The stereotypical Silicon Valley startup is founded by N engineers, probably
male, who graduated from college in the last 5 years.

Put those people in a tiny room for 10-14 hours a day, 6 days a week, for a
year or two and it's kind of inevitable.

But it's also easy to stop if you're self-aware about it, and the founders
make it a priority.

Also, guys (if I may be so bold), this thread is acting as an existence proof
for the point the article is making.

------
boredguy8
This exists in more than just the startup world. I was in a meeting today
where a technology leader said, "Let's have X take the meeting notes, she's a
woman." This person also had her administrative account set to a
pathologically trivializing username.

I think the term "microaggression" gets overused, but the story referenced in
the article says that what's important about the person is her gender,
attractiveness, and marital status. To the point that her "lucky" spouse
deserves special recognition. What?!

~~~
efnx
"Let's have X take the meeting notes, she's a woman." Definitely sounds
sexist. "You are sexy." Does not sound sexist (to me). I think tech guys are
afraid of sex. Now - "You are sexy" could be sexual harassment, I guess that
really depends on tone, expectations, relationships. In general I think humans
(mostly men) are so messed up about sex, I think everyone needs to take a
chill pill.

~~~
nikatwork
Sex, politics and religion do not belong in a professional environment. You
are there to work, save the other stuff for after hours.

~~~
unconed
Oh lol, how north American of you. On the last two i mean.

------
grannyg00se
Is this necessarily sexist? He's not showing any belief in being superior to
women, nor is he discriminating against her in any way. In fact, he
complimented her at length on her professional success.

At one point he described her as a sexy single woman. He even mentioned her
husband and asked for him to stand up. While I would consider that to be a
very odd and uncomfortable way to end his introduction, it doesn't seem
sexist. If somebody went on at length about how great I am professionally, and
then threw in a statement about me being a sexy single man, I'm pretty sure
I'd just consider it as an added complement.

I understand there is real sexism in the industry. I just don't think this is
it. It's just an odd comment from a person who may be odd/uncomfortable around
women.

~~~
marquis
Think of it like this: you are at a professional setting and being introduced
in front of an audience. These points are made about you while you stand by
and the audience watches you:

1\. grannyg00se is a great person to work with 2\. grannyg00se has a keen
understanding and knowledge of the industry 3\. grannyg00se brings a lot to
the table and is a valued member of their team

You stand there and maybe blush a little, proud. Then,

4\. grannyg00se was a really sexy single and just got married and is still
sexy.

How is that relevant to the audience? If you are a guy and everyone in the
audience is a guy, maybe that's some kind of frat behaviour that gets a laugh
out of everyone. But if you are a women on that stage suddenly you are subject
to intense pressure: be good at your job _and_ be sexy because your female and
the being good at your job isn't enough.

It's complex and it's hard to really explain how it feels but I've been in
situations like this. It's just really uncomfortable even when you know it's
not meant in bad faith, that maybe some guy in the audience is objectifying
you and no longer paying attention to what you are contributing outside of
being pretty to look at.

------
phzbOx
Here's the male version:

John’s one of the smartest guy I know, and I thought that he was a perfect
pick for the role of moderator. When we selected John and he said yes, he was
a handsome single man. And since that time, he’s become a handsome 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.

Would someone saying that get to the top of hacker news? I do agree that this
is far from a good introduction thought.

~~~
angusgr
Do you actually think that the appropriate "male version" of sexy is handsome?
Sexy is a non gender-specific adjective.

The male version is this:

 _John’s one of the smartest guy I know, and I thought that he was a perfect
pick for the role of moderator. When we selected John and he said yes, he was
a sexy single man. 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._

... and noone would get up and say this as an introduction. Which is why this
is at the top of Hacker News.

~~~
reitzensteinm
Exactly. I'd be a lot less creeped out if the presenter said 'beautiful'
instead of 'sexy', but it would still be a strange way to do an intro.

------
yason
What the hell?! Someone has really stretched the definition of sexism here or
the alleged problem exists in some alternate universe only.

I took the time and listened the audio recording. What happened is:

\- The guy spends minutes talking about how good and smart Ms Lovell is and
how she suits the role perfectly

\- And in the end makes the short remark about that a sexy single lady who is
now a sexy married woman, obviously to celebrate the recent happy event.

\- He even pointed out how lucky her new husband was instead of, say, drooling
at her sexiness himself.

\- Everybody laughed.

\- Ms Lovell laughed, and made some witty comments before starting with the
real business.

And _then some third party guy gets upset_ because he thinks there's a problem
somewhere. Excuse me but this reeks of steep hypersensitivism.

It might certainly be sexist to say somewhat that would expand to "she's so
smart that we picked her for this role eventhough she's only a woman" or "we
chose her and that is because she was just too sexy to pass". That would be
somehow implying that women are lesser but at least they can look good.

But this was clearly not the case in this event. What happened was a
compliment, both on her recent marriage and related to that, her good looks.

Emphasis on the word "good". It was a compliment: the man stated what he
thought were positive facts about her, and especially not pointed to anything
negative nor exhibited, say, disturbing personal interest in her.

The strange thing is that it's not only that as if women couldn't take
compliments anymore—I think most of them can—but, rather, it seems that some
_men_ can't take it anymore to observe women being complimented. This is just
crazy.

We're all men and women and men do pay attention to good looking women and
women do pay attention to good looking men (at least if only they let
themselves). That is perfectly normal and there's generally nothing wrong in
making a compliment about one's good looks. While there are subtle but complex
rules about social interaction, flirting, including making comments about good
looks or of even sexual nature, most of all that used to be the norm, and
generally well received and lavishly given, without the slightest hint of
sexist nature.

~~~
rmc
Something can be both a compliment and sexist. Especially if it's a compliment
that has a lot of baggage and assumptions.

There is a history women only being viewed as good for marriage and babies. It
used to be seen as unusual & unnatural for a woman to not want babies and
marriage. It was seen as weird for a woman to want to focus on carrer rather
than marriage. Also they were viewed as "nice to look at, but unable to do any
real work". Things have gotten a lot better, but there are still bits of this
attitude around.

If you compliment a woman based on (a) getting married and (b) physical
attractiveness, you are slightly re-inforcing that meme. You are also
signaling that you might be the sort of person who thinks the above, or that
you support the above attitudes.

------
spking
I'll be the first to admit that before I had my daughter, this type of stuff
never really bothered me (shame on me). Now that I have a little girl, I'm
much more sensitive to it and really, really don't want her to grow up in a
world where she gets introduced to a professional audience as "sexy".

~~~
egillie
As an early 20's woman in software engineering I've actually noticed
differences in how older men with daughters treat me vs. my new-grad peers,
and I prefer working with the former.

~~~
jgw
Interesting, but we have 2 variables here. How do older men with only sons,
and older childless men stack up? To what do you attribute the difference -
maturity, or having a daughter?

~~~
egillie
Actually, it seems to be both age and having a daughter, compounded. Older men
seem generally more agreeable/less-fratboy, but men with daughters seem to be
actively conscious of the environment and actively try to be respectful, even
if it's counter to the culture.

Of course, this is all just anecdotal, and my sample size is still small right
now.

------
ekanes
Argh. This continues to happen. Was in a boardroom meeting with a company
recently with my female cofounder, and she was all but ignored by the CEO
(others were fine). On the surface, nothing will come of it. In actual fact
though, the behavior spoke volumes about what kind of environment they offer
in terms of a deeper integration/commitment, and who knows what opportunities
were lost for them (and, in theory, for us).

------
jballanc
How about this: Cut the unprofessional crap!

The programming world is so used to breaking the norms, revolutionizing
industries, and wearing T-shirts and sneakers to work that we forget,
sometimes, that some aspects of "professionalism" actually do serve a purpose.
There's a reason that senators don't call each other by name (hint: how
vitriolic can you sound when yelling "I respectfully disagree with the senator
from Kentucky"). Respect is a currency in the world of intellectual pursuits.
At one time, we showed that respect in the way we dressed. At the very least,
shouldn't we show that respect in the way we speak? You might be surprised how
far a little respect can go.

------
larrys
"And if you see someone doing this, call them on it. I didn’t… that was my
nervous laughter in the background of the recording."

"Here’s what the man introducing Rebecca chose to say"

So, who is this "man"?

Easy to say but hard to do depending on your relationship to the "someone".

Let's say the person doing this is of the stature of PG and you are looking to
get into YC.

Is it safe to stand up to him?

Sure that might get you points for taking a stand, he might actually like
that.

Or maybe not. It's double or nothing.

It's easy to take a stand when the person being sexist is of no significance
to you. Much harder if you have something to loose.

This is why things like this happen many times. And important to keep in mind.
Power.

~~~
jfarmer
Nice!

Yes, when other people in this thread -- and let's be honest, men -- play the
thought experiment where the roles are reverse and it's the wife sitting in
the audience, they don't see what's so offensive. "I wouldn't be offended!"
they think.

They see a formal symmetry in the situation, but miss the fact that there's a
huge asymmetry when it comes to power and gender.

------
littlegiantcap
Being sexist, racist, or anything else really distracts from the mission of
the startup.

That being said we take the same approach that south park does. Everything is
on the table or nothing is on the table. Everyone in my group constantly rags
on each other for everything including some off color jokes. However we've
been friends for years, and when we work with other people we cut that stuff
out immediately. The comments he made were fairly demeaning, and I guess a
strong lesson here is know your audience or if you can't figure that out then
don't do it at all.

To clarify I judge a person based on their ability and how they treat others.
It's really the only way to go about things.

~~~
rmc
That's a good point, but it's important to remember that a lot of insults can
carry baggage. Especially if you're a straight, white, cisgendered,
upper/middle class male. (or whatever the formerly priviliged group in your
area). So you might think "Oh I insulted Joe about his looks and Wendy about
her looks, so it's all equal", but Joe might have never been judged as much on
his looks as Wendy, so one joke might sting more.

I suppose it's like all jokes. You have to make sure not to say something too
cutting to the audience.

------
SarahKay
I'm a girl in tech, and I think nothing in that introduction is offensive.

I feel that there are five points here that need addressing.

1\. Women rarely become attractive by doing nothing. We have to work at it.
You have to take care of yourself, go to the gym, eat right, choose
appropriate clothing, and etc. I have never laid eyes on Rebecca Lovell, but
if she's attractive then I think it is a safe assumption that she is _trying_
to be attractive. If I were Rebecca, I would be pleased that my efforts had
been noted and approved of.

2\. If the fellow who introduced Rebecca had implied that her attractiveness
was her _only_ useful quality, I would be more sympathetic to Dan's complaint.
But the introduction didn't do that. In fact, he led off by saying how smart
Rebecca was, and then he went on to describe her as "perfect" (for the
position) and "talented." At no point did he imply that Rebecca was chosen for
her looks or that her looks were her claim to fame. On the contrary, his
introduction seems genuinely kind, respectful, and affectionate.

3\. Even if this introduction _had_ been offensive -- if the introducer had
said "Rebecca is hot and stupid and we will enjoy looking at her while she
moderates" -- is it really that big a deal? Men insult each other all the time
in similar contexts, and it's very rare that they get criticized for it as
when women are insulted. If we women are worth a damn, surely our egos should
be sturdy enough to handle this sort of thing like adults.

4\. I have often heard men say "No wonder there aren't more women in tech;
they get treated like sex objects!" It should be news to no one that men like
sex -- least of all to women. People in all industries and with all interests
are insulted all the time. Can it really be true that womens' interest in tech
is so fragile and tenuous that vague insults and sexual innuendo are enough to
discourage them from it entirely? I don't believe that, and I'd further
venture to say that women who _do_ say that are just making excuses because
they're interested in something else. I got my CS degree from Georgia Tech,
and in the College of Computing men outnumbered women 9 to 1. I was often the
only girl in my classes, and sometimes I was exposed to immature male freshmen
being immature male freshmen. This wasn't a trial for me; it wasn't difficult.
I wasn't alienated. It sounds crazy to even _consider_ that references to
breasts or sex (gasp!) would make me leave my chosen field of study. Who cares
if I know that someone wants to have sex with me?

5\. Dan Shapiro is clearly trying to do right by women and be a good man, and
I respect and appreciate that. But I think he is selling Rebecca (and all
women) short by suggesting that that introduction should hurt her feelings.

~~~
cgoddard
It doesn't matter if you took personal offense or not, or even if Rebecca took
offense. And i don't think anyone's personally attacking the guy that gave the
introduction, because chances are extremely slim he meant to make any
objectifying remarks.

But it's something that deserves to be called attention to. It makes some
people uncomfortable, maybe not everyone, and does not belong in a
professional setting.

Lets say instead the speaker was overweight, and now the person giving the
intro, after plenty of appropriate compliments, makes a diet joke, or comments
on their weight even in a non-judgmental respect. It is belittling and
inappropriate. Commenting on people's physical appearance in a professional
setting, not a casual social setting, is objectifying and inappropriate,
regardless of if that person is good-natured enough to just laugh it off or
not.

------
icarus127
A lot of the comments here compare this to saying a man is sexy and conclude
"it sounds a little weird, it's out of place in a professional setting."

This completely misses the point that in our culture women are frequently
(practically _always_) objectified sexually in some way. There's a gulf
between what it means to call a man sexy and what it means to call a woman
sexy.

I think this is what men so often completely miss. The male equivalent of this
is not "John’s one of the smartest guy I know, and I thought that he was a
perfect pick for the role of moderator. When we selected John and he said yes,
he was a handsome single man. And since that time, he’s become a handsome
married man, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up"

it's something closer to: John’s one of the smartest guy I know, and I thought
that he was a perfect pick for the role of moderator. When we selected John
and he said yes, he's a single man with just has a gigantic penis. And since
that time, he’s become a married man with a gigantic penis, and so I wanted
his lucky new spouse, who gets all that in bed, to stand up"

It's not 'out of place' it's appalling that something like this is acceptable
_anywhere_.

------
DanBC
It's staggering that in 2012 we still have to remind people about this.

------
jrockway
I look at remarks like this as a result of not practicing in advance. As
programmer types, we don't typically get up in front of people and make
personable comments. If we are up in front of people, it's discussing
something technical, which is something we are qualified to talk about. But
introducing panel moderators -- when have you ever done that before? All you
have to go on is cliches you've picked up from TV or movies, and you saying
something that sounded funny when a comedian said it might not sound as funny.
You don't know until you try. You don't know until you practice.

(Personally, I think the best way to navigate uncharted waters like this is to
stick to the facts. "Here's our panelist, she has a PhD from Harvard and likes
skiing." I'm not going to get any laughs or win any awards for that sentence,
but I'm also not going to make anyone feel bad. And that's more important to
me.

------
Proleps
I guess part of the problem is how women are presented in the tech industry.
Whenever you see women on a tech event they tend to be booth babes, or they
have been send to the event to attract men.

I was at a career event last week. None of the women representing a company
could give a clear story of what the company does from day to day. They where
just there to be pretty.

If we want to stop sexism we have to stop this, but i don't think this will
happen any time soon.

------
Karunamon
So someone explain this to me.. how is this "sexist"? That to me takes on an
air of discrimination. I didn't see any undertones, nor would those (assumed
by the author) undertones exist if the gender roles were reversed.

This "controversy" seems like a lot of bunkola, to me.

~~~
rmc
Something can be both a compliment and sexist. Especially if it's a compliment
that has a lot of baggage and assumptions.

There is a history women only being viewed as good for marriage and babies. It
used to be seen as unusual & unnatural for a woman to not want babies and
marriage. It was seen as weird for a woman to want to focus on carrer rather
than marriage. Also they were viewed as "nice to look at, but unable to do any
real work". Things have gotten a lot better, but there are still bits of this
attitude around.

If you compliment a woman based on (a) getting married and (b) physical
attractiveness, you are slightly re-inforcing that meme. You are also
signaling that you might be the sort of person who thinks the above, or that
you support the above attitudes.

After all, would you compliment a Jewish speaker about how much money they
had? Or compliment an older man about how they haven't needed to go to the
toilet in a while?

~~~
Karunamon
>If you compliment a woman based on (a) getting married and (b) physical
attractiveness, you are slightly re-inforcing that meme. You are also
signaling that you might be the sort of person who thinks the above, or that
you support the above attitudes.

What utter rubbish. So getting married isn't something compliment worthy? A
compliment based on physical attractiveness is always sexist?

Absurd.

~~~
AlexandrB
> What utter rubbish. So getting married isn't something compliment worthy? A
> compliment based on physical attractiveness is always sexist?

Nice strawmen.

In this context, the personal life of the person being introduced and their
physical attractiveness has nothing to do with why they are here. At best it's
completely off-topic.

Consider if it was a male presented being introduced with: "...he was an
alcoholic when I met him, but now he's been 3 years sober". Completely
irrelevant personal details that undermine the credibility of the person for
at least some of the audience (not to mention making the person feel awkward).

~~~
Karunamon
>In this context, the personal life of the person being introduced and their
physical attractiveness has nothing to do with why they are here. At best it's
completely off-topic.

It's a bloody startup presentation, not a congressional hearing. Making a nod
at the person's personal life, on a subject that's typically cause for
celebration (are you going to tell me "Congratulations on your new
son/daughter" is sexist and eebil now) is somehow uncalled for?

>Consider if it was a male presented being introduced with: "...he was an
alcoholic when I met him, but now he's been 3 years sober"

That's a really crappy example. The things we're talking about here are
ostensibly positive.

------
efnx
I would be very complimented if an introducer said these things about me,
replacing 'woman' with 'man'. Maybe I'm sexist - I think (those who are upset)
are a little too uptight. It feels like (they) would like to take sexuality
out of the workplace entirely.

~~~
thtrombonist
My go-to response to this is actually a comic, which says things better than I
could: [http://ms-marx.blogspot.com/2010/09/street-harassment-
comic....](http://ms-marx.blogspot.com/2010/09/street-harassment-comic.html)

If being called out on my looks was an exceptional thing, it would be less
annoying. Heck, I was harassed on my way into this Mountain View coffee shop
just now. I just want to study data mining...

~~~
efnx
That comic (and accompanying article) make a good point. It's easy to see how
annoying (or scary) that would be. Though I would say the men depicted are
total douche bags. I won't defend them. I will defend the guy who likes to say
hi to you in the cafe every morning, or the co-worker who buys you snacks when
you work late, etc.

------
kafkaesque
I apologize for this (my) post because it adds no real value to this topic.
But I just have to say, as a male, I am disgusted when guys talk like this in
a professional environment.

I do not know anything about the person who said it or the companies involved,
but I associate this kind of talk to a particular type of person, which may or
may not be an accurate portrayal of "guys who talk like this", and I guess it
is this very archetypal man that rubs me the wrong way. Here I am no longer
talking about the person who said this sexist comment, but the image of a guy
in my own head: a yuppie, clean-cut, trendy, smooth-talker, that thinks (and
certainly can be) cutting edge in the IT or business sector, that also thinks
he's got it all figured out and knows exactly what each person (not just
women) is worth. He's got us all "figured out", but is really just full of
himself. I've met a couple, and again, I'm not saying this person is that
type, but having gathered extremely little information on him, he reminded me
of this "theoretical" person, and I just have no tolerance for these "slick"
smooth-talking men.

If my post is inappropriate because you deem it to be an overreaction, please
delete it or advise me to, and I will follow through. I just feel very
strongly about this.

I can write a whole essay on how calling anybody "sexy" sends the wrong
message. Good on him for going for the un-PC, hip talk, but it absolutely
fuels the image of what our society deems to be a standard/pre-defined sense
of beauty or a definitive definition of "success". And the problem is that
many people point out what "sexy" is to the point that we start seeing a
pattern and assume "Oh, this is what sexy is", or "Oh, this is what beauty
is". It takes all types to make the world go 'round.

And just to add a point that is not contentious: Calling anybody sexy in a
business environment is disrespectful, regardless of gender, or how in-
tune/hip with the kids you may feel you are. I feel women in power tend to
downplay it or act like they don't mind for the very reason that they may be
blamed for falling into the "typical sensitive, overreacting" woman role. It's
like they can't escape it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. A catch-22.
So might as well make the best of it and put on a smile. (Or talk about it
privately with your bestfriends.)

I'm new here, so if this rant is inappropriate, please let me know and I'll
remove it or edit it, instead of getting a flood of down-votes.

------
j45
Taking the focus away from intellectual and professional capacity with
something else is just that, indirectly downplaying and trivializing the
person.

The interesting thing is many guys probably wouldn't say something like this
about a close female they knew themselves, be it their own wives, girlfriends,
sisters.

Nor would we want anyone speaking like that about our wives, girlfriends, or
sisters.

0.02

------
pbhjpbhj
Typical men, all sexists ...

Shouldn't the title be "startup people" if we're "cut[ting] the sexist crap" -
unless of course it's a documented fact that no female involved in a startup
has ever made a sexist comment.

~~~
rmc
The majority of sexism is suffered by women at the hands of men.

There's no point in arguing false dichotomies where everyone agrees or not.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Yes but condemning sexism in a subgroup chosen only by sex is itself sexist,
and rather ironic.

------
snth
Regardless of the merits of this blog post, we seem to have to discuss this at
least once a week on Hacker News. At this point I'd classify it as a "classic
flamewar topic". Flagged.

------
drunkenmasta
Way too many conflicting messages in this American culture of ours. I can
understand the frustration felt by those who feel that their qualities are not
recognized because of one reason or another, but honestly, I don't think it
was the speaker's INTENT to sexualize the woman. It is an important topic but
poor guy!! Why not focus on more subtle messages like the fact that CNN or
your local news hires women to be on camera that do not look like the average
woman you may see on the street?

~~~
ben0x539
Why not do both instead of trying to distract?

------
jtchang
How to do introductions 101:

1\. Say something about why the person is here. Speak to their credentials and
establish credibility. 2\. Know your audience. Let them know why the person
being introduced is important to them. 3\. It's okay to make a small personal
comment. It establishes rapport.

If the entire intro is #3 you've screwed up. This intro was clearly out of
line. My guess is that the moderator didn't even realize it which is twice as
bad.

~~~
burgerbrain
If you look at the whole introduction instead of merely the snippet presented,
it appears as though the introducer followed your guidelines.

------
j_baker
I think he chose a pretty bad example to lead in with. Yeah, the comment to
Lovell lacked taste, but it was hardly the worst thing that could have been
said.

That said, there was a good point here:

 _Think before you open your mouth._

Couldn't agree more. Far too many faux pas (including some that I've made)
could be avoided just by thinking about what you're about to say before you
say it.

~~~
saalweachter
Reversing the genders in the introduction yields, "Robert's one of the
smartest men[1] I know, and I thought that he was a perfect pick for the role
of moderator. When we selected Robert and he said yes, he was a sexy single
man. 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.", which is only slightly weird.

Removing the obvious weird part -- "sexy" -- yields, "... When we selected
Robert and he said yes, he was a single man. And since that time, he’s become
a married man, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up ...", which
isn't weird anymore, but somewhat of an awkward construction; you don't say
"he has become a married man" in normal conversation.

If I had to rephrase that less awkwardly, I'd go with "... since we selected
Robert and he said yes, he's gone and got himself married, and so I wanted his
lucky new spouse to stand up ...". Maybe throw in the classic, "Let's have a
round of applause for the happy couple."

Putting this all back together:

"Rebecca’s one of the smartest ladies I know, and I thought that she was a
perfect pick for the role of moderator. Since we selected Rebecca and she said
yes, she's gone and got herself married, and so I wanted her lucky new spouse
to stand up. (Let's have a round of applause for the happy couple.) So we’ve
got not only a very talented, but a happy moderator."

[1] "ladies" might be slightly off in this context, but I think it's less
egregious than twisting a marriage announcement into an opportunity to call a
woman sexy twice.

~~~
esrauch
I really don't see how this is such a big issue, it's slightly out of place to
call someone sexy, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is partially
just a matter of gender associated terms. Imagine this:

> "Robert's one of the smartest men[1] I know, and I thought that he was a
> perfect pick for the role of moderator. When we selected Robert and he said
> yes, he was a handsome single man. And since that time, he’s become a
> handsome 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."

That doesn't seem even remotely odd or out of place to me (perhaps it would be
as the entirety of an introduction, but that isn't the case here). So yes, he
maybe should have said "beautiful" instead of "sexy", but if people think this
is an example of how the tech community is sexist then they are seriously
deluding themselves with how non-sexist it really is.

~~~
scott_s
If I was introduced as a "handsome single man," I would find it very, very
strange. To the point that before I said anything, I would just look at the
person introducing me with a bewildered look for a few seconds before
speaking. So, yes, I find it quite out of place.

~~~
enjo
Isn't the implication here that these folks know each other?

~~~
scott_s
Also not relevant. In a professional setting, I don't care if you're
introducing your spouse, calling the person "sexy" is not appropriate.

------
HedgeMage
Somebody was (reportedly) rude. This is only news when the person being rude
is male and the person on the receiving end is female. THEN it's proof of how
horrible men are.

Kind of like the reverse of: <http://xkcd.com/385>

~~~
seldo
It's really funny that you would pick an XKCD that is about how sexism works
as part of your argument that it wasn't sexism, merely rudeness.

The whole point is that a man being rude about another man in this particular
way -- by superfluously mentioning his attractiveness -- is exceedingly rare,
while for women it is all too common. One would be an aberration, the other is
pattern, and the pattern is why it's at the top of HN.

~~~
HedgeMage
"it wasn't sexism, merely rudeness"

ugh. Sexism is an attitude, the rude introduction was the action. Who cares
_why_ it was rude? It shouldn't be more offensive because you can (correctly
or not) ascribe a motive to it that you find distasteful.

Trying to decry this sort of thing and speak up in "defense of women" or any
of that garbage infantilizes women and perpetuates a much more serious problem
than men noticing how we look.

------
joedev
Terrible introduction. Gives insight into how that man's brain works around
women, causing him to trip over his tongue and mention what he saw - "sexy" -
vs. what qualifications she had for moderating.

------
throwaway488
low cut shirts, mini-skirts, hose, lipstick, eye-liner, perfume...

seems like being sexy matters a lot to women. you just better not acknowledge
it out loud.

------
drats
I agree, but I flagged for the headline.

------
xentronium
I am not sure I understood this post correctly: is it the phrase " _a sexy
married woman_ " that is a crime against humanity?

~~~
merian
Um, no. The "crimes against humanity" thread is over ----> there. This one is
about how smart and otherwise insightful men thoughtlessly contribute to the
sexist atmosphere that is pervasive in the tech world, as any technical woman
can attest to.

------
gaius
Flagged; flamebait.

~~~
ben0x539
You'll be amazed to find out that the flag button works just as well (maybe
even better?) without an accompanying post to that effect!

~~~
gaius
Just making the point that arguing with this kind of article is pointless.

------
drivebyacct2
I'm disgusted at the amount of sexist crap everywhere and I'm horrified when I
see it here on HN and am still surprised at its persistence on reddit (ie the
trainwreck #1 post this morning). It's been a while but here on HN there was a
series of posts and discussion about women's pay and negotiations that left a
bad taste in my mouth from the dripping sense of entitlement and ignorance
that resulted from posters arrogantly asserting that "women should just ask
for more", revealing their ignorance of the complications of sexism in various
tech industries.

Sadly this reaction is typical when confronting a majority about their taking
advantage of minority groups. "It's just a joke". (Hint, this response has
already been offered up more than once _in this thread_ ). It doesn't affect
males and it's a male dominated industry, thus the issue has low visibility
and personal impact to those who are causing the problem or have the influence
to fix it. This all compounds to make this issue hard to solve unless people
are willing to vocally confront these incidents _as they happen_ , _when they
happen_ , and take responsibility for treating people with respect and
equality.

~~~
srl
> posters arrogantly asserting that "women should just ask for more"

I believe I remember the posts to which you're referring, which centered IIRC
around posts of "what you as a woman can do to improve your salary", by at
least one feminist and one recruiter. The thesis of both posts - and many of
the comments - was that a heavy contributing factor to the lower average
salary for women, at least in "higher" professions (C.S., engineering in
general), was that the system was biased towards giving higher salaries to
those who were bolder and greedier, traits which women seemed less likely to
display at the negotiating table. I suppose one could argue that emphasizing
the "what women could do" rather than "fix the damn system" aspect was sexist,
but it's a stretch, especially given the authors.

Re: jokes. Whenever someone complains about a joke, or about an aspect of
language, I always feel like we're attacking the tip of the iceberg in a way
that won't really affect the rest of the problem at all. I'd rather people
spent their time dealing with the roots of these sorts of problems than
arguing over words and jokes.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Not to attack, but you're missing the point too. Saying someone "could do X,
Y" especially where X, Y are "bolder" and "greedier" has very different
implications for a woman than a man. And the resulting discussion revealed
just that. Both anecdotes and studies were posted that revealed that not only
were those tactics NOT very successful for women's advancement in the
workplace, but that it actually caused resentment towards them as male
collegaues took that behavior to, well, were it normally goes. Look at most
bold women and the jokes that people make about them being "bitches" or "cold"
or what not. It's undermining and it's why women are often conditioned to NOT
be bold and ask for more, etc. (Why don't people ever ask, how did we get to
this level of inequality and disrespect in the first place?)

As for the jokes, I agree. As I commented elsewhere, it takes a sexist culture
to excuse and allow sexist jokes. I think that being less tolerant of such
jokes is a good first step towards reforming the broken aspects of such a
culture though.

~~~
enjo
Do you have a link to said discussion?

 _Look at most bold women and the jokes that people make about them being
"bitches" or "cold" or what not._

I would respond "bold" men are often called "predators" and "douchebags" by
the very same people. I find that there are always people who dislike those
who put their necks out, no matter their sex.

~~~
pyre
I'd say that there are fewer women that are both bold and well-liked than men.
Admittedly this is just my opinion, and I don't have any numbers to back it
up.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The relevant question, however, is whether (# well liked && bold) / (# bold)
is larger for men than for women. You may observe very few bold and well liked
women merely because # bold women is low.

------
shpoonj
If someone called me a sexy single man, I would be flattered.

I don't see a problem.

------
iDisapprove
Really? Women do not start or get involved with tech companies because the
male programmers make sexist jokes?! Get real. Women are just as competitive
as men, and the reason they stay out of tech has not much to do with sexism. I
am all for women and men being equal, but putting men on the burning stake for
something like this seems unfair to me.

~~~
icebraining
_Really? Women do not start or get involved with tech companies because the
male programmers make sexist jokes?! Get real._

This wasn't a sexist joke. This was a sign of a sexist culture, which is much
more pervasive and damaging.

 _Women are just as competitive as men_

Men don't have to take this crap. Well, usually.

 _he reason they stay out of tech has not much to do with sexism_

So, what is it?

~~~
iDisapprove
Lack of role models. Thats probably the biggest reason there are not enough
women in technology.

Also, your mention of sexist culture makes it sound like that's the culture in
technology startups, this is not true. Sexism, where it exists, does not
depend on the domain. Its pervasive.

~~~
kbatten
I wonder how much role models actually play a role. I got into programming
because I loved programming, it was something I could do at home with minimal
ramp up time or gear.

~~~
iDisapprove
There is a lack of role models because there is a perception among the younger
generation of women that programming is not a creative endeavor, which makes a
lot of women away from learning programming. The society's portrayal of
programmers as geeks or beta males does not help either. People are the sum
total of the 5-10 people they closely associate with, and most girls do not
find their friends wanting to be programmers when they grow up. Peer support,
role models, are key. When women like Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook start
showing up on TV and the idea of successful women in technology is portrayed
to be appealing, you will slowly find women taking more to technology jobs.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Programming is also a solitary endeavor so close to impossible that it seems
to require obsession just to reach a minimal level of competence. If anyone is
dependent on peer validation and role models (which basically didn't exist for
any of us until the first dotcom bubble in the mid-90s), if they care more
about _what other people think_ than the Platonic ideals of computation, I
don't think they're equipped to thrive and do noteworthy work. Even if we did
have some way to make a kid more asocial and hyperfocused while growing up,
we'd have to think hard about whether it's ethical to do it to them in this
extrovert-oriented society.

~~~
AlexandrB
Honestly, there's no easy way to tell if programming is solitary because it
has to be or because the culture that grew up around it prefers it to be.
Consider pair-programming for a counter-example.

