
Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon - wglb
http://singlevoice.net/2012/07/12/sexism-redyellow-cards-at-defcon/
======
codehotter
Does this happen at non-IT parties where a lot of men gather to get drunk and
to try and socialize? I admit I'm not much of a party person, but from what I
have seen, the answer is yes.

I do not believe this has got anything to do with IT nor with sexism. If you
are an attractive woman (relative to the attending male population), you are
going to attract attention. That is how men are wired. That is our culture.
Men have to approach women, or they don't laid.

Pure speculation, but the man who grabbed the woman's ass probably did it
because he was in a mischievous mood, and to express his sexuality, and he
probably needed to do something like that and get away with it to be happy. In
other contexts, the victim might even have smiled at him (or punched him with
a smile on her face). That might be what he needed. I grab my girlfriend's ass
sometimes and it feels good to be allowed to do that.

The problem is probably that these are men that don't get out much, have low
social skills, don't have experience with how to express their sexuality in an
appropriate way, and things go wrong. And things go wrong in ways that make
women very uncomfortable.

The problem is probably not that women are not being respected or valued. To
me, sexism would be like automatically assuming a woman is not going to be
able to perform some task, because she is a woman. Grabbing someone's ass is
not sexism, it's inappropriate sexuality.

What can we do about it? Teach men how to express their sexuality in a way
that works. Teach men that there are places women go to when they want to
receive that kind of attention, teach them to recognize the signals, and teach
them that IT conferences are not one of those places.

The cards are a really good idea just because it makes men aware that they are
making her uncomfortable. Believe it or not, most do not realize.

~~~
token_female
> I do not believe this has got anything to do with sexism

> That is our culture

Has it ever occurred to you that "our culture" might be a bit sexist?

> Men have to approach women, or they don't get laid

1\. Approach doesn't have to mean sexual harassment

2\. Women can like sex too. And women can approach men too. mind blowing, no?

> He probably needed to do something like that and get away with it to be
> happy?

What? What if the "something like that" were rape? What if it were murder?
This whole paragraph reeks of you not thinking women's consent/feelings on who
touches them matter.

> I grab my girlfriend's ass sometimes

Can you really not see how this is different from grabbing the ass of a random
stranger at a professional-ish conference?

> Teach men how to express their sexuality in a way that works.

Damn, I was really hoping you were going to end that sentence with something
like "that doesn't make women very uncomfortable" or "that doesn't make women
feel undervalued or disrespected". I guess this far into your post I should
have realized that your "solution" would also be entirely from the man's
perspective of "getting" sex from women. And herein lies the problem that both
you and the men at the conference share: you view women primarily as a means
to sexual gratification. If you view men primarily as intellectual peers and
women first as sex objects and only secondarily as intellectual beings, that
is sexism.

~~~
gavanwoolery
News flash: all men, deep down, view (attractive) women as a potential means
to their sexual gratification. We cannot suppress it, short of, you know,
lopping it off. We also _happen_ to respect, admire, love, and look up to a
good deal of women...but that would not make a very interesting article to
talk about that stuff.

EDIT: for those who don't understand what I am saying, let me clarify:

Take special note of my words above, particularly "DEEP DOWN" -- by this, I
mean at the subconscious level, the id, human nature, whatever you want to
call it. Yes, I can control my sex-drive like anyone else, and I don't go
around raping women because I feel sexual attraction to them. Just as well, I
am capable of feeling love without sexual connotations, but deep down I
understand that the reason my brain loves is because it has found a worthy
mate. Argue with Scientific American, not me, if you have a problem with that.

~~~
hythloday
No, not all men think this way. I don't, gay men don't, and I think many men
(perhaps the majority) who find women attractive don't. You don't speak for
me, and I think what you're saying is vile.

~~~
gavanwoolery
Sorry, all straight men who are sexually healthy -- you know what I mean.

If you are sexually healthy, I hate to break it to you, but the reason your
mind loves, respects, and is otherwise polite to women is because nature has
made sure that you will do whatever you can to procreate with the mates you
see fit. Nature has designed your mind such that it experiences a higher order
of sexual attraction, which is called love. This attraction is based on
judgment of a mate in terms of their physical and mental capacity. If you do
not believe me, why have you never fallen in love with an obese or dim-witted
person?

If you want to argue that nature has not designed you to seek
reproduction...maybe you are the type of person that believes in soul-mates,
one true love, and all that stuff, in which case I'm probably not the best
person to argue with as our views are inherently different.

Nested too deep, but to reply to the comments below:

@hythloday - There are natural inclinations which we have deemed socially
acceptable, and ones we have not. If you desire to murder someone, you are
probably a sociopath, and obviously no one is going condone you murdering
people. On the other hand, if you experience sexual attraction, you are
probably normal (ask any scientist if that is hard to believe). If deep down,
you desire to rape somebody, you are abnormal. If deep down, you feel sexual
attraction towards someone, there is nothing wrong with that.

@swa14 - Have you ever tried to argue with a believer of god (from an atheist
perspective)? It is pretty fruitless, which is why I would advise to avoid it,
just as I would advise arguing against me if you believe in mysticism like
soul-mates. Anything which cannot be scientifically proven or disproven (like
the existence of a god) generally leads to fruitless arguments.

~~~
token_female
[citation needed]

I would love to see the study that demonstrates this, controlling for all
societal factors.

~~~
gavanwoolery
Do you need a citation if I tell you the sky is blue? What would you argue
love is based on? Magical unicorns?

~~~
token_female
For the claim that all forms of love, respect etc. Boil down to sexual
attraction? Yes. I don't know where you've been for the past 40 years, but
Freud's theories on sexuality had no basis in empiricism and are no longer
accepted among modern psychologists.

~~~
gavanwoolery
If you want to argue a counter theory, that is fine, but simply saying "you
are wrong" is not sufficient. Like I said, what biological impulse would YOU
account for love? What is the reason for love, evolutionarily speaking? The
answer is pretty clear, and is not nearly exclusive to Freud's theories alone.

------
gavanwoolery
Maybe the title is link bait, but I don't think this is "sexism" by
definition. Sexism:

"Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the
basis of sex."

A bunch of males were hitting on the author, crassly or awkwardly, but they
were not denying the author equal rights. If a female asked a male to show
their privates, no one would call it "sexism"; it might be rude, uncalled for,
or strange, but not sexism. At a place like DefCon, most of the males are
probably not regular bar-hoppers -- they mostly introverted, and probably fail
miserably when trying to approach the opposite sex. (Not to knock on anybody,
I am introverted/awkward myself.)

Long story short, if you step into a bar full of males who normally have few
opportunities to make contact with women in a social context...yes, you are
stepping into the lion's den. Males are sexual, but not necessarily "sexist"
-- don't confuse the two.

~~~
jessedhillon
_Prejudice_ , as in, a default judgment/assessment weighing against an
individual? I submit that the idea that _it's permitted to treat this person
less respectfully because they are a woman_ is such a judgment, and it is on
the basis of sex.

 _Stereotyping_ , as in _a belief... about specific types of individuals or
certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately
reflect reality_. Again, I submit that the entire story is about OP having to
contend with the notion that _any and all_ women are available and open to
sexual advances, and that the prejudice against respectful behavior toward
them makes it easier/permissible to make those advances.

The fact that you simply cannot conceive of a plausible reverse scenario does
not mean that something is not sexism. There doesn't have to be a reverse
scenario, nor do mitigating life circumstances matter; everyone has a back
story.

Your last line is one small step away from saying that women who wear short
skirts are asking to be groped. It's tantamount to saying women don't deserve
to be treated respectfully or feel safe, if enough of the males surrounding
them are losers.

You might as well be saying, "don't have boobs, some men haven't seen those."

~~~
gavanwoolery
Wow, way to put a bunch of words in my mouth.

 _Actually,_ what I am saying is that nature is not always nice or civilized.
When you get a bunch of drunk males into a room, their super ego goes down and
they will begin to behave (almost literally) like animals. Is it right or
wrong? I don't know, but it is not sexism. Is it to be expected? Yes. How do I
know it is to be expected? Because you can easily replicate the situation. Go
to Cancun if you want to see males in their most animal-state. Is it
condonable? I do not know, but it is the way nature made us. Nature designed
us to want reproduce - without our rules, morals, and what-have-you, we would
be doing much worse things than asking to see private parts. Unfortunately,
nature also gave us language, which means a lot of times males will utter
really stupid things because their sex-drive takes over and their brain
reaches a state of near-retardation (hence the popular phrase "show us your
tits").

In shorter words - if you are a female in a bar that is overwhelmingly packed
with males -- yes, you should very much expect to get harassed. Yes, it is not
"right", but its the way nature made us so there is not a lot of sense in
complaining about it. You could just as well complain about people being
obese, because nature designed us to enjoy food. Am I saying women deserve to
be harassed when they dress sexually? No, of course not. But what I am saying
is that some males have less super ego than others, and it varies with the
situation, so there are certain situations (like this one) in which a female
could certainly _expect_ to be harassed.

~~~
mkramlich
Upvoted you to counter-act the "college P.C." brigade.

~~~
derleth
"PC" just means "Being polite to _everyone_ "

~~~
gavanwoolery
Sometime's PC goes overboard. It is not a bad thing necessarily, unless
abused.

One example of PC going wrong is the word "retarded" - the PC crowd thought
"mentally challenged" would be a better term, even though retarded just means
you are a bit slow, mentally-challenged makes it seem like thinking is an
arduous task.

~~~
mkaltenecker
No. You are not supposed to use retarded because that word has consistently
been used to insult and denigrate disabled people. It's the same with gay. You
are not supposed to use it as an insult. It doesn't matter whether the person
you are insulting is gay or not.

~~~
gavanwoolery
My gay friends prefer "gay" or "queer" over homosexual. My black friends
prefer "black" over African American. I could very well be wrong about the
word retarded though. :)

~~~
mkaltenecker
You did not understand me. Using “gay” as a positive term isn’t a problem. “He
came out first as a gay footballer” is a perfectly alright sentence. Using
”gay” (or “retarded”) as an insult is where the problem lies (with “retarded”
the additional problem is that no one uses it as a positive term – and since
it’s so overwhelmingly used negatively, using it neutrally isn’t really
possible).

When someone tells you he likes My Little Pony and you respond with “Man, you
are so gay!” then that’s a problem. You are using “gay” as in insult, as if
being gay were a bad thing. That’s the reasoning behind why many people think
using “gay” in that manner is a bad idea. That works analogously for
“retarded”.

That’s not to say you can’t express, say, disgust at someone liking My Little
Pony. “Man, your taste fucking sucks!” is a perfectly alright response no one
will have a problem with (beyond disagreeing whether My Little Pony is good or
bad).

Again, I don’t want to ban people from using “gay” or “retarded” as insults.
But when they do I will call them out and explain my reasoning.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
> _with “retarded” the additional problem is that no one uses it as a positive
> term_

Not true. In the automotive world "retarded" is used quite often in regards to
your distributor, vacuum and timing. By adjusting things, your timing can be
advanced or retarded. It is not a negative thing. It is simply how engines are
tuned.

[http://georgiajag.com/Documents/Vacuum%20Advance%20versus%20...](http://georgiajag.com/Documents/Vacuum%20Advance%20versus%20Vacuum%20Retard.htm)

~~~
mkaltenecker
Exception accepted! I don’t think anyone has a problem with that kind of use.
I certainly don’t.

So, yes, sometimes “retarded“ can be a neutral term.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
There is also the case of fire/flame retardant.

It truly is a shame that a very legitimate word ( _retard_ ) with a very
legitimate meaning ( _to delay or slow progress_ ) that had been used in
legitimate ways for years was co-opted to insult people with diminished metal
capacity. (While technically true, it is mean. Much like calling me _whitey_
is technically true as I am white... it is generally an insult.) If not for
that, the use of phrases like "well that was retarded" would still be legit
uses since it is in spirit of the original meaning and not too far from saying
"well, that was stupid". One could even argue that in a slightly less PC world
we could still be using it to describe things and actions... just not people.
But that is wishful thinking. The damage has been done.

Side note: It is some what also the case with the word "gay" which used to
just mean "happy". Although, when people say "well, that was gay" they are
generally not meaning "happy" so we've pretty much departed from that. I don't
know the whole history of the N-word, but I don't believe there was ever a
non-hateful use of the word (even taking into consideration its origin).

------
Aloisius
What I don't understand is why this happens anymore. Surely no one can think
it is acceptable in this day and age. I know we're talking about some of the
least socially adept group of people, but come on. I don't see how you can
even operate in society if you're literally trying to lick other people in
public.

Disclosure: I went to DEF CON 2 in 1994 when I was a shy 15 year old and there
were no women around and apparently, better manners.

~~~
btilly
Here is my theory.

A bunch of the people present think that they can hack systems. And have read
articles about pickup artists and have come to the theory that what women
really want is a guy who has the balls to be up front about what he wants. So
being over the top seems to them to be a way to hack human relationships.

Maybe there are some women who respond well to that. I don't know. I've never
had a reason to try to act like that. But even if a hypothetical minority of
women will respond well, the vast majority simply won't. And you'll leave a
trail of offended people behind you.

So overconfidence combined with stupidly wrong theories about what women will
respond to, and a complete lack of respect for feelings hurt lead to over the
top jerks. There are not a lot of these. They are probably a very small
minority. But even a small portion have a disproportionate impact on the
experience that women will have.

~~~
Skoofoo
The thing is that pickup artistry is a school of thought developed in the part
of society populated with folks who like to get fake tans and club every
weekend with girls whose lack of wit is matched only by their lack of self-
respect.

~~~
TruthElixirX
I wrote a paper once in college over this. It wasn't a master thesis or
anything, but the conclusion I reached was that pick up artist stuff was
really just hooking emotionally crippled men up with emotionally crippled
women.

I read "The Game" by Neil Strauss as part of my paper and the guy he follows
in it, Mystery, is very emotionally under developed. He throws temper tantrums
continually. Both Neil and Mystery seem to have huge self esteem problems and
use pick up artist tricks to try to make themselves feel better without ever
addressing their core problems.

The women they meet on their journey, according to them, are fantastic
looking, but they too have huge emotional problems, mainly very very low self
worth.

So you have these guys who are pretty intelligent from a sort of book stand
point and these girls who have very low self esteem. In the end everyone in
the book seemed to be worse off. Many of them spiral out of control and end up
pretty bad.

It was pretty sad. :(

------
mistermann
Prediction: The sexism in IT problem will never end.

Here's my hypothesis:

1\. Women and men are different. We see this played out all around us, all the
time, both sides happily make and laugh at jokes about it, and no one has a
problem acknowledging this fact during discussion of other topics, but when
certain subjects are being discussed, these very same people will assure you,
with total sincerity, that there is no difference between men and women.

2\. IT is a male dominated field, and it is distinctly different from other
"professional" fields. There is something about IT that either appeals
especially to males, or males are particularly skilled at. I have no idea why.
And, a significant portion of these men have very high technical skills, but
relatively undeveloped social skills, which shouldn't be surprising. Other
professions require social skills _in addition to_ the skills dedicated to the
profession. IT does not.

I'm not saying this is righteous, or the ways things _should be_ , but that
people continuously seem to be amaaaaaazed that this stuff still happens is
getting a bit ridiculous.

~~~
token_female
> There is something about IT that either appeals especially to males, or
> males are particularly skilled at. I have no idea why.

Really? You have no idea? You don't think it might possibly have something to
do with sexism in society and in IT culture?

From early childhood, girls are taught that the ought to be interested in
princesses, dolls, and playing house, while boys are taught that they ought to
be interested in LEGOs, trains, cars, building things, computers, math,
science, sports, etc. When you go to McDonalds, they ask if you are a boy or a
girl, and if you are a girl, they give you a Barbie, while if you are a boy,
they give you a car. If for some reason you are a girl and would prefer to
play with LEGOs, your peers make fun of you relentlessly. Boys get to play
with LEGOs without the stigma. And don't start telling me about reverse sexism
and how hard it is for boys who want to play with dolls - the media doesn't
portray the gendered interests as separate but equal. It portrays the boys'
activities as "cool" and the girls' activities as domestic. The grown-up
version of playing with LEGOs has much higher social standing in society than
the grown-up version of playing with dolls. It is not a valid comparison.

It continues from there. Teachers tend to call on boys more often than they
call on girls. Boys are taught to be aggressive while girls are taught to be
submissive. This leads to aggressive girls being called "bitches" while boys
who behave the same way are praised for being "assertive". The list goes on
and on and on, and the only way you could not notice it is if you have the
privilege of not having to pay attention because it doesn't detrimentally
affect you.

And then we have articles like this. Say you're a smart, college-age woman.
You are really good at computer science, and you are also really good at, say,
writing/things that might be pre-law. You know that if you pursue computer
science, you will be one of the only women and will have to put up with the
kind of behavior the article talks about, potentially for your entire career,
whereas if you pursue law, you will be surrounded by a somewhat even mix of
men and women, and that kind of behavior will be much less tolerated. Tell me
which field it makes sense to choose, and then tell me again that sexism
doesn't play a role.

~~~
derleth
> Boys get to play with LEGOs without the stigma.

But a boy who plays with a Barbie gets the shit beaten out of him. Possibly
even by his own parents.

> while boys who behave the same way are praised for being "assertive".

... and develop stress-related problems at a higher rate, and die years
younger than women.

Everything cuts both ways. _Everything._

~~~
token_female
> But a boy who plays with a Barbie gets the shit beaten out of him. Possibly
> even by his own parents.

I already pre-empted this. Read my comment again. Barbies are sex objects.
LEGOs are precursors to a respectable career path. It's not a valid
comparison.

> and develop stress-related problems at a higher rate, and die years younger
> than women.

Please, tell me more about how women are systematically oppressing men. Sure,
there are some areas in which women have an advantage. The life expectancy
thing is likely biological. Many other apparent examples of "reverse sexism"
are in fact products of the other kind of sexism - e.g., the oft-cited
statistics about divorce law and custody battles - women have an advantage
here because society, and the law, tend to see women as being in the domestic
sphere while men are supposed to be the ones with careers. Is it sexist? yes.
Does it show that sexism isn't an issue? not in the slightest.

~~~
derleth
> Please, tell me more about how women are systematically oppressing men.

I never said that. I said sexism and sexist attitudes hurt men as well.

> "reverse sexism"

No such thing. There is only sexism. It is always wrong.

> Does it show that sexism isn't an issue?

Only an idiot would claim sexism isn't an issue. Don't accuse me of being an
idiot.

Also, this article is interesting:

[http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/156194/what_abou...](http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/156194/what_about_the_men_why_our_gender_system_sucks_for_men%2C_too?page=entire)

(I've posted it elsewhere in this comment page, but it deserves a bit more
attention.)

------
mootothemax
Whilst there appear to be many reasonable male members of the IT community,
one thing holding us back is the number of people who attempt to justify a
blatantly wrong situation.

Examples include arguing over the definition of sexism, saying stuff like
"that's just the difference between men and women," or coming up with
hyperbole about how it's not now possible to talk to woman without being
labelled a creep.

I do wonder how much is because, to badly misquote Neal Stephenson's Snow
Crash, of males believing that they're too intelligent to be sexist.

~~~
astrofinch
Agreed. If anyone politely asks you to stop what you're doing, you should
seriously reconsider it, period. Women complaining about behavior they find
creepy is just a special case of this general rule.

------
kabuks
The recent rash of articles on HN re: sexism leaves me feeling hopeful that
our industry is inching closer to being a place were women feel welcome.

I would love to see men handing out these cards too.

~~~
mkaltenecker
No, those articles leave me depressed because of all the idiotic sexists that
rear their ugly head in the comments.

I mean: What. The. Fuck.

------
swa14
It's not that I disagree with the general sentiment, but there's an undertone
of self-righteousness there.

" I was already thinking about what clothes I would avoid taking to Las Vegas
for Defcon. Short skirts, low cut tops, tight dresses, and anything that might
be overtly attention-grabbing have been bumped to second priority on that
packing list.

Why?"

Maybe because it's a good idea to dress as part of the business, not part of
"the entertainment", if you want to be taken seriously.

And no, women should be able to dress in whatever fashion they please without
being worried about being assaulted verbally or otherwise, but that doesn't
imply the right to be taken seriously.

I'm just not sure whether behaviour of that kind is a net-positive in solving
the gender-issues during conferences.

~~~
lflux
Defcon and Blackhat are two different animals. Blackhat is the "business"
conference, whereas Defcon is where mohawks and whacky t-shirts are the norm.
Dressing as "business" at Defcon will get you accused of being a Fed.

~~~
swa14
I'm sorry. I meant "the business" as in "the business you're representing",
not the "business" as in suits. So in this case dressing in wacky t-shirts and
mohawks.

Actually, as you put it, wearing a nice business suit might be a good solution
for women at defcon. It would buck the trend of dressing whacky forced-casual,
making you stand out and garner attention, _and_ , noone is going to grab the
ass of a suspected federal agent.

------
AYBABTME
I really don't understand how men, and women, can sometime come to the
conclusion that grabbing this gal/dude's ass is a good idea.

Like, how does one come up with the mental process of doing this? Is it
something like:

1\. Homo erectus identified other gender specimen.

2\. Homo erectus will walk to specimen and grab specimen ass.

3\. Logicaly, Homo erectus is expecting wild sexual intercourse as a result.

4\. Homo erectus carry on with brilliant idea.

Is it something so deep inside one's primale instinct that they simply can't
resist? Is it the rapist sleeping inside one's subconscient?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
The thing is that unattractive men observe attractive and/or rich men doing
these things and so get an idea that they can do them too.

The difference between being arrested or getting laid can be the difference
between being John Doe or Bradd Pitt.

Can they not resist? Testosterone is one hell of a drug.

------
vishaldpatel
The way to reduce this type of sexism and increase understanding is through
more interaction, and not less.

Yellow and red cards may achieve segregation, but they'll also introduce fear
into the mix. A man who receives one of these cards, for whatever reason, will
think twice before he talks to a girl at a conference again, just as a girl
who has been grabbed once at Defcon thinks twice before ever going to Defcon
again.

People deal with fear and stress in funny ways. Adding one more layer of fear
in a society that is already a little too afraid of the opposite sex will only
backfire more in some other way.

Men who grab women do so because they're afraid to talk to them. Similarly,
every time a guy says "hello" to an overly paranoid girl, she'll think that he
wants to get in her pants.

~~~
wildgift
A little fear on the part of a man given one of these cards isn't equivalent
to the fear of a woman who has been grabbed.

~~~
vishaldpatel
You're nitpicking. My stance is that they're both fears and they'll both
result in more fear, which is counterproductive to a society that is trying to
reduce sexism.

~~~
wildgift
An imbalance of power isn't "nitpicking".

In this situation, it's not incumbent on the women to educate the men. It's a
bar, or a party, not a classroom. The men are being told about the problem,
and need to get their act together.

Maybe the way to do it is to hold a class on sexism and behavior at defcon.

~~~
vishaldpatel
Nitpicking is when someone loses sight of the big picture when they perceive
imperfections in a part of it. You're definitely nitpicking.

------
rawrly
With any large gathering of people you are certain to find a number of
outliers with disrespectful social impositions (being racist, sexism or anti-
techism.) Defcon is no exception, so it is a grave presumption to place the
blame an event itself for the disrespectful actions of a handful of attendees
(unless there is a track of "how to seduce women by licking tattoos" at the
event.) Furthermore, the fact it is Defcon is held in Las Vegas which only
fuels any such flames of inappropriate behaviour with litres of alcohol and
tourists who may just be at the casino bar per-chance.

This said, I am for these cards. Sometimes people simply need to be told in a
direct matter to knock it off. However, please do not cast blame on an entire
event for the misguided actions of a few people.

I hope this individual has an enjoyable time this year, at the least it
appears they plan on returning so whatever misdoings of last year were not
enough to dissuade a return visit (even if they plan to now be armed with
Defcon funded "creeper cards" it should make the whole experience fare more
interesting or enlightening for all involved.)

------
DanBC
I like the idea of the cards. I couldn't read them. Partly because they're
weirdly using text in a jpeg.

I'm gently worried about how well they'll be received. Already in this thread
there's disagreement. Imagine what that's like when you're surrounded by drunk
men. But good luck to them.

Clear colour / symbol coding is used sometimes with people who have learning
disabilities. For example, when they need to go to a hospital for treatment
they can have a sheet with "green square - things I like" and "red circle -
Things you must not do" lists. Or cards at meetings to suggest people slow
down or take turns in speaking. These ideas are simple, and work really well,
and some people are trying to expand them into use for the general population.

------
option_greek
I hope the cards won't end up becoming badges of honor for creeps.

------
tomc1985
How many creepers are going to start collecting these cards? You know, like a
creeper leaderboard...

------
tsotha
Jesus H. Christ, these wilting flowers are never going to accomplish anything
in life.

------
mparlane
Here was me thinking that the guys attending defcon were more introverts than
sleezes.

~~~
mmatants
In my experience, the introvert/extrovert trait is orthogonal to whether
someone is sleazy.

------
readme
I tend to believe that women initiate encounters with men with unconscious
non-verbal signals. A man who is able to read these signals will have a good
success rate in meeting new women. A man who cannot will be pegged as a
"creeper".

I think it's not only true in real life, but on dating sites as well. Women
receive so many messages from men that you are probably just going to get
buried in all the noise if you send one. The best approach would be to make a
good profile, and wait for them to message you. I'm not saying males
initiating contact on these sites won't have any success, but I'd say it's
statistically unlikely, comparatively.

It is also a strange coincidence that even on a biological level millions of
sperm must compete to fertilize one egg. In lieu of absolute scientific proof
(which may or may not exist) I'm fairly confident women are the ones who do
the choosing, not us.

For the best results in approaching women, please consider the following
flowcharts:

Pre-Approach Flowchart:

    
    
        <eye contact?> --no--> STOP
               |
              yes 
               |
        <did it seem adverse?> --yes--> STOP
               |
               no
               |
        <is boyfriend present?> --yes--> STOP
               |
               no
               |
            APPROACH          
         

Approach Flowchart:

    
    
        <Did you open by sexually assaulting
         this woman, such as by unwanted
         touching?> -------------YES---> GO TO JAIL
                        |
        <Did you open with a pick-up line?> --YES--> FAIL
                        |
        <Did you open with a cowardly question
         such as: do you have the time?>    --YES--> FAIL
                        |
        <Did you confidently introduce yourself
         or say something very interesting?> --NO--> FAIL
                        |
                       yes
                        |
        <Was it reciprocated?> --NO--> Nice try anyway
                        |
                       yes
                        |
       +-- <Are you and her still exchanging mutual -- NO
       |    conversation?>                              |
       |                |                               |
       |               YES                              |
       |                |                               |
      NO---<Do you think it is time to end it?>         |
                        |    +--------------------------+
                       YES   |
                        |    |
                        |    |
                  <Did you end it?>--NO---[Your odds worsened]
                          |                      |
                         YES                     |
                          |                      |
                  <Did you agree to meet --------+
                   again or go somewhere
                   else together immediately?>--NO--+
                          |                         |
        WIN  ------------YES                        |
                                                    |
                          +--------------------------
                          |
                   <Did you get her number?>--NO-- Maybe you 
                          |                  will see her again.
                         YES
                          |
                    Call soon or she will forget who
                    you are. Don't leave a message the
                    first time. Don't call more than 
                    two times in the first week. If
                    very desperate and no luck after two
                    you may try calling once more in a week,
                    but seriously, move on...

~~~
boboblong
"Did you open by sexually assaulting this woman, such as by unwanted
touching?"

Touching someone on the shoulder is not sexual assault. Let's try to keep
things in perspective, please--if simply touching a member of a particular
group warrants jail time, that group is an overclass.

~~~
DanBC
Depends on the touch. No one has suggested this warrants jail time. People are
saying, and quite reasonably I think, that you should keep your hands to
yourself.

Shaking hands = fine.

Tapping shoulder or top outside of arm = less fine, but acceptable in a narrow
range of situations.

Placing cupped hand on shoulder of a stranger, with squeezing or stroking,
with "friendly banter" = really not okay.

~~~
boboblong
"Placing cupped hand on shoulder of a stranger, with squeezing or stroking,
with "friendly banter" = really not okay."

Nope, still not worth jail time. Move away from the person or grab their hand
and remove it from your shoulder. I'm sorry, but you do not get to have people
arrested for giving you an unwanted shoulder rub. If they persist, then yeah,
they're assaulting (and harassing) you. Again, let's have some perspective.

~~~
DanBC
Why do you keep mentioning jail time? Especially when I specifically said that
no-one is claiming jail time is warranted.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
I think they were getting confused. It was the Flowchart Guy that said it: _<
Did you open by sexually assaulting this woman, such as by unwanted touching?>
\-------------YES---> GO TO JAIL_

------
stevewillows
I think it's great to recognize when someone is inappropriate -- but I can
only imagine pervy young boys seeing these as another collectable item from
DefCon.

My concern is that the cards put a humour or reduced weight to something that
is extremely serious.

------
cfn
This is if anything a sad state of affairs. Maybe as a reaction to this,
locally, there is a women only developer user group where men can only attend
if invited. The other user group has a 50:1 ratio of men vs. women.

------
masry
More women complaining about how the world isn't tailored to their every want
and need, and they get all the sympathy in the world in spite of how plain
whiny they're being. On the other end of the spectrum, I invite you to read
this article, written by a woman, on how funny male rape is:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129385/Exhausted-
ma...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129385/Exhausted-man-flees-
night-stand-demands-sex.html)

I don't know much about Defcon, but I get the idea that the person that wrote
that post isn't organizing it, nor is a prominent figure in the scene. I also
gather that the general atmosphere at that is.. fun-ish.

If you don't like that kind of fun, have you considered, um, not attending? Or
did you just go ahead and demand that everyone at defcon behaved like you want
them too, because, obviously, you're at the centre of the universe and
everyone at defcon is just there to do what you please?

If you go to a gay bar you'll get your ass grabbed, if you go to the sketchy
part of town at 2 am you'll get mugged, and if you go to defcon with a
shoulder tattoo showing and you're flirting with some guy, you might get the
tattoo licked. If you're not into these things, don't go to these places.

EDIT: looks like my link's story has been edited to remove the snarky comments
first posted by @NatalieEvans85. Good for them

~~~
davvid
_If you don't like that kind of fun, have you considered, um, not attending?_

Lame.

