
Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot - dpritchett
http://geekchick77.dreamwidth.org/472.html
======
hythloday
_"It has been fascinating to watch the ongoing reactions. There have been
complaints that we have too many bots in the channel now. There have been
complaints about it spamming the channel. There were several “Make them shut
up!” responses. These are not reactions I have seen the other bots elicit,
certainly not with such intensity. One person even complained about the name
being too long, though to his credit he realized right after he said that that
several other people in the channel also have very long handles. To me, all of
this seems like typical geek behaviour: something is making them
uncomfortable, and so they attack it on “rational” grounds. Most likely, they
aren’t even aware of the gut reaction fueling their logic."_

This is excellently picked out: most of the disagreements over the term
"sexism" hinge around this point. Stuff that doesn't bother you (that another
poster here describes as being "tuned-out"), as a man, because your gender
plays no part in your job, is experienced differently by your female
colleagues, because their gender does. Their experience of seeing "that's what
SHE said" (and the death by a thousand cuts of other gender policing) is just
as distracting and annoying as the "that's what she really said" bot. If your
reaction to this post is "the first one seems harmless but the second is
really overstepping the line", please take a few minutes to consider how you
would feel if everyone's reaction to that (and everything else you objected
to) was "just lighten up".

~~~
oskarth
What I find the most fascinating is that she did everything exactly right and
people still feel like she did something wrong.

She didn't go to her supervisor and she didn't turn it into a drama. Instead
she fought the problem in its own arena by making a IRC-bot to combat the
problem, and not only that: _the IRC-bot is only selectively used in the exact
situation that is seen as problematic and it does so by writing enlightening
quotes!_ In mathematical terms: the function has the exact same range and its
value is consistently higher in the absolute majority of all cases.

I honestly can't think of a better way to tackle this particular problem, and
yet there's all this criticism to her approach. Really? What more do you want
her to do? Her quote at the end of the article rings even more true after
reading some comments here:

 _To me, all of this seems like typical geek behaviour: something is making
them uncomfortable, and so they attack it on “rational” grounds. Most likely,
they aren’t even aware of the gut reaction fueling their logic. Interestingly,
the intensity of emotion seemed to carry over into subsequent discussions,
including one about women in the Python community._

~~~
unalone
_Really? What do you want?_

We want women to shut up and stop telling us that there's a problem with how
we behave, because it's rude to tell people there's something innately wrong
with their behavior. Also it takes so much time and effort on our parts to try
and behave like better people that it hardly seems like we should bother.

The problem, for many people, is not that the issue is being handled
indelicately. It's that the issue is being brought up at all. Aren't there
already systems that are supposed to handle discrimination, in private, so
that we don't have to witness it being discussed firsthand? Why are people so
self-centered that they have to make every innocent joke about _politics_ or
_gender_ or _society_? I just thought it was funny that Dave said something
that sounds like sex talk, and wanted all of you to know! And don't you know
that men are discriminated against just as much as women?

As you can see I've got perfectly _rational_ explanations for why I'm so
irritated by women calling out sexist behaviors. I want them to stop calling
things sexist so that I can stop worrying about their feelings.

~~~
woohoo
LOL - this is my fav comment on this thread. I feel like I have seen a shift
in the comments on women in tech related articles on HN over the past few
weeks. 2 weeks ago I had a really hard time reading the comments because they
seemed either hate-filled or ignorant (like the comment above is mocking) but
I feel like lately the discussion has become more intelligent. Or is that just
wishful thinking on my part?

~~~
unalone
> I feel like lately the discussion has become more intelligent. Or is that
> just wishful thinking on my part?

Knock on wood. (THAT'S WHAT SHE SAoh god damn)

~~~
eaten_by_a_grue
How is it okay for you to respond to every comment in this thread decrying men
for being unaware of the horrifying effect these comments have on women, and
also make the exact same joke that caused the original complaint?

~~~
wpietri
That's not the same joke. The interruption and reaction makes it a metajoke.

~~~
eaten_by_a_grue
Like most people caught out doing something wrong, now you are trying to make
"rational" arguments against it.

~~~
EvilTerran
Er, the poster who replied to you (wpietri) is a different account from the
one you replied to (unalone).

Also, now you're engaging in vacuous sophistry - you've made an assertion of
wrongdoing without backing it up, and yet neither of them could reply here to
defend themselves without seeming to dig deeper into the hole you insist
they're in, because "oh look more 'rational' arguments".

~~~
pjscott
I think the technical term for this is a "fully general counterargument": one
that can argue equally well for true and false ideas.

------
agentultra
What a great idea.

I find it's too easy to be ignorant of injustices when you see yourself as
principled and everyone else as ignorant brutes. I've been guilty of this.
It's the kind of thinking that leads you to conclude that TWS-like bots are
just a bit of light-hearted humor. It's the kind of thinking that allows
sexism to fly under your radar. You don't participate because you want to live
in a world where sexism doesn't exist. It's a noble ideal but it is ignorant.

Truth is that even what you _don't_ say has an impact on the people around
you. If other people make sexist jokes at the office and you don't say
anything about it (especially if it actually does bother you) then you're
encouraging the people making sexist jokes.

I admire the author for taking a stand. And such a clever way to do it too.

------
CompiledCode
So how can I write a bot to fight the sexism in Microsoft's TV ads? You know
the ones... where the husband is the bumbling idiot and the wife is the smart
capable one who shuts down his plea to play golf on Sundays.

I would love to set that bot loose on all TV shows and ads. So often, a
flipped situation would cause outrage of being sexist, whereas if the man is
put down, it's "funny."

It really bothers me, especially with the "mancession" still going on (outside
of IT) and widespread anti-male laws (in family court and other places).

~~~
rmc
Yes, ads (etc.) that portray people as bad based on their gender are wrong.
However men are still in an advantageous position.

 _widespread anti-male laws_

They are small in number compared to the widespread anti-female laws and
customs.

~~~
CompiledCode
Can you give an example? In almost all states, if the wife gets pregnant by
another man, the man is still on the hook for child support for the next 18+
years... even if she divorces him and marries her lover.

I can't think of an equivalent anti-female law with such devastating long-term
impact on the woman.

I know this message might be off tangent for the HN board. But if we're
discussing anti-female sexist culture and try to erase every incident of women
being treated unfairly even in the slightest way, I think it should be allowed
to point out that in today's culture, men are also often treated extremely
unfairly... and you don't see scores of women jumping to their defense (like
the men did in the "Lighten up" thread).

~~~
raganwald
Your argument says "since (unfair child support laws) then (men treated
unfairly) thus not(sexist anti-women culture)"

The problem with your argument is that you are not espousing a widely held
belief about child support laws being "unfair to men." Thus, a discussion
about your argument is likely to devolve into long exchanges about children's
rights and anecdotes about ridiculous edge case judgments on both sides.

Which is fine, but I think it would be two steps removed from what you're
trying to establish, namely that the unfair sexism is somehow balanced. If
you're going to construct an argument of the form A -> B -> C, I suggest you
pick an "A" that is beyond dispute so we can focus on the validity of A -> B
and B -> C.

~~~
CompiledCode
I actually think that "A" is beyond dispute. Your married partner cheats on
you, divorces you, marries the biological father of the child, and you are
still on the hook for child support? I can't imagine someone NOT thinking with
every moral fiber of their being that this is wrong.

Regardless, I think my point is already self-evident in the answers. Which is:
we accept without second thought that (A) our society is sexist and women are
oppressed and objectified. So A -> B -> C: when a woman claims sexism, we all
have to focus on eradicating that sexism immediately (i.e. reign men in). No
thought is given to the possibility that the pendulum has possibly already
swung too much in the opposite direction, and it is actually the men who are
treated unfairly in most cases whenever gender issues come up. Just see e.g.
the topic on reddit's front page this morning "I called the cops on my GF
after an argument we had got violent, the cops come and arrest ME".

I think any discussion that is about treating both genders equally and fairly
that does not take into account current anti-male inequality misses the point.
We need to question ALL social conditioning to reach a point where everyone is
treated fairly.

~~~
ugh
Is it really the case that someone has to pay child support for a child that
is proven to be not theirs?

I did some superficial googling and found the case of one man who has to pay
child support even though a DNA test proved he is not the father, because he
missed all the deadlines for challenging the ruling. That seems like an
unfortunate edge case to me, not some general pattern one has to be worried
about.

I think you might be mistaken about the legal situation, but I’m more than
happy to be proven wrong.

~~~
rada
It depends on your definition of "not theirs". The law doesn't look at biology
only. (Same gender parents, adoptive parents, grandparents as primary
caregivers, etc).

If you accept a child as your own for several years, the law is likely to look
at them as yours regardless of DNA. I think that in the majority of cases,
this probably works out for the better.

~~~
ugh
Well, that makes perfect sense. I do not understand what’s “anti-male” about
it.

When it comes to child support, who matters first and foremost is the child.
That’s who it’s all about.

------
tjstankus
Wow. I would argue that you have quite a bit more than "relatively few moments
of 'brogrammer' culture" there. A TWSS bot? I can't imagine that ever being
okay on any dev team I've ever worked on, including my present team which
includes no women. Good on you for fighting back in a way which really speaks
to those who needed to hear it most.

------
jtreminio
sex·ist [sek-sist] adjective 1\. pertaining to, involving, or fostering
sexism: a sexist remark; sexist advertising.

sex·ism [sek-siz-uhm] noun 1\. attitudes or behavior based on traditional
stereotypes of sexual roles. 2\. discrimination or devaluation based on a
person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such
discrimination directed against women.

I don't think the bot is exactly sexist. It's stupid, immature, and beats a
dead horse, but actually sexist?

While you should probably have a talk with the _supervisor_ , not the general
office, about this issue, maybe polluting the chat space with yet another
stupid bot isn't the greatest idea? "Annoying" your coworkers into compliance
isn't a good strategy, as it will grow resentment towards you and mask the
real problem.

~~~
unalone
> 1\. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles
> [...] devaluation based on a person's sex

Here're the categories you could argue the bot falls into. The point of the
"that's what she said" is to point out when phrases sound like something a
woman might have said in bed or during some sort of sexual activity,
furthering the already _staggeringly_ vast perception our society has of women
as primarily sexual objects. It's not what I'd call "grossly" sexist, but if
somebody's objecting to it, she absolutely has a reason to feel uncomfortable
about it.

I disagree that the supervisor is necessary here. First off, that's making an
appeal to authority and such appeals can be pretty irritating; second off,
that's trying to solve the problem _privately_ rather than in public space. By
making this bot, Jessamyn says that her voice is as valuable as anybody else's
voice. If somebody else wants to make a bot that makes crude sex jokes, she
can make a bot that quotes notable women. And rather than making a bot that's
irritating or one-note, it sounds like she made a bot that has a variety of
colorful responses, to the point where one of her coworkers told her how much
he appreciates it.

Remember that sexism is about the reinforcement of cultural stereotypes,
rather than being just about gross bigotry or discrimination. What's sexist is
that people assume, in a workplace, that jokes about what women say in bed are
acceptable. Those jokes make me a little uncomfortable even in a casual
environment; it's kind of gross that people are okay with them at work. The
sexism isn't one person consciously thinking "Oh man let's women the butt of
jokes about sex!", it's that women-as-sex-objects is such a pervasive trope
that we _don't_ notice it unless somebody like Jessamyn points it out to us.

~~~
tomp
> jokes about what women say in bed are acceptable

If they're actually funny (most of the "That's what she said" jokes are not),
why not?

I can also totally imagine the following situation:

Coworker: Did I come too early? Another coworker: That's what he said!

Come to think of it, men are also under a lot of pressure in bed, so such
jokes are just as in/appropriate as jokes about women in bed.

~~~
unalone
> If they're actually funny (most of the "That's what she said" jokes are
> not), why not?

It depends on the audience. I think that sexist jokes are in as poor taste in
a workplace as racist jokes would be. I'd also be against black jokes or
Mexican jokes or Jewish jokes or jokes about Catholic pedophilia. Even if the
extent of the joke was something like "I'm not going to the pub with you all,
I'm such a Jew", I'd feel uncomfortable; if somebody wrote a bot that was
_designed_ to repeatedly make those jokes, I'd be upset.

As Jessamyn says:

> Now, I admit to having made this joke myself, at times. Once in a while, I
> even find it funny. What I don’t find funny is a bot we have in our general
> IRC channel at work, that has some basic AI devoted to determining when to
> interject TWSS into the conversation.

And the joke is not that women say funny things while in bed. The joke is,
"Oh, that thing you just said reminded me of fucking a woman." It's funny in
high school when everybody's a virgin, and I've found that as my college
friends have gotten themselves laid, it's ceased to become very amusing. The
same way I haven't heard a black or Mexican joke in a few years that managed
to rise above its racism to become even remotely amusing.

Jokes about people having sex can be funny; "that's what she said" will always
be a joke the brunt of which is the faceless fuck-object woman. Maybe that's
fine in moderation, especially if "that's what he said" jokes are mixed in,
but I think we all agree that if somebody's feeling upset by the jokes, it's
not a huge loss to our comedic palettes to have to find another source of
humor, right? We're all capable of rising beyond that?

~~~
rimantas
And in the end there will be no jokes.

    
    
      > I think we all agree that if somebody's feeling upset by
      > the jokes, it's not a huge loss to our comedic palettes
      > to have to find another source of humor, right?
    

No. I strongly strongly disagree. I don't want a thermal dead of society, I
don't want knee-jerk reaction to anything I say because I just mentioned some
forbidden word, no matter with what intention and what context. We are
slipping toward the concept thought-crime, and I surely don't want what.
Neither do I want to live in the world where all must pretend, that genders
don't exist.

You ar offended but what I say? To quote Stephen Fry: "So fucking what?".

To think that it is impossible to tell and be entertained by non-PC jokes is
as moronic as thinking that you cannot write (or enjoy) crime fiction without
being a murderer.

~~~
unalone
> To quote Stephen Fry: "So fucking what?".

Fry was saying that in response to people who were offended by his being gay.
I hope you find at least a little humor in the fact that you've taken a quote
from a man trying to _fight_ bigotry and used it to _defend_ bigotry? No?

It's not thought-crime to say, "Hey, women are people too, and women are way
more interesting when they're treated like people, not like sex toys." It's
not gender-invisibility to say that there's more to a woman than her vagina,
or even that there are _funnier things about a vagina than your bragging about
being in it._ It's not political correctness to say, "When the things you say
make women – not just a single anecdotal woman, but women plural, _many_ women
– uncomfortable, then probably you can find a better way to get laughs than
through their uncomfortableness."

Humor is at its finest when it's used to prod those in a position of power.
Satire, farce, bawdiness have all been used as tools to make the oppressed in
society feel better about themselves, to make people who don't notice
oppression realize that it's there, but to laugh at their own
uncomfortableness. Humor's at its lowest when it's used to kick people who're
already down. When it's used not to help humanity rise above itself, but to
remind the lowly of their lowliness.

The great comedian Louis CK, of whom you've doubtless heard, has a routine
where he goes after white people who get pissy about not being allowed to say
the word "nigger". Like, it's racist that black people can use it, but not
white people. And his response is: Dude, does it really matter that fucking
much to you that you don't get to use a word? Is your being asked not to say
"nigger" really as unjust as the fact that, fifty years after the Civil Rights
Movement, we still have to have a conversation about why a word associated
with lynchings and segregation is maybe not a word to be used lightly?

After decades of women fighting for equality, we still live in a society whose
pop culture revolves around the sexualization and objectification of women.
Where women make 81 cents to every man's dollar (source: narrowthegapp.com,
made by Hacker News's favorite Gina Trapini). Where our government is
primarily male, and its two highest positions have never been occupied by a
woman. Where these male-dominated governments try to pass laws that deny women
control over their own bodies. Where nearly every Fortune 500 company is
headed by a man. Women have it better now than they had it, say, a hundred
years ago, but that's not saying fucking much.

Do you really care so much about "that's what she said" that this is where you
feel like making a stand? Buddy, it's a stupid joke, it exists only to make
men feel manly for bragging about their penis, and it's not even very funny.
Want funny? Watch Bridesmaids. There's a hilarious movie written by and
starring some very funny women. They even make jokes about sex and vaginas!
OMG so un-PC!

George Carlin once said, "Have you noticed that most of the women who are
against abortion are women you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place?" I'm
going to paraphrase him: Have you noticed that most of the people who defend
idiotic sexist jokes are people who aren't actually funny?

~~~
ElliotMingee
While I wholly agree with 95% of your post, especially your liberal use of
comedians as references, I think the whole basis of this "that's what she
said" is grossly misunderstood by those opposing it. It's a phrase that
highlights innocent phrases that could have a sexual meaning. Generally, they
would be something a woman could say, however I've heard many a "that's what
he said" as well. It's a stupid, immature joke that I'm shocked would be
propagated by anyone over 17 but let's not ascribe some deep Freudian meaning
to something a 15 year old came up with.

~~~
unalone
Oh definitely! It's a silly grade-school joke. Which is one of the reasons, I
think, why this conversation is so difficult: nobody's thinking "Let me go out
and reinforce the patriarchy", twirling their evil mustaches, they're just
making a silly joke that incidentally revolves around treating women like
objects, TOTALLY UNINTENTIONALLY. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have an
effect on society.

Part of my undergraduate thesis, which I'm currently working on, revolves
around this idea that when systems break, it's rarely due to anything
malicious. It's because life is really weird and complicated and it's hard to
design bug-free social structures. But that's why we have to be aware that
such bugs exist, and develop ways to fix them when they pop up.

~~~
ElliotMingee
Ah I wasn't aware the effect was so pronounced, although I can definitely see
how that would happen. Out of curiosity, what's the consensus on how an
overtly sexist or racist joke told among friends in a non-serious way affects
social dynamics? I'm sure we're all familiar with this type of humor and I
would hope that the joke would serve to make fun of the stereotype and not
reinforce it but I'm not sure.

------
losvedir
Huh, it had never occurred to me that some women would be offended by that
joke. In my mind, it was sometimes somewhat amusing because it turns the
statement your friend just made into one about a penis.

I was going to say that now I'll be on the lookout for statement about clams,
things that are wet, and so on, in order to bust out a TWHS, but it seems to
me that it could be construed as just as offensive to women, because again it
reinforces the idea, apparently, that men just think of women as sexual
objects. Lose-lose.

Personally, I don't think either TWSS/TWHS is "sexist", but they're certainly
not appropriate for a work environment.

~~~
mindslight
"omg i'm offended ur heteronormative comment its fucking disgusting take down
now"

Seriously, after seeing Basho Troll raise such hell last week, I've been quite
unsympathetic to anyone who might seem like they're working themselves up to
win 15 minutes of fame from the PC flash mob.

But this bot is an _awesome hack_ , and exactly the kind of thing people need
to do to empower themselves in the face of quiescent low-level offensiveness.
It fights the battle in the lighthearted realm of wits, and like all games of
wit, whomever caves to forceful methods (say crying to management about too
many bots) loses by default.

------
olalonde
I have noticed an interesting double standard on HN: while working in porn is
perfectly fine, saying TWSS jokes is sexist because it objectivizes women as
sexual objects.

~~~
hythloday
There's a lot of disagreement as to whether porn is "anti-feminist". The
school of thought that says it isn't stresses the importance of female agency
(that it's up to the porn actors to decide where they work). I don't see any
agency in appearing in a "that's what she said" joke, so I'm afraid I don't
see the double standard.

~~~
rimantas
As if there is agreement that "sexist" jokes (or people telling them) are
antifeminist.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Among feminists there is. Heck, there's science: "exposure to sexist humor can
lead to toleration of hostile feelings and discrimination against women"
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106083038.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106083038.htm)

The only people trying to argue "lighten up" are anti-feminists.

~~~
EvilTerran
See, that link should be nearer the top of this thread. That's food for
thought right there.

On the other hand, _"The only people trying to argue "lighten up" are anti-
feminists"_ is a nasty false generalisation -- it ignores apath-feminists
(damn, that doesn't work nearly as well as 'apatheists'); those who are
thinking "can't we all just get along?", with absolutely no motive to stymie
feminism; those who've never done the research, who think feminism's all well-
and-good, but tell themselves they're too busy worrying about other things;
exactly the sort of people who would find that article insightful, and who
might be pushed toward feminism by it.

I fear you risk scaring them off by lumping them in with 'anti-feminists' and
its implications of misogyny, and may taint that link by association.

~~~
JulianMorrison
The trouble is that the default setting, the do-nothing, don't-care follow-
the-norm setting, is anti-feminist. It's the "double standard" in dating. It's
women as decoration. It's compulsory sexuality. It's misogynist porn. And, as
here, it's sexist jokes. This is why feminism says we live in a patriarchy
still.

~~~
EvilTerran
I see where you're coming from, and agree wholly, when I put a feminist hat
on. The thing is, when I then put an 'indiffeminist' (thanks zem) hat on, I
feel like you're throwing insults, saying "Oh, you're not a feminist activist?
Then you're a misogynist pig."

I think it boils down to the technical meaning in feminist theory of 'anti-
feminist' (anything that holds back feminism) not really matching up with what
the layperson seeing the word for the first time would take it to mean --
'anti-feminist' intuitively sounds like it only applies to active, concious
opposition to the ideals of feminism; misogyny, denial of female autonomy,
Rush Limbaugh, that kinda thing. Laypeople may not think to also consider
apathy that unwittingly enables the sexist status quo as part of anti-
feminism.

I'm definitely not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you risk alienating
your target audience by... well, to be flippant, by using big fancy words they
may not understand ;)

------
mcherm
What a BRILLIANT social hack. Jessamyn Smith, I am thoroughly impressed.

~~~
wpietri
Absolutely. It's also a fantastic resume piece. Two of the things I look for
in a resume are a) contributions to an open source project, and b) ability to
take a problem and solve it from beginning to end. As a bonus, she's clearly
aware of workplace culture and committed to making it better. All good signs,
especially for the startup context.

------
vasco
I think this would never happen where I live. Honestly this seems like its the
same thing as you guys in the US not being able to say merry christmas because
it might offend someone. What's so wrong with being offended anyway?
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs&t=3m30s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs&t=3m30s)

I think people over there just take everything to seriously.

~~~
FeministHacker
<http://therealkatie.net/blog/2012/mar/21/lighten-up/>

Lighten up, I didn't mean it, I didn't intend to upset you, so it must be ok!

~~~
vasco
What I said is that where I live its not like this. Girls wouldn't make a fuss
about this, and would probably make more sexual jokes then guys actually. So
yes maybe in comparison you guys need to lighten up as a society or something.

~~~
Jem
Making/enjoying sexual jokes in the right context and finding other sexual
jokes sexist are not mutually exclusive.

------
geekchick77
Update: The creators of the TWSS bot at work volunteered to take it down a few
days after my original blog post went up. It is no longer in the channel. Many
people seem to have missed that some of my coworkers didn't like TWSS, either,
and many of them thought the TWSRS bot was great.

------
zbyszek
This is tangential to the discussion, but as an obtuse non-American I'm glad
to have the phrase in question explained to me (you wouldn't believe I have
actually spent some time in the US). The UK equivalant is "as the actress said
to the bishop", which combines a Cromwellian suspicion of the immorality of
the theatre with the implication of the hypocrisy of the clergy. Is it any
better, though? I'm sure the bot could be adjusted to come back with quotes
from actresses.

~~~
hythloday
I thought about this earlier today, and I think it _is_ less sexist, because
we no longer have the same stereotypes of actresses--it's not an invitation to
lazy thinking.

------
zachinglis
I think this issue is obviously on a per-company basis. We have a light-
hearted attitude towards TWSS jokes here in the office because the female
members are as just as bad as any one of the males. We also do Thats What He
Said.

Jessamyn was obviously uncomfortable, and that's when it should have stopped.
Without question. I don't think her gender was a deciding factor in that, more
so sensibilities.

I appreciate her pro-active stance too. Rather than complaining she tried to
beat them at their own game, though I'm not sure it'd help her in the long
run. I think it'd piss the rest off - but saying that, is there any way around
it? They obviously have not given her the respect she asked for when she told
them it was offending her.

~~~
tomjen3
She definitely did the right thing by not complaining to management but a
startup is not a suit company and therefore there are things that go on there
that would not have been accepted in a suit company.

There are plenty of employees who like their company that way and if she
didn't she is not really suited for the company culture. She can (and should)
seek employment elsewhere. She will be better of there.

Finally she didn't beat them at their own game. Yes she wrote a bot, but it
takes a bit more cleverness to match phrases that to simply reply to a string
that is going to be the only thing that bot ever quotes.

Too bad too, since she could have made her bot do something that would have
been impressive, and perhaps convince others that the bot was sexist by
calculating how often the joke was mad at the expense of a male ('it is small
and hard to see') versus at the female. That bot would have been impressive
and it would have been a much greater hack.

~~~
wpietri
Hi! Startup cofounder here. Working in and with startups since Web 0.8. I see
you're a student, so I want to take the time to be clear:

Suppose you worked at my startup. Suppose further that you suggested to one of
your colleagues, as you did now, that they quit because they weren't inclined
to put up with what they saw as a hostile work environment. You know who would
be gone? You.

Startups are a team sport. We don't require suits, because how somebody
dresses won't change the quality of the product. However, driving off
perfectly good people because they're different will definitely change the
product. The same applies for a culture where people don't feel respected, or
aren't encouraged to fix the problems they see.

~~~
tomjen3
I see that I need to update my bio...

The reason I am so pissed is that I work in a company where we do things and
make jokes that would get you kicked out the door in most suit companies and
everybody enjoys it -- including the girls (who are often the best) -- and yes
there is the guy who doesn't find it funny to change his screen, so we don't.
To him. If he finds it obnoxious that we make those jokes with others, he can
deal with it or leave.

And yet, if somebody where to join us who would get annoyed working there do
you suggest the rest of us should leave?

I wouldn't make the joke I did in a company that didn't appreciate it but I
wouldn't stand for it being change just to fit a few people either.

~~~
mcherm
Since everyone in your company enjoys this attitude, it's nothing but good,
clean fun (or good dirty fun, depending on the color of the joke).

But someday you may hire someone who, as it turns out, does not appreciate the
jokes. Or perhaps, like Jessamyn, enjoys the jokes sometimes but feels that
they are overdone to the point of being irritating.

I would not advice you to tell this person "If [you] find it obnoxious [...
you can] deal with it or leave." Because in the US (I can't speak for other
places) that is illegal. If this sort of behavior is pervasive it is said to
"create a hostile (or offensive) work environment", and if someone is fired
(or effectively forced to leave) because they do not enjoy the behavior then
they are well within their rights to sue your company.

------
stfu
_There were several “Make them shut up!” responses._

May I introduce the gentlemen to the glorious _/ignore twsrs_ command.

~~~
sp332
_gentlemen_

Also women. And small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri.

------
droithomme
She handled it very well.

TWSS is funny only as a reference to its use in The Office, where it is said
by a clueless sexist imbecile of a boss, always inappropriately. So its use
was a sort of in joke between Office fans, and said not seriously. Using it as
an actual funny joke, without intent as an Office fan in-joke (which is only
funny a few times) is kind of clueless, and it is worthwhile to question it.

Using it as an invitation to create an automated system that educates people
to women's contributions to the arts and sciences is pure genius. Those at her
place of employment who do not respect her solution are simply clueless and
are deserving only of pity.

------
coob
I'm struggling to come up with an answer to this question: Has technology ever
solved issues with social etiquette?

~~~
Harkins
Yes. An example was posted here in the last few weeks - there's a startup
whose name I can't remember that plans meetups of three men and three women.
They had a serious problem with cancellations, which was solved by requiring
the canceller to record a voicemail to be played to the other people.
Cancellations fell off 80% or more. (I'm sorry, I can't remember more
specifics - anyone have the link?)

~~~
DanBC
Grouper?

([http://blog.joingrouper.com/intro-to-social-hacking-how-
we-l...](http://blog.joingrouper.com/intro-to-social-hacking-how-we-lowered-
our-ca))

(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3695748>)

~~~
Harkins
Yes, thank you.

------
politician
The TWSS bot is an interesting application of machine learning. However, it
was a mistake to install it on the company's IRC channel, and the Smith was
justified in asking for an irrelevant bot which she found offensive to be
removed.

On the other hand, writing a bot which responds with feminist quotes is just
as ridiculous and passive aggressive.

The real answer here is for management to step in, exercise some authority,
and remove both bots.

------
Prophasi
One potential reason the guys in the channel get irritated with it, apart from
them being actually sexist and therefore uncomfortable/guilty, is that your
starting assumption that they WERE sexist was wrong.

To have a preachy bot post nominally inspirational quotes from women, with the
ostensible goal of demonstrating with child-like simplicity that women are
people too, would get on my nerves for two immediate reasons:

1) I get it, I get it! How many cliches do I have to scroll past before we
reach mission accomplished?

2) Someone really thinks I'm stupid.

It's propaganda, but worse than that, it's propaganda with an assumed audience
of evildoers to thwart -- and I'm included.

I get the frustration with the male-centric dev culture and I'd fight back on
that for sure, but this kind of holier-than-thou brute force attack levels a
possibly undeserved accusation at everyone forced to read it, and it also
flouts some of the most basic aspects of psychology in its strategy.

~~~
blahedo
> _I get it, I get it! How many cliches do I have to scroll past before we
> reach mission accomplished?_

I don't know, you tell me? If you are objecting to the OP's bot but not to the
original TWSS bot, it sounds like the mission hasn't been accomplished.

> _your starting assumption that they WERE sexist was wrong._

You sure about that?

------
charlieok
“I pointed out that it’s trivially easy to have the bot not say anything:
don’t say TWSS”

That's the best part right there. Perfect tit-for-tat.

------
batterseapower
"something is making them uncomfortable, and so they attack it on “rational”
grounds"

I don't think this is confined to just geek behaviour -- in my experience, it
is typical _human_ behaviour.

------
pyre
Great post! A couple critiques though:

    
    
      > Since the IRC channels I am normally in use SSL, I
      > had to set up my own channel on a public IRC server
      > for testing. It took a while to get the settings
      > right, but finally I succeeded!
    

This part was a little confusing because it wasn't mentioned until Step 3 that
LogBot didn't have SSL support.

    
    
      > There have been complaints that we have too many bots
      > in the channel now.
    
      > There were several “Make them shut up!” responses.
    

This part is a little confusing because up to this point of the post you've
only mentioned the TWSS and TWSRS bots. It would be clearer had you mentioned
that there were a number of bots in the channel. (Unless I missed mention of
other bots, in which case disregard.)

For example, in my work IRC channel there is a single bot that does everything
vs. several single-purpose bots.

------
Drbble
Sex is not sexist. TWSS is immature, and inappropriate in a group workplace,
as is (my personal favorite) replying "YOUR MOM is X" when some X is
mentioned. This bot is a cool hack and a nice way to win a battle on your
opponent's terms. But TWSS isn't sexist.

------
Prophasi
I never took TWSS to be demeaning to women (i.e. sexist), rather that it's
usually a generic boast about a guy's prowess.

Would it make a woman more acutely feel in the minority through juxtaposition?
Sure. And obviously jokes to do with sex can make ANYONE feel uncomfortable
and are probably inappropriate at work, but it depends on where you work.

Making the leap to sexism from that age-old schtick of a guy playing up his
junk, though, is a stretch. It's more about the ego of the guy saying it than
the hypothetical woman used as a foil.

I wonder if gay guys make TWHS jokes.

------
jenius
Not sure if anyone realizes this anymore, but 'that's what she said' is a
shortening of "that's what your mother said" - a generic jokey insult
(sleeping with someone's mom has been a way to show someone up since the old
days). It's not really saying anything about women in general with the "she" -
it's referring to a specific 'insult' that's been around for ages.

I wouldn't consider 'that's what she said' to be a sexist comment at all, but
if others still do that's ok. Just a little history : )

------
rmcrob
Jessamyn finds some of the TTSS jokes to be funny and has even indulged in
some herself. Therefore, I don't think TTSS is sexist, per se. Tired? Yes.
Childish? Yes. Sexist? No.

------
sliverstorm
_There have been complaints that we have too many bots in the channel now.
There have been complaints about it spamming the channel. There were several
“Make them shut up!” responses. These are not reactions I have seen the other
bots elicit, certainly not with such intensity._

I'm curious whether there were bots responding to bots before. I personally
find bots that regularly talk to other bots several degrees more annoying than
plain bots.

------
useflyer
A great response to a lousy situation. Mad props to her.

------
muyuu
What's sexist about the "that's what she said" jokes? Maybe it's because these
jokes never caught on where I live (UK), but I don't understand why would
anyone be offended by that.

Any clues? I'd ask my American coworker but she's not in the office.

~~~
prodigal_erik
It highlights accidental double entendres:
[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats%20what%...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thats%20what%20she%20said)

I think it's an objection to making the topic of sex more prominent at work,
rather than anything specifically negative about women. The original bot might
have been funny for about one day, and I can imagine getting annoyed at the
preachiness of the countermeasure.

------
oinksoft
_Step 1: I copied the LogBot code into local files, and tried running it._

And the code is pretty much that, with a few extra lines ... a copy and paste
job. It really isn't difficult to write an IRC bot using the standard library
... here's my shit one that sits in ##javascript:
<https://github.com/pigdude/pigbot>

Edit: I became more curious about what the author works on -- by the favicon,
I thought she must be involved with the Debian project! Turns out "Dreamwidth
Studios" thought that flipping the Debian logo was an original idea. Digging
just a little deeper on the Dreamwidth site makes it seem that the author
mostly works on documentation and things like that. So I guess it makes sense
that the code is copypasta?

~~~
3pt14159
You probably found the wrong person. I know the author personally, she is a
great hacker and worked for FreshBooks for years before moving to her current
job.

~~~
oinksoft
Maybe I did! It seemed the posting account was a "Denise", and recent
changelogs on the project website only attributed documentation changes to
her.

Her approach to "hacking" sure differs from mine ... from using
"#!./tbenv/bin/python" (rather than "/usr/bin/env python" which will find the
virtualenv link) making the code unusable for most people out of the box, to
requiring a bunch of third-party libs to complete a simple task, to copy-pasta
even preserving tutorial docstrings, you have to disconnect from the IRC
server to reload the application logic ... it just seemed very sloppy to me.

~~~
geekchick77
I'm not hard to find, if you are interested:
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jessamynsmith>

I didn't know there was a more elegant way to do the shebang. I've fixed that
now. It hadn't occurred to me that there was a particular advantage to being
able to reload without restarting, but I am considering that now.

Personally, I prefer using libraries to reinventing the wheel. YMMV.

~~~
oinksoft
For me, that depends on the size of the library and how much I am using it. I
really don't need a library to handle the logic of connecting to a server and
sending things as simple as IRC messages. This is not something that I really
expect to use outside the context of a bot. However, if there were a _good_
library for creating a flexible bot (which would thus include the small low-
level IRC stuff) then I would be interested. But investigating what was out
there for creating IRC bots in Python, I really wasn't impressed. Most every
bot framework is designed for sitting in one channel and listening for
specific commands or command prefixes. Nothing wrong with that, but that only
covers one sort of IRC bot.

------
peterwwillis
I was about to get really angry that management hadn't done anything when she
complained, but she doesn't specify whether she talked to her manager, a
superior or HR at all. If all she did was ask the guys who ran the bot, this
is not enough to resolve the issue. On top of that, adding a new bot to
antagonize the guys who wouldn't relent only creates a more hostile
environment without working out the issues at hand. Bad for any kind of
grievance at work.

If she did talk to management and HR and still nobody did anything, that place
fucking sucks and she should keep fighting or leave. Only the biggest assholes
would ignore a person who was offended by an official work bot that makes
sexual commentary, about men or women. That shit needs to stay outside the
workplace.

------
DanBC
A very nice write up.

I say this politely[1] but I thought this was odd:

> _Now I could run it from one of the development servers at work._

Really? Is that kind of thing common?

[1] because I don't want to add to the air of general negativity around HN.

~~~
viraptor
Depends on what you mean by a developoment server. You probably don't want to
run something like that on a build server, or test environment. On the other
hand some places have a general-purpose hosts too. For example at one of my
previous places we had a host which basically was just an optional ssh hop (if
you needed to run some batch process, it had much lower connection latency) /
ad-hoc reporting node / whatever you needed at that point.

I don't see anything wrong with running chat bots at that host - at least for
internal services. It's a bit different if you wanted to connect to public IRC
servers, but it's not obvious from the post whether it was internal-only
service or not.

------
A_A
Hats off to Jessamyn Smith. Great way to respond to sexist stuff.

------
thadeus_venture
The fact that it's called the "talk back bot" automatically puts the author in
the victim's chair. To think that a TWSS joke in a chat room not directed at
you personally is offensive to you smells of deep irrational insecurity to me.
A suspicion supported by the project name. I know women who wouldn't like that
joke directed at them, and I don't direct it at them, and I know some who drop
more twss jokes than I do. If you overhear someone on street say one though
and your first reaction is to be offended to the point of writing a bot that
spews quotes of famous women in the chat room, that seems pathological to me.

------
danellis
"I took it for granted that everyone was familiar with the “That’s what she
said,” joke, but a recent conversation with a consultant friend made me
realize some industries don’t feature it on a daily basis."

Jessamyn Smith seems to be trying to tarnish a whole industry based on her
personal experience. I work in the same industry as her, and it is not a joke
I hear very often at all.

What she also seems to be missing is that the response of "that's what _he_
said" is also used. The choice of which to use is dependent on the phrase
being highlighted.

------
127
So she essentially wrote a spam bot and justified it by saying that it's to
combat sexism. Sweet.

------
jjcm
Why not just patch the current bot to interject "that's what he said" as well?

------
pencilcode
:D :D it's a wonder that white guys never make jokes about white guys in
general.

~~~
tomp
We make jokes about black guys having long dicks...

Which is, in a way, a joke about white guys (precisely because you never say a
joke about white guys having long dicks).

------
mkramlich
I hereby move that all further article submissions focused on gender roles or
"sexism" be banned from HN. They aren't intellectually interesting, they
aren't productive, they tend to bring out the worst in terms of quality of
discussion. Yes, I know some of you may disagree with me, but that does not
make me evil or less enlightened than you are, so spare me the downvotes. For
those of you that do agree with me, I recommend we all start flagging any such
articles we do see. Since we're not allowed to downvote articles directly.
Sound good? Let's act.

~~~
natep
We shouldn't stop following the guidelines just because you don't like the
subject. This was clearly a social hack.

------
leon_
> I would write my OWN bot, that responded to TWSS with a quotation from a
> notable woman.

I'd write a bot that would answer with a TWSS-trigger and watch the IRC
channel going up in flames :]

~~~
dpritchett
You can actually use a copy of her own talkbackbot to do just that. Just wire
up your own trigger like so:

    
    
        def contains_twsrs_response_quote(chat_line):
            return bool(re.search(r'~ [\w ]+$', chat_line))
    

Edit: This presumes the responses you're trying to detect match the form
"Quote goes here ~ Author of Quote" seen in her quotes.txt.

------
georgieporgie
_There have been complaints about it spamming the channel_

I have to point out the obvious: the example quote was 34 words long, and
presumably it's of unpredictable length and content. TWSS is four words,
repeated, and easily filtered out mentally. I don't like TWSS, but I don't
think it's fair to call others' reactions irrational.

------
gcb
but at the same time, she consider a victory when the bot affects another
demographic.

------
gcb
now, every time someone says "i will write a bot for that", i can amend
"that's what she said" and proceed to the high five. And I didn't even like
that joke before.

------
paulhauggis
She has a huge problem with "that's what she said", but no problem with using
the term “brogrammer culture”.

If she was a co-worker and used that term, I would go to HR because it offends
me. Why? to make a point about the ridiculousness of our society. You get the
least bit offended and instead of just ignoring it, you need to make the
person go away/get fired.

It reminds me of Elementary school. When is this bullshit going to stop?

~~~
wpietri
You realize that bro culture and brogramming are actual, existing things
started by guys, yes?

And you also realize that she intentionally didn't go to HR about the problem?

And you realize that women have been oppressed in our culture by men for, oh,
millennia?

~~~
agateform
I agree that a job post for brogrammer might not seem welcoming towards woman.

>You realize that bro culture and brogramming are actual, existing things
started by guys, yes?

Please tell us your definition of brogramming and brogrammer.

From watching the initial joke video on brogramers I understood that
brogrammer is a prejudice term for male coder which likes to party, drink
alcohol, flirting and is usually more interested in main stream culture. There
is nothing wrong with any of those qualities but we still talk about
brogrammers as bad people. Aren't we also sexist and prejudice?

What would you say about an equivalent sisgrammer term for woman?

~~~
wpietri
I would say that you seem to have a poor understanding of pop culture in the
US. Bro culture is a prexisting thing. See, e.g.: [http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-
bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action...](http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-
bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=246)

------
drhowarddrfine
I'm tired of women wanting men to quit acting like men. If she doesn't like
it, is she a woman acting like a woman? I don't want her to behave that way so
maybe she should change HER behavior. Get along with others. Nobody's calling
her names. Nobody's targeting her.

------
fatjokes
Are TWSS jokes considered offensive now? If so I'm going to have to go to work
with tape on my mouth because usually I just can't turn it off!

------
tomjen3
Man this proves that -women- python programmers have no sense of humor.

Yes it is a lame joke. Really lame and yes it should probably have been turned
of.

But dammit that joke is not sexistic -- just because it involves naked women
(and presumably the the guy) doesn't mean it is against women. The joke has
been said plenty of times in response to 'it is very small and hard to find',
'it doesn't look like much yet', etc.

Go be a feminist somewhere else.

