
'Titstare' app at TechCrunch: women in tech deserve better - chris_wot
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/09/titstare-app-women-tech-sexism
======
gregd
When you gear an entire industry to the immaturity of male youth, what do you
expect?

I'm a 46 year old male with almost 20 years of various IT experience (systems
administration to .net coding to sql server) and the terms rockstar, ninja,
brogrammer don't apply, nor appeal to me. I would argue that the entire IT
industry is to blame for this bullshit.

Stop, just for a moment, to think about the culture you're manifesting in the
words you use to describe your workforce. Rockstar? Really? Because most
"rockstars" wash up, burn out, fade away or simply die and the fall is as
quick as the rise.

~~~
pstack
//"rockstars" wash up, burn out, fade away or simply die and the fall is as
quick as the rise."//

So exactly as most of us have come to know the industry over the last two
decades. :/

------
jballanc
The Hacker Community's greatest flaw -- a total disregard for predecessors --
may also be its saving grace.

On one hand, we guffaw at those "old timers" who worked in assembler, Fortran,
C, or even Perl. "They could never have even imagined what they were missing,"
we might think to ourselves as we re-discover continuation-passing style while
coding our latest, greatest node.js-based file server.

On the other hand, I think there's a good chance that Alexandra, and the rest
of the next generation of programmers, will one day think that "rockstars",
"ninjas", and "brogrammers" are as ridiculous and outdated as talking sock-
puppets or anthropomorphic paperclips.

------
ealexhudson
Disappointing to see apologists for their behavior here. At least they have
apologised:

[http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/08/an-apology-from-
techcrunch/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/08/an-apology-from-techcrunch/)

------
chris_wot
I am absolutely amazed that these got anywhere near the stage. I'd always
considered TechCruch to be about tech, not sexism.

Frankly, to the two arseholes from Sydney: you're not a larrikin pair. You're
two arseholes. No love, a Sydneysider.

~~~
nichodges
As an Australian, I was disappointed to see the team attempt to use "Aussie
humour" as a shield. What would have been more Australian would be to harden
up and apologise.

------
liedra
As a woman in tech, I'd like to thank the men in this thread who obviously get
what the problem is here. This sort of stuff can only change with a concerted
effort from both men and women to change the culture. And it's small steps
like standing up to sexist jerks and calling out people who engage in
activities like this that will get us closer to our destination.

~~~
vinceguidry
Really, men in tech need to stop thinking that they're somehow not part of the
problem and are therefore free to make jokes about it.

You become part of the problem when you do stuff like this.

You don't see white people going around using the word "nigga" lightly, why
should it be OK for this sort of joke to be made at a tech conference? It's
not OK. It may never be OK. So just stop doing it. You're not Louis CK, you
didn't make a career of comedy. Don't think you can tread the line of these
social issues and not have it blow up in your face.

~~~
xobitz
> You don't see white people going around using the word "nigga" lightly, why
> should it be OK for this sort of joke to be made at a tech conference?

Because people who think these are the same thing are delusional.

------
chris_wot
I also want to point out the amazing app to schedule in kids play dates, made
by Alex Jordan who is 9!

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6352061](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6352061)

------
pcerioli
I am also a woman in tech, and I have been writing code for a living in the
last 15-20 years. I didn't find titstare presentation offensive or demeaning.
In fact I laughed quite a bit when they presented it. Even if women are not
included in the brogrammers club, I don't find much discrimination in the work
environment either. If you are great at what you do, you have the same chance
as anybody else. My 2 cents.

------
cliveowen
I'm tired of seeing everything linked to sexism in tech. Moreover, sexism
isn't a female only problem: try (as a male) to get a job in a kindergartn or
a nursery school.

~~~
sambeau
Feminism is about the equality of _opportunity_ and _power_.

You cannot create a picture of equal sexism by demonstrating a low-power, low-
economic status, low opportunity-of-career-advancement role (that has
traditionally been a female-only occupation due in-part to traditional gender-
specific roles around child-rearing) where men who choose to enter it are
viewed with scepticism. Especially if that role includes close, private
contact with young children.

Feminists like me want an equal share of the good jobs for women throughout
all strata of all industries. Men will undoubtably have to take up some of the
low-paid shit jobs to compensate—but that is equality.

Sexism _is_ a female only problem and will continue to be as long as men hold
most of the _power_ and are afforded most of the best _opportunities_.

~~~
cliveowen
Do you realize that preventing someone from getting a job because "has
traditionally been a female-only occupation due in-part to traditional gender-
specific roles around child-rearing" and that "men who choose to enter it are
viewed with scepticism" is the very definition of sexism?

Sexism isn't about the industry or about career advancement is about
discrimination against a gender for a given category of jobs.

~~~
sambeau
Show me proof of prevention.

You are confusing cause and effect.

You are concentrating on a tiny percentage of evidence in the counter
direction hugely outbalanced by the weight of evidence in the main direction.

Sexism is a huge problem for women and a tiny problem for men. So small, in
fact, it statistically it does not exist.

Look at the balance of the scales not the tiny fleck on one side.

Sexism is about balance not uniformity. It is about power and opportunity. Not
everything has to be equal for us to eradicate it.

As long as the problem is stacked against women we should be concentrating on
sexism against women.

------
jnardiello
Frankly, TitStare was quite funny. In despite of being tits-related, i can't
see how a woman could find it offensive (maybe because she has tits too? i
can't see the correlation).

It's more about lonely developers staring at tits.

It's funny to see how the tech industry is passing thru its "feminist" age and
just can't understand that THERE ARE differences between men and women, which
doesn't mean anyhow that one is better than the other. They are just
different. Liking tits is completely normal for a man, joking on it is too.
Sexism is something different, a much bigger and subtle problem, against which
(too often) women themselves do not react.

~~~
lifebeyondfife
You need to learn that what is considered (possibly socially) acceptable
behaviour amongst your friends, is not necessarily acceptable in the
workplace.

If you want a definition of the workplace, it includes hacker meetups, youtube
videos, presentations etc. where people of all social groups come together to
discuss or create code. I have a very twisted sense of humour that many would
find offensive. At work though I keep that side of myself under wraps, not out
of a sense of fear but of respect.

The bottom line is this: by collectively changing our behaviour to be less
offensive (from the point of view of gender, sexuality, race, religion etc.)
then people from those groups feel more safe and secure in that environment.
If women truly felt comfortable to enter into the currently male dominated
tech industry we get a bigger talent pool to choose from - the competition and
skillset increases. Now re-read that sentence substituting 'women' and 'male
dominated' with any minority/majority pairing and we start to see how much
bigger we can make the number of available programmers.

It may seem dull to have a workplace that's so sterile and inoffensively
humourless, but it's work, not a bar.

~~~
brodo
I don't want to spend 8 hours a day in a sterile humorless environment where
everyone is scared to say something wrong on the off chance that someone might
get offended. Moreover the old work/free time duality is dying. People work
form home and do non-work stuff at work.

~~~
lifebeyondfife
I totally understand this (and jnardiello and pstack's points too). As a
counterpoint, I also know of at least one female dev who would think nothing
of discussing an app like the one above and joining in the laughs.

I suppose the problem is, do we need to vet everyone for sharing the same
humour and standards of acceptability as us? If we're joining the same
football team or going to a comedy club and some beers, I wouldn't
particularly enjoy hanging out with someone as dull/safe as I am at work. But
is it ok to say to a woman, "We'd love to welcome you onboard so long as you
don't mind the dick jokes constantly flying around the office."? (Whether
explicitly or implicitly, I don't think it is ok).

If we really want to solve the clique-problem in tech, we need to either
change the boundaries of acceptable humour and behaviour. No-one _wants_ to
spend 8 hours a day in a "sterile humorless environment". I know I had the
most fun coding in my early 20s in an office where 90% of us were just out of
university and male.

There are going to be more tradeoffs towards inclusiveness as we go forward.
Even it reduces the fun sometimes, I think it's the right thing to do.

------
Argorak
This is actually a good example why you should have a code of conduct as a
conference. Bad things on stage happen. As an organizer, you can now write an
apology that sounds like the one techcrunch wrote:

[http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/08/an-apology-from-
techcrunch/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/08/an-apology-from-techcrunch/)

Or, if you had a CoC, it could sound like this:

* "Sorry, we had people on stage that violated the rules we agreed upon beforehand. <list of rules from CoC> They were expelled from the conference immediately."

~~~
pstack
And that would actually seem to be a really reasonable progression for this
whole thing. The presenters say "we made an unfortunate judgement call and we
apologize" and the conference says "so from now on, here's our short list of
rules to avoid uncertainties in the future" and then we all grow up and move
on with our lives.

Unfortunately the tech industry seems to be enamoured with not merely being
offended, but being offended by the potential that they could have been
offended. So we'll circle the drain with everyone beating the drum in support
of their own personal agendas for awhile more before this is over.

By that time, someone else will have done something dumb and we'll be ready to
have another go.

------
zamalek
The presenters should not get a response such as "the audience laughed at the
numerous tit-related puns." or "The audience found it hilarious." Instead they
should have instead met deadly silence, not booing, nothing. Don't feed the
troll.

Yes, they had inappropriate ideas, yes, they should not have been let near the
stage - but why did _we_ give them the response they were after?

Respecting women doesn't start with pointing fingers at other people, it
starts with the individual doing so.

------
sambeau
This highlights major problems our community suffers while the comments here
clearly demonstrate a few more. It's all very disappointing. We are not doing
ourselves any favours here.

1\. Many male developers assume that they are in an all-male environment and
behave as if they are. Sniggering schoolboy humour, edgy jokes, sexual jokes
are a part of young male pack behaviour that is relatively harmless in all-
male environments. In mixed environments they are not only inappropriate but
they send the signal to other people that this is a young, male environment.
Only.

To be inclusive we need to drop the male pack mentality. It is right to call
out this behaviour, especially in public environments: conferences, keynotes,
hacker sessions. It is also right to call-out all-male speaker-panels for the
same reason.

2\. Something 'sexy' is not automatically 'sexist' — it all depends where the
power is. A tits-tracking app is (apart from being male-pack humour) an
example of those with the power in the room making fun at the expense of those
less powerful in the room. It is also 'objectification' — the reinforcement of
a women's place as being an object to look at or to have sex with, rather than
being an intellectual equal. The women in the room are expected to laugh it
off or be subject to more ridicule: "it's just a bit of fun" — This is classic
bullying behaviour. As long as these rooms are mostly full of men, women will
be powerless to do anything about it. It's no surprise that the fight-back
starts only once these incidents hit the internet: our community is bullying
women.

3\. A group of women ironically creating a pack-track app that tracks penises
wouldn't automatically be sexist. It would almost certainly be funny and
ironic for two reasons: 1) the balance of power is against the women 2) they
would be shining a light onto male-pack behaviour. Men, still holding the
balance of power here, should be able to laugh such a thing off. Sadly many of
you here wouldn't.

4\. Commentators here have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Feminism and
Sexism is. They are confusing _equality_ with _uniformity_.

Feminism is a civil rights movement. It is about equality of _power_ and
_opportunity_ for women. Much like anti-racism it isn't about people making
jokes about each other: it is about segregated jobs, inequality of
opportunity, economic discrimination.

Seeking equality is not the same as seeking uniformity. Just because you can
find an example where women have more jobs in a sector doesn't mean that it
_is_ sexism against men. It is often the opposite: low-paid caring jobs around
cleaning and child-rearing. The low-pay & low-power is the result of years of
sexism, as is the usual case where men who get into these roles quickly rise
through the ranks and far more likely to become bosses (despite their under-
representation). Some women protect these environments as all-women precisely
to give them a chance at promotion. While I don't condone this behaviour I can
at least understand it.

Equality is the big picture; the balance of the scales. Men still hold the top
jobs, the powerful jobs: Judges, Police Chiefs, Prime Ministers, Presidents,
Board Members. Equality of opportunity is the ability to rise through the
ranks based on ability not sex.

5\. Most sexism is silent. We do it without knowing we are doing it. Men
appoint men because the other men are men like themselves. Men know how to
talk to men; Geeky men more-so. We fill our conferences with men, our panels
with men, our keynotes with men because it is an easy thing to do. We promote
bright young men because they remind us of ourselves. We tell ourselves that
we are simply picking the best.

Combating this silent sexism is hard. As long as all we see is men everywhere
then we will continue to be silently sexist and women will continue to
silently vote with their feet.

6\. It is sexist to say that men are better at programming than women. Unless
you have scientific proof that I haven't seen: women are perfectly good at
hacking. Any woman who has chosen a career in IT despite the discrimination
stacked against her (see above) is already extraordinary yet we will generally
treat her less than an ordinary hacker.

Women make up 51% of the population, they are out-performing men in school &
university here in the UK and they should therefore be over 50% of our
community. But they are not. This is somebody's fault and it is most probably
ours. We have created an environment that is hostile to these bright young
women and it is lunacy: we are throwing away half of the talent.

If we are throwing away half the talent how can we possibly be hiring the
best? Half of whom we hire must be sub-standard!

Which brings me to:

7\. Positive discrimination is the only way to go for our industry. We need to
adjust our gender-balance by removing our obvious gender-bias. We are
currently clearly discriminating against women so we should address this
positively.

~~~
joyeuse6701
1\. Quite the opposite, the woman may feel included, but it's a farce, she
isn't one of the guys as long as the guys can't be themselves while she is
around. Resentment can form this way

2\. Objectification it is, but I don't agree that that is wrong. You're trying
to force a societal expectation over a natural process. More or less it's 'you
should have interest in me because of all my qualities, not the sexual ones'.
That is a bizarre rewiring of male sexual psychology pushed by non-males, I
don't buy it.

3\. keyword 'ironic' if a group of men 'ironically' made anything then it
isn't automatically sexist. A group of women non-ironically a pack-track app
that tracks penises IS sexist. Why? By the same definition you used above,
objectification and a supposedly male belief that I am more than a penis and
testicles. (Ironic that men have blow up dolls for sex, and women have a
disembodied penis known as a dildo: talking about objectification and not
considering the whole of a human!)

4\. No feminism WAS a civil rights movement. If anything it is an ever
shifting term that has evolved since it's inception. It is no longer about
equality and opportunity, it is now about special rights and privileges
(family court system, maternity leave etc.) (my view) You're right, an example
of an unbalanced gender work force is not indicative of sexism. Which goes
both ways! That means that just because women hold most teaching jobs doesn't
mean men are actively pushed away from it, maybe they don't want to teach.
Much like your counter point. Just because men hold powerful jobs doesn't mean
that women are actively barred from it, they may not want to be in it! I have
yet to see one well done study that has convinced me of this. Anecdotes aren't
effective. Equality is about opportunity, that may not be reflected in a
statistically perfect 50%. Men and women are different, and they can like
different jobs. The end goal is freedom, not an enforced literal numbered
equality. That was tried in communist systems and people were much more
miserable because of it. 5\. Most sexism is silent. We do it without knowing
we are doing it. Women appoint women because the other women are women like
themselves. Women know how to talk to women; Social women more-so. We fill our
conferences with women, our panels with women, our keynotes with women because
it is an easy thing to do. We promote bright young women because they remind
us of ourselves. We tell ourselves that we are simply picking the best.
Combating this silent sexism is hard. As long as all we see is women
everywhere then we will continue to be silently sexist and men will continue
to silently vote with their feet.

You see what I did there? It can easily be applied to Nursing. So now, do we
have a sexist epidemic in nursing, on the eve of a geriatrics explosion? I
don't hear ANYONE complaining about that and I am sure that is because of some
very sexist reasons.

6.Women make up 51% of the population... they should therefore be over 50% of
our community. Bad assertion. Really bad assertion. You're equating numeric
equality with actual equality. You're assuming that women want these jobs
enough to be 50%. You're assuming they are like men. I for one think they are
individuals, not automatons and can have their own interests. This is
somebody's fault and most probably ours. Also a bad assertion. With what
unbiased reasoned study did you find this?

    
    
        If we are throwing away half the talent how can we possibly be hiring the best?
         Half of whom we hire must be sub-standard!
    
        Say the top 1% is 'the best'. The entire industry cannot hire the best, unless you want 99% of the workforce unemployable for IT related fields. 
        
        2nd. Half of whom we hire must be substandard? No that isn't the case at all, probably the majority of whom you hire is standard (assuming a typical skill distribution)
        
        More women in the field certainly would help, there would be more of the best, and more standard, and more substandard. You increased the supply of workers, which is a good thing
        from certain view points. Your rhetoric is pretty awful though.
        

7\. Positive discrimination is one way to change the numbers, but as with
affirmative action, the same arguments for and against apply.

~~~
sambeau
_1\. Quite the opposite, the woman may feel included, but it 's a farce, she
isn't one of the guys as long as the guys can't be themselves while she is
around. Resentment can form this way_

That's the point. The guys aren't supposed to be 'themselves' whatever that
means, they are supposed to be working — as part of a team. There is already
resentment: that is why there is a need for equality at work.

 _2\. Objectification it is, but I don 't agree that that is wrong. You're
trying to force a societal expectation over a natural process. More or less
it's 'you should have interest in me because of all my qualities, not the
sexual ones'. That is a bizarre rewiring of male sexual psychology pushed by
non-males, I don't buy it._

 _' You're trying to force a societal expectation over a natural process'_

The objectification of women by men is societal, not natural: not all cultures
do it & not all men do. Nature is far more complicated than you suggest: there
aren't just two genders there is a sliding scale of gender. Does you idea of
'male sexual psychology' include gay men? transgender men?

At work you should have interest in me because of my skills no matter my
gender or sexual orientation.

 _3\. keyword 'ironic' if a group of men 'ironically' made anything then it
isn't automatically sexist._

Not true. Some things a group of men 'ironically' make won't be automatically
sexist. But many things meant to be ironically sexist and/or peurile just end
up being demeaning. While to a degree irony _is_ in the eye of the beholder a
joke made by the more powerful that is percieved by the target as offensive is
usually just bullying.

 _4\. No feminism WAS a civil rights movement._

As long as people make arguments like these Feminism very much _IS_ a civil
rights movement.

 _You see what I did there?_

Very clever.

 _' we have a sexist epidemic in nursing'_

Really?

 _2nd. Half of whom we hire must be substandard? No that isn 't the case at
all, probably the majority of whom you hire is standard (assuming a typical
skill distribution) .. More women in the field certainly would help, there
would be more of the best, and more standard, and more substandard. You
increased the supply of workers, which is a good thing from certain view
points._

If we are currently not using near-half the population then we must be missing
half of the best people. Was it my use of the word standard that you object
to? How about we go with 'average'. Take 100%. That's 50% above average, 50%
below average. If you add another 100% you can put the two 50%s together to
make a group 100% above the old average.

 _Your rhetoric is pretty awful though._

Nice.

 _7\. Positive discrimination is one way to change the numbers, but as with
affirmative action, the same arguments for and against apply._

The same arguments for and against _what_ apply?

Feminism is needed because society still awards the most powerful, highest
paid jobs and most of the best opportunities to advance their careers to men.
Equality is needed because society gives these things to straight, white men.

While the days of blatant to-the-face discrimination may be over in much of
the western world there is still plenty of silent discrimination occuring. I
beleive most young men don't realise they are doing it — they are just
behaving like their peers and would be appaled if it was pointed out to them.
I am hoping that if we start calling it out they will realise and gladly
change their behaviour. Arguments like yours are badly disguised sexism
portrayed as 'the real' equality that fail to take in the level of the field
we are playing apon.

------
frank_boyd
When I see such developments, I conclude that society does not feel the pain
enough yet.

The pain that inevitably _will_ catch up with us, for all the real problems we
create but do _not_ solve.

------
Grue3
What is sexist about CircleShake? It's not about women at all.

~~~
Argorak
It is a very manly gesture that implies a mental image of the someone else
being the subject of the gesture.

But first of all, it is very immature and tasteless and shouldn't be done on
stage.

~~~
toyg
The pictured "other sex" could as well be the "same sex" for all you know --
OMOPHOBIA! CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!

I'm just joking, of course, and I agree that this app was immature and not
deserving of any space at Disrupt (and goes doubly for Titstare, horrifying).
Still, this whole PC thing sometimes can feel like walking on eggshells, as
I've just demonstrated to you.

~~~
JonnieCache
_> Still, this whole PC thing sometimes can feel like walking on eggshells_

Important stuff is rarely easy or simple.

------
Alex3917
Just wait until the guardian learns about shake weight.

------
hexscrews
This was both a massive waste of time and effort. A truly interesting app
would be one that measures facial symmetry. Humans tend to appreciate
symmetrical features, same length of arms, legs, eye alignment, etc. I can see
where this too could be abused, sadly. But at least it would have a marginally
better chance to have a market. And it would provide a interesting technical
challenge.

~~~
pstack
While I agree with your point, I don't see how being physically attracted to a
person's symmetry is any different than being attracted to the dimensions of
their hips or the size of their breasts other than being more presentable to
an audience. It would be more sensible from the standpoint of the
presentation, but any of those people pitchforking over focusing on physical
attraction to physical attributes of human beings in this thread would have to
maintain the same incredulity over one measuring each body part for symmetry.

------
laichzeit0
So..

"TitStare" \- sexist "DickStare" \- not sexist

Got it.

~~~
MattBearman
Genuine question: Is there a dickstare app? And if so, is it not also
considered sexist?

~~~
laichzeit0
I don't know if there exists such an app, but it would probably not be
considered sexist. Just like affirmative action / employment equity is not
considered racist.

