

Is LessConf laughing in the face of feminism? - erikpukinskis
http://snowedin.net/blog/2011/04/07/is-lessconf-laughing-in-the-face-of-feminism/

======
yummyfajitas
_... I need to put them in the category with Aimonetti and David Heinemeier
Hansson and PennyArcade as people who think the feminists who think this stuff
is a problem are a bunch of whiny attention-seekers, and that the hubub about
“climate” and conferences is just a bunch of angry people with nothing better
to do than make life difficult for people with senses of humor._

A minor amendment I'd make to this. A large number of people think the
feminists who complain about this stuff are angry people with nothing better
to do.

The LessConf organizers get to join a much smaller and more elite category -
the narrow category of people willing to admit their true beliefs even at the
risk of public condemnation by various people who wish certain views weren't
expressed.

By the way, since the original post didn't provide it, here is a link to the
actual conference page. Form your own opinion.
<http://lessconf.lesseverything.com/>

I have no idea why the author included "Uncle Bear" on her page. He's ugly,
but didn't saying anything sexist in his promo video. Maybe the author of the
blog post is doing double duty, defending the honor of both women and sheep
(watch his video and you'll understand)?

~~~
T-R
I respect speakers' rights to express whichever beliefs they hold, but I think
it's also important, both for them and for attendees, to recognize the effect
that it has. Their views on women (or any group), popular or otherwise, are
irrelevant so long as they don't needlessly bring them up, but when they
choose to do something that makes some members of the audience less
comfortable and less likely to attend in the future (particularly since
speakers are often perceived to represent the community), then that's a loss
for the entire community, with negligible gain.

Even if those who are offended are overreacting, publicizing their views is
probably the best way to be sure that both speakers and attendees can make
well informed decisions about which conferences to attend.

If they want it to be a club for guys (and women who'll deal with it), that's
their prerogative. If, on the other hand, they think it's more to their
benefit to be inclusive, they should probably make an effort not to be
needlessly offensive. To that end, it's probably best they be made aware of
who they're offending.

~~~
jamesbritt
_particularly since speakers are often perceived to represent the community_

There needs to be a serious education effort to remove that mistaken idea from
people's minds.

It's also a bit insulting to the audience to assume they are too dense to
realize that the actions and opinions of one person are simply the actions and
opinions of one person.

 _Even if those who are offended are overreacting, publicizing their views is
probably the best way to be sure that both speakers and attendees can make
well informed decisions about which conferences to attend._

Exactly.

~~~
T-R
> _It's also a bit insulting..._

Perhaps true, but if the community doesn't acknowledge offensive behavior, it
comes off as tacit acceptance. If the speaker is invited back without question
or actively defended by the community, a person couldn't be blamed for getting
the impression that the speaker's views reflect the views of the community as
a whole, or at least of those responsible for the event.

> _There needs to be a serious education effort to remove that mistaken idea
> from people's minds._

I'd argue that that's difficult to do without acknowledging the behavior as
undesired/detrimental when it happens, for the reason above.

------
eoghan
It's not nice when people get hurt or offended. And I think it's possible to
create a world where that never happens if we agree to ban artists like Allan
and Steve and anyone who tries to do anything different.

Meanwhile, the Less guys have created a wonderful event through which I have
made great, wholesome friendships, with nice guys and nice girls—people who
like to smile and not take themselves too seriously and just want to learn and
create great things.

Personally, I don't condone smut. But a conference which will offend nobody in
some small way is a sterile, dull thing. O'Reilly do these well.

~~~
erikpukinskis
There many, many, beautiful things about Allan and Steve. They are incredible
contributors to the world. The event they've created has done many wonderful
things for people.

If you don't care that the conference is exclusionary towards women, then
fine. Have fun with that.

I think going to a Yet Another Conference Of Sexist White Dudes And The
Absurdly Be-armored Women Who Tolerate Them sounds obscenely boring, no matter
how interesting the white-dudeliness is. I'm just sick of it. But you have
fun.

~~~
T-R
> _Have fun with that._

I think your tone detracts from your point.

> _But a conference which will offend nobody in some small way is a sterile,
> dull thing._

I think the point to make is that this is not "some _small_ way", as much as
it may appear to be small to some - it's significant enough for you to stop
attending. The group of people offended by misogyny is statistically
independent from the group of people contributing to the conferences' success,
so:

\- there's no reason they needed to be offended

\- offending them offers no real benefit

\- offending them hurts the success of the conference by discouraging people
from attending who otherwise would have.

\- ignoring or supporting it exacerbates this problem, and so it's not in the
best interest of anyone to ignore or support it, regardless of their views on
women

~~~
yummyfajitas
The real benefit is that a more casual and honest environment is created at
the conference.

At the typical sterile, corporate, business casual conference in my field
(finance), there is a particular very boring code of behavior. There will be
very little honesty - if you think a product sucks, or you think the industry
is broken, you'll keep it to yourself. The guy from Morgan Stanley will never
ever disagree with John Mack .

From LessConf's advertisements, I get the impression that their conference is
more honest and more fun. The guy from Google might even disagree with Larry
Page.

If this results in a few oversensitive people staying home, that sounds like a
tradeoff well worth making.

~~~
T-R
That's absolutely a fair point. I don't want to imply that we shouldn't keep
it in moderation, but I do think we should be careful about what we define as
"oversensitive", particularly for groups that we don't belong to, because
there is a danger of defining the whole group as such, and therefore excluding
them entirely (socially). If they are sensitive to it, overreacting or not, it
does discourage them from attending. I personally don't think giving up
arguably misogynistic references (specifically) in presentations would be so
detrimental that it offsets the benefit of not offending those sensitive to
them, particularly since it's a group that we as a community have been so
effective at scaring off in the past.

------
onan_barbarian
Let's not forget Mark Pesce at linux.conf.au feeling compelled to put fetish
photos in his presentation to illustrate some minor point unrelated to sexual
fetishes.

Once you start down the trashy route, there's nowhere to go but down; you wind
up competing with all the other douchebags for attention.

Also, you pick up a bunch of fans from this sort of thing who are essentially
shitheads ("Huh huh, those humourless feminazis are at it again, you tell 'em,
I thought your talk/conf/video was just good fun") so your good name will be
further trashed by all your defenders, even if you want to back off.

~~~
tzs
Your name is delightfully incongruous with your comment.

~~~
onan_barbarian
Unlike Mark Pesce (still surfing the 3 inch wave created by his successful
creation of, ahem, VRML), I at least know that I'm a wanker.

Funny point though.

------
psawaya
Having "stripclub" in the title of your talk is pretty unprofessional.

To their credit, though, 3/10 of the speakers at LessConf are women.
<http://lessconf.lesseverything.com/> That's a better ratio than at most tech
events.

I think they're more guilty of being flippant than deliberately sexist.

~~~
jamesbritt
_Having "stripclub" in the title of your talk is pretty unprofessional._

Why?

Perhaps it's not your thing, but there are plenty of people, both patrons and
employees, who see expressions of sexuality as normal and fun.

And if you think that having women or men dance around and disrobe encourages
others to think of women or men as little more than sex objects then the
problem is with those ignorant people who foolishly extrapolate from what some
individuals do to entire populations.

~~~
Lazlo_Nibble
There are very few _professional settings_ where expressions of sexuality are
seen as normal and fun. That's what "unprofessional" means.

~~~
jamesbritt
_There are very few professional settings where expressions of sexuality are
seen as normal and fun._

OK, I'll grant that actually stripping at most work places would be bad form.
But _mentioning_ strip clubs? Referring to them? Depends I suppose on the
country and local prudishness. It's not normally itself considered an
expression of sexuality.

 _That's what "unprofessional" means._

You're just begging the question here.

~~~
Lazlo_Nibble
I would look at it this way: say you've started a new job. You've been told
that you're expected to behave "professionally", but not given any specific
guidance as to what that means in this company. You're seated at the head of a
large table in a conference room, with a mixed audience of people who work for
the company. You don't know who any of them are or what they do -- they could
plausibly be anyone from mailroom people to senior executives. You're asked to
introduce yourself.

Under these circumstances would you, with no prompting from your audience,
consider it "professional" to start talking about your interest in strip
clubs?

~~~
jamesbritt
_Under these circumstances would you, with no prompting from your audience,
consider it "professional" to start talking about your interest in strip
clubs?_

It would be no more or less professional than mentioning playing in a death
metal band on weekends or being a volunteer at an atheist outreach group or
helping organize protests to support gay rights.

Any reticence would be based on how professional I thought the others were,
and if I thought I would be at a disadvantage because of narrow-minded
prejudice about things that have no bearing on my work.

------
marcusbooster
Pressure the sponsors. They include such HN favorites as GitHub, MailChimp,
Twilio, Balsamiq, and others.

~~~
uncle_johnny
I guarantee you they don't care because the points being made are over the
top. Ask Amy Hoy (a speaker) about it and I will guarantee she will say, "Who
gives a shit?"

~~~
marcusbooster
I don't disagree that the points being made are over the top—at least at this
time—but it seems like the Ruby conferences have brought this increased
scrutiny upon themselves.

And you're probably right, my limited impression of the Ruby community is that
they don't "give a shit". Which is why my advice is to pressure the sponsors.
Misogyny is bad for business these days, who wants that kind of P.R.?

~~~
uncle_johnny
But the sponsors don't care and normal people don't either. The tone of these
conferences is not the reason women are not more involved, if it is then it is
a small piece.

Real Problem: Math, Science and Engineering are boring for women (not all
women but I'm making simple points here). For that matter they are boring for
most people.

Solution: Don't make them boring when kids are in grade school and high
school.

The lack of women is not because of this stupid conversation this erik guy
started.

~~~
T-R
> _The tone of these conferences is not the reason women are not more
> involved_

I'm under the impression that it is - some women have voiced objection to the
tone, so we know it's at least the case for some, and we don't have any data
indicating that those anecdotes aren't representative of the whole. In fact,
since so few women go, those anecdotes are pretty significant.

> _Math, Science and Engineering are boring for women_

If that were true, it still wouldn't account for the significant difference
between the number of women in CS and other STEM fields - we do, though, know
that the tone of the community is the reason for some.

> _Solution: Don't make them boring when kids are in grade school and high
> school_

Certainly there are other (and more far reaching) issues, but the tone that we
present as a community is one that we have more direct control over (with a
very simple solution), and changing it to one that isn't perceived as hostile
would have little negative impact.

------
Yardboy
We're doing this again? Didn't we cover all this when people got all up in a
snit over LAST year's LessConf?

------
uncle_johnny
Is this seriously a topic of conversation. Anyone that's worth going to this
conference won't give a shit.

------
lesscalss
yeah founder Allan Branch also made fun of the Haitian earthquake last
year...classy outfit

~~~
yugio
[http://less-everything.pissedconsumer.com/less-everything-s-...](http://less-
everything.pissedconsumer.com/less-everything-s-founder-allan-branch-s-
comments-on-haiti-20100116167982.html)

~~~
Yardboy
Jeebus, with all the thin-skinned douchenozzle pansies in this country, it's
impossible to even have a fucking honest opinion that in any way differs in
the slightest from the "conventional wisdom" of the hordes and masses.

He didn't "make fun" of Haiti, he expressed his opinion. It's honesty. Agree
or disagree, like or dislike, but lay off calling people out over simply
saying what's on their minds.

Honestly, I couldn't really give a shit about Haiti, either. It's tragic, what
happened, but we've got enough of our own fucking problems for me to worry
about those people.

------
uncle_johnny
The only thing this whole thread is really accomplishing is giving the author
more twitter followers.

